Improvised Weapons PDF

This is not registered version of Total HTML Converter
The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science
Lo g in
View Full Version : Military Science
Improvised Weapons
Detonation and Demolition
Weapon Science and Technology
Gunsmithing and Firearm Modification
Tactics, Training, Defense, and Safety
Ammunition and Reloading
Rifles and Shotguns
Handguns
Automatic and Assault Weapons
Blackpowder and Muzzleloaded Guns
Firearm Accessories
vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im provise d W e a p o n s
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised Weapons
Pages : [1] 2
1. Countermass Weapon (13 replies)

2. Lego Guns (8 replies)
3. Improvised M60 fuze igniter (0 replies)
4. MMA Instruction topic. (0 replies)
5. Magicians Arsenal Improv. Weapons. (8 replies)
6. Flare gun conversion to fire 38 special pistol rounds (20 replies)
7. Improvised firearm with Ramset Cartridges (23 replies)
8. Improvised sap gloves. (24 replies)
9. PCP Airguns (7 replies)
10. Improvised and other unusual weapons & devices. (15 replies)
11. Captive Piston Device DS-201 (14 replies)
12. Armored Bobcat (52 replies)
13. How To: Make A Golf Ball Gun (5 replies)
14. Armor-piercing hand grenade (29 replies)
15. Ionization of gasses (6 replies)
16. Planar Shaped Charge (5 replies)
17. Article on IED tactics in Iraq (24 replies)
18. Chechen Self-Made Weapons (44 replies)
19. 66mm Practice Rocket (3 replies)
20. Keychain Gun (14 replies)
21. fighting adrenaline (22 replies)
22. improvised gun barrels (10 replies)
23. Thors Armor (12 replies)
24. Non-MACE (60 replies)
25. SHERPA (Suicidal High Explosive Reactive Personal Armor) (22 replies)
26. Where to get a taser {not online} (16 replies)
27. Pen Grenade (14 replies)
28. Homemade/ Custom Knives (19 replies)
29. Titanium and metal detectors (18 replies)
30. Another(and often overlooked) aspect of Forensic Science [Lethality of Edged Weapons] (9 replies)
31. The battery powered flamethrower (4 replies)
32. Fire Extinguisher Paintball Gun (12 replies)
33. Flexible Baton (17 replies)
34. Gamo PR-15 360 m/s lead ball .177 (22 replies)
35. Caselman Air-powered Machine Gun (27 replies)
36. Microwave oven gun patent (30 replies)
37. Stop Sticks (38 replies)
38. Matchhead gun powder (18 replies)
39. Hot shot (12 replies)
40. Burning Anti-Freeze (and other nominal fuels) (16 replies)
41. "The Box O' Truth" (2 replies)
42. Use for a small Petard (35 replies)
43. nbk's hybrid gyrojet [Archive-ish] (40 replies)
44. Phillipino homemade guns, paltiks, ect. (7 replies)
45. Improvised gun making ..article from net (4 replies)
46. Home Made Flamethrower (10 replies)
47. Automatic BB gun (16 replies)
48. Question about improvised firearms/guns (btw ive searched) (6 replies)
49. Spetsnaz ballistic knives (18 replies)
50. the CO2 cannon (1 replies)
51. The Cake Launcher (15 replies)
52. Automatic PIR Gas Sprayer (OTC) (2 replies)
53. True Capabilty of commercial cattle prods (39 replies)
54. PVC Plans for a sniper rifle??? (8 replies)
55. Creating a "simple" EMP (11 replies)
56. Plausible Deniability Poison for knife blades (63 replies)
57. Wolverine (X-Men) suit with big fuck-off claws! (4 replies)
58. The PEST project - completed... (4 replies)
59. Oh you just know who's making these...Very interesting (0 replies)
60. lethal model rockets? (23 replies)
61. Nylon projectiles, link (31 replies)
62. WWII's Paper Bomb Attack - cunning Japs! (29 replies)
63. Bat Bombs Away! (1 replies)
64. Adaption of things in toy shops & other gadgets (32 replies)
65. H2SO4-in-a-can (100 replies)
66. Wasilla [Alaska] man constructing 18-foot-tall not-a-robot (33 replies)
67. Unusual spud gun fuels (20 replies)
68. Non-solvent flamethrower fuel mixes (23 replies)
69. Pen Gun - any good plans (11 replies)
70. HE potato cannon rounds (8 replies)
71.
72.
69.
70.
71. Remote Stun Gun (34 replies)
72. EMP device (22 replies)
73. Freezing People to Death! (6 replies)
74. Improvised Cluster Grenade Ideas (6 replies)
75. Rock Salt (14 replies)
76. Iron palms (13 replies)
77. Building a bb-gun (21 replies)
78. Blowgun Mouthpiece Filter (7 replies)
79. hybrid air cannons (2 replies)
80. Spigot Grenade/Area Denial Mine (14 replies)
81. Pnuematic air cannon sprinkler valve? (7 replies)
82. Recoilless Weapon (36 replies)
83. liquid armor (20 replies)
84. Any new guns? (19 replies)
85. .50 muzzle loading derringer. (20 replies)
86. Electric bullets (5 replies)
87. Special ammo for slingshots (22 replies)
88. Fragmentation help! (1 replies)
89. Rail-cannon plans (2 replies)
90. Prop Pistol Flamer (8 replies)
91. Cheap/Powerfull Spudgun <15$ (3 replies)
92. Improvised .22 Handgun (14 replies)
93. Mach 1 Paintball Rifle (26 replies)
94. Beretta 38a tech question. (4 replies)
95. Springfield M-6 (12 replies)
96. .17 armor piercing? (46 replies)
97. Bullets without cartridge casing... (1 replies)
98. Replacement of the stinger? (6 replies)
99. one-way bulletproof glass (1 replies)
100. Improvised Handgun - some thoughts (61 replies)
101. Primer mine (26 replies)
102. AOW .410 & 380 flashlight guns (26 replies)
103. grenade (10 replies)
104. Stopping the bullet (50 replies)
105. Rocket proppelant for horizontal launch (33 replies)
106. Bird Bombs for signal guns? (14 replies)
107. PB grenade (6 replies)
108. Zip Gun SEMI AUTO and PMJB (12 replies)
109. Lighting Link (4 replies)
110. Pack Howitzer pics (1 replies)
111. A neat item on EBay..... (5 replies)
112. AC556 vs mini 14 (6 replies)
113. .22 semi auto action (15 replies)
114. M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS) (18 replies)
115. Suggestions for zip gun? (14 replies)
116. potato cannon, carbide powered.. (22 replies)
117. Intresting Homemade Weapon pics... (6 replies)
118. Stink bomb (13 replies)
119. Remote pipebombs (3 replies)
120. Explosively formed projectiles and advanced warhead design (1 replies)
121. Blowpipes (28 replies)
122. Soft Kill Claymore (7 replies)
123. High pressure electric valve... (10 replies)
124. Accurate, Long Range SC's? (11 replies)
125. Home-made cannons, howitzers and mortars (133 replies)
126. 20mm Recoilless Launcher? (6 replies)
127. Suppressed Urban Sniper Rifle, Small Caliber, .22LR (148 replies)
128. Exo-electric Armor (29 replies)
129. Beryllium Pipebombs (15 replies)
130. Improvised Concealable weapon (140 replies)
131. Cards as weapons (45 replies)
132. the garrot (11 replies)
133. Stun grenade (0 replies)
134. Gauss Pistol (16 replies)
135. household improvised weapons list (5 replies)
136. "In the Line of Fire" Resin Gun (8 replies)
137. erosol weapons (27 replies)
138. Rocket Fuel Composition (15 replies)
139. COB's In & Out (15 replies)
140. gass assist (11 replies)
141. shot gun shell grenades - Archive File (0 replies)
142. Cosh - Archive File (0 replies)
143. Mortar tubes - Archive File (0 replies)
144. Low-Tec solution to SU-4. - Archive File (0 replies)
145. De Lisle Carbine - Archive File (0 replies)
146. Disposable Paper Shotgun - Archive File (7 replies)
147. glock 17 - Archive File (0 replies)
148.
149.
146.
This is not147.
registered version of Total HTML Converter
148. Car exaust flames - Archive File (9 replies)
149. Pineapple - Archive File (0 replies)
150. FNP90 - Archive File (1 replies)
151. Does anyone have plans for a cannon? - Archive File (0 replies)
152. Hopping Mine - Archive File (1 replies)
153. Quick and easy explosive packets... (19 replies)
154. stun gun (500k or 625k volts) - Archive File (3 replies)
155. Hot oil as a weapon? - Archive FIle (0 replies)
156. things to make with plastic easter eggs - Archive File (0 replies)
157. big magnet gun - Archive File (0 replies)
158. Slings - Archive File (5 replies)
159. Anti personel gas mine - Archive File (2 replies)
160. 37 mm grenade launchers - Archive File (0 replies)
161. 2 part explosives by Agent Blak - Archive File (3 replies)
162. "Fire Ant" - Archive File (1 replies)
163. Silencer For The Irish - Archive File (0 replies)
164. Home made Tazers - Archive File (0 replies)
165. switchblades - Archive File (0 replies)
166. Ice Projectile (4 replies)
167. impact grenades - Archive File (2 replies)
168. Traffic stops (27 replies)
169. Dogs as weapons (80 replies)
170. Cheap Guided Missile? (95 replies)
171. Wireless "Plasma" Taser (31 replies)
172. Pellet Pistols - Archive File (1 replies)
173. nbk2000's Shotgun Grenade - Archive File (9 replies)
174. Easy ways to harm attackers... - Archive File (99 replies)
175. uxo info - Archive File (0 replies)
176. Zipped Zippo Zip - Archive File (0 replies)
177. 2 barreled pump shotgun? - Archive File (0 replies)
178. Blowgun ranges - Archive File (0 replies)
179. TASER Videos - Archive File (0 replies)
180. pellet guns - Archive File (0 replies)
181. HESH Information/Improvisation - Archive File (0 replies)
182. windrunner - Archive File (1 replies)
183. Pellet Gun to Airsoft Gun - Archive File (0 replies)
184. US military have made a phaser!!! - Archive File (3 replies)
185. Trying to make a paintball/dye gun. - Archive File (0 replies)
186. death ray - Archive File (5 replies)
187. Air Pressure Spud Cannon Good Seal? - Archive File (0 replies)
188. Plans for Rocket Launchers - Archive File (1 replies)
189. What have you made lately? (57 replies)
190. CBU version 2 (8 replies)
191. Very cool Rocket Plans (1 replies)
192. Best Martial Art (135 replies)
193. MEFP (7 replies)
194. Model Rocket Missile (49 replies)
195. Crossbow Trigger - Archive File (0 replies)
196. buttmaster - Archive File (5 replies)
197. blowguns and genetic fingerprints - Archive File (0 replies)
198. Crossbows in Australia - Archive File (11 replies)
199. Actual Pellet Gun - Archive File (0 replies)
200. Crossbows - Archive File (0 replies)
201. Rifle Launched Grenade - Archive File (0 replies)
202. chlorine & milk - Archive File (0 replies)
203. INFRASOUND (1 replies)
204. 3/4" Impact Rocket - Archive file (0 replies)
205. shaped charges/annm - Archive file (0 replies)
206. Exploding pellets revisited. - Archive file (33 replies)
207. Improved airgun performance - Archive file (4 replies)
208. Strength of Aluminum (armor) - Archive file (18 replies)
209. anyone made explosive rat/mouse traps? - Archive file (45 replies)
210. Military Napalm (26 replies)
211. Homemade Nuke (128 replies)
212. What to do with a Ramset gun? (9 replies)
213. "Scew Action" Firearms (22 replies)
214. full auto Saiga? (12 replies)
215. Semi-Auto Mayhem (2 replies)
216. EMP device (7 replies)
217. Rifle Grenades (35 replies)
218. Powerlet Propelled Grenades (18 replies)
219. 40mm Practice Grenade Conversion (61 replies)
220. Bottles (26 replies)
221. Harpoon Gun (7 replies)
222. cartridge flame thrower (15 replies)
223. Zapper - the shooting ZIPPO lighter (36 replies)
224. White Noise (8 replies)
225.
226.
223.
This is not224.
225. Mini-more (19 replies)
226. Road Patriot (19 replies)
227. Grenade/Delay igniter (47 replies)
228. OSS sleeve knife (44 replies)
229. "Like a swiss watch" (0 replies)
230. BB Machineguns (59 replies)
231. Robotics(Revisited) (2 replies)
232. Bobby Trap Required. (40 replies)
233. Throwing knives and the science behind them (23 replies)
234. Remote controlled 50Cal turret on suburban truck (8 replies)
235. Disposable Telesniper (48 replies)
236. Defense from groups (47 replies)
237. tec-9 (2 replies)
238. Portable 25Kv DC Generator (10 replies)
239. Stabbing Weapon Design (86 replies)
240. Quick and Easy(Death) - archive file (2 replies)
241. Delivery System - Archive file (0 replies)
242. Non-metallic Blast or Fragmentation Grenade -archive file (1 replies)
243. Anti-robbery defenses (45 replies)
244. Reactivating Artilery Shells (5 replies)
245. One-Thrust-Flamethrower FW46 (5 replies)
246. 100Kw laser plane (17 replies)
247. Reactive Armor (11 replies)
248. UV initation of gas mixtures, FAE:s or thermobaric charges. (1 replies)
249. Microwave gun for remote lowcost instant detonation (7 replies)
250. Suicide Bombs (59 replies)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im provise d W e a p o n s
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised Weapons
Pages : 1 [2]
251. Automatic or semi auto Gas rifle (27 replies)

252. "Battle Plate" (13 replies)
253. Penetrating thick skinned targets? (151 replies)
254. White Phosphorus Grenade (17 replies)
255. A-BOMB got a digital camera! (1 replies)
256. Knife Techniques (15 replies)
257. gun turret (38 replies)
258. Tri-Grenade (95 replies)
259. Seriously cool gun (1 replies)
260. Raketen Sprenggranate (5 replies)
261. Claymore version alfa 0.1 (14 replies)
262. Commercial Stun Guns (24 replies)
263. Yo-yo (9 replies)
264. self defence lighter (23 replies)
265. Arming yourself via Radio Shack? (42 replies)
266. Small straight razor? (8 replies)
267. Improvised Munitions (8 replies)
268. Rocket Thrust (6 replies)
269. Gun Cane (15 replies)
270. Tactical Batons (68 replies)
271. Ultra-Power Spring Pistol SAC-1 (3 tons) (10 replies)
272. Acrolein (1 replies)
273. British Bouncing Bomb (3 replies)
274. Self Defence (120 replies)
275. Strange idea (20 replies)
276. "Modern Metsubushi" (24 replies)
277. armoured car (43 replies)
278. My new (mini) air cannon (20 replies)
279. Aerosol cans (17 replies)
280. Frag grenade. (16 replies)
281. explosive dogpile (18 replies)
282. PYRO500's new "toys" (49 replies)
283. gun questions and stuff (6 replies)
284. Flame Trap (17 replies)
285. Motion activated sprinkler (3 replies)
286. detonaters for munitions (2 replies)
287. Improvised explosives (20 replies)
288. Me is back! (4 replies)
289. urban knife throwing (61 replies)
290. Solid Fuel Rockets (17 replies)
291. Rearward-firing missile (5 replies)
292. Improvised electrical weapons (15 replies)
293. Cheap delay fuse (7 replies)
294. Liquid Fuel Rockets (24 replies)
295. improvised air rifle munitions (89 replies)
296. Letter Bombs (6 replies)
297. A Ray Gun (7 replies)
298. Improvised "claymore" (21 replies)
299. I'm making a grenade launcher and need help (28 replies)
300. Electromagnets on Gauss Gun (3 replies)
301. EMP device on johnbus' site (38 replies)
302. Pneumatic cannon. (40 replies)
303. calculating # of shots (1 replies)
304. Railgun (62 replies)
305. Blowguns (79 replies)
306. Cattle Prods (32 replies)
307. math figures? (14 replies)
308. Exploding Batteries? (29 replies)
309. tyvek landmines? (3 replies)
310. Simple handgrenade designs (32 replies)
311. .22 Minigun (47 replies)
312. In response to TINF's 'smoke grenade' (2 replies)
313. Recoilless Rifle (19 replies)
314. Refillible flamethrower (16 replies)
315. Not sure what to call it (bullet powered blowgun)? (6 replies)
316. UPGRADE SHUTDOWN!!! (0 replies)
317. circular charges (38 replies)
318. Shaped charge (3 replies)
319. Laser Claymore/Tripmine (1 replies)
320. My new Spudgun! (29 replies)
321.
322.
319.
This is not320.
321. Taplight landmines (21 replies)
322. Caltrops and other Impediments to Movement (113 replies)
323. Pistol crossbows - your opinions (28 replies)
324. Model cannon plans? (4 replies)
325. RPG's with Nakkas Kno3 sorbitol motors (5 replies)
326. EtronX for impro weapons? (13 replies)
327. Cross Bow mech. (72 replies)
328. Respect Primers More (17 replies)
329. Infrasound (less than 15Hz) Weapon (36 replies)
330. High Voltage (link) (10 replies)
331. Cell-phone controlled spy vehicle (6 replies)
332. New Rules, New Sections. Listen UP! (0 replies)
333. Do anyone have plans for high powered rocketry? (6 replies)
334. Air Guns (19 replies)
335. new generation of handguns (2 replies)
336. Full auto bb gun (19 replies)
337. Simple grenade design (5 replies)
338. spigot mortar instead of mortar (2 replies)
339. spudgun/microwave? (4 replies)
340. Possible airgun conversion (19 replies)
341. pirotechman (4 replies)
342. Cannons (5 replies)
343. WTF? (3 replies)
344. Guns for those under 18 (9 replies)
345. PVC Cement strong enough? (2 replies)
346. Improvised E-Bombs (41 replies)
347. Spud Gun (12 replies)
348. Sniper (16 replies)
349. mobile phone gun (2 replies)
350. Portable EMP gun (23 replies)
351. M203 (4 replies)
352. anyhting i can do with a cap gun? (15 replies)
353. CELL PHONE GUN! (8 replies)
354. Improvised AAA: FLIEGERFAUST (6 replies)
355. nbk's pdf / white resistance manual (8 replies)
356. Bazooka vs. RPG (16 replies)
357. 12ga Dart Gun (22 replies)
358. Paintball Incendinary Rounds (79 replies)
359. Improvised Grenades (32 replies)
360. Blank Firers (118 replies)
361. OICW can it be improvise? (37 replies)
362. How to make homemade mortars (73 replies)
363. Shaped Charges (41 replies)
364. flamethrowers (126 replies)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum
Lo g in
View Full Version: The Explosives and Weapons Forum
Log in
User Nam e: Password:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > 40mm Practice Grenade Conversion
Log in
View Full Version : 40mm Practice Grenade Conversion
nbk2000 January 20th, 2003, 05:44 PM

Getting a working 40mm grenade is near impossible, and highly illegal, thus not worth the effort.
However, the inert practice rounds are readily obtainable. I got mine for $5, including the nylon case and spent (but
reuseable) propellant shell. :)
As seen in this cutaway view, the orange dye powder takes up the majority of the space in the practice round. The blue shell is
made of a brittle plastic that shatters on impact with any firm surface.
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_40mm_Practice_Cutaway.jpg" alt=" - " />
This hollow space is about 25ml in volume in the grenade I dissassembled (below) and could easily be enlarged by boring out
the base to remove most of the metal, as seen in the picture above.
In this close-up view, you can see the orange powder at the edge of the shell. The soft aluminum driving bands are
immediately below the blue shell. These engage the barrel rifling
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_40mm_Practice_Exterior.jpg" alt=" - " />
To open the grenade, I used a chisel to gently work my way around the casing, without breaking it. Once opened, I removed
the fluorescent dye and the interior spring. Apparently the purpose of the spring is to ensure the casing splits open on impact,
rather than staying intact like a fractured eggshell.
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_40mm_Practice_Internal.jpg" alt=" - " />
Once you've removed the powder, and bored the base, it'd be simple to line the interior of the shell with BB's, and fill the void
with a cast explosive. The hollowed base would contain the fuse, either a pyrotechnic delay as simple as a coil of cannon fuse,
or as complex as an IC impact switch.
If you simply replaced the powder dye with a powered agent like CS, or a liquid agent like GB, you could dispense with any
fusing since the shell would break upon impact anyways. :)
[ January 20, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
Zyklon_B January 20th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Here, info on reloading those nylon cases:
<a href="http://www.okiebigbores.com/40mminst.htm" target="_blank">http://www.okiebigbores.com/40mminst.htm</a>
Kriegsminister January 21st, 2003, 07:05 AM

This is a simple method of conversion using impact ignition:
The impact primer would be a .223 rifle shell (remove bullet and powder, smaller ones might also work) filled with a suitable
primary, such as lead azide. Now a hole is drilled into the top of the grenade body which the shell fits into. Now a small piece
of cork with a hole in the middle is glued to the base of the shell. This piece of cork is used to hold a small nail which acts as
a firing pin.
This construction is now securely glued into the hole that was drilled into the grenade body.
The next step would be to fill the remaining space of the grenade with some high explosive. You could also add some
shrapnel...
If the grenade now hits a hard surface the nail will hit the primer of the shell containing the primary. The primer of the shell
sets of the primary which in turn sets of the main explosive filler.
It might not be completely safe, but it should work and is very simple.
Here is a sketch:
<a href="http://www32.brinkster.com/bitchfresse/40mm_conversion.jpg" target="_blank">http://www32.brinkster.com/
bitchfresse/40mm_conversion.jpg</a>
(Copy and paste the link!)
[ January 21, 2003, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Kriegsminister ]
Zach January 21st, 2003, 09:19 PM

I don't think that I want to put my trust on a falling nail. A chemical fuse would be nicer.
ossassin March 6th, 2003, 07:08 PM

Instead of using training rounds, why not use something that already has a fuse? like a smoke canister?
[ March 06, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: ossassin ]
blacktalon April 9th, 2003, 10:32 PM

Sorry to disagree with you NBK, but grenade launchers are not actually illegal in the United States. As long as you are at least
21 and have a clean criminal record, anyone can own one. It is classified as a destructive device, (no shit right) and all you
have to do is find a "class 3" firearms dealer with a dd permit in your state. He will handle the paper work for you. After your
background check is completed, the application will be sent to the BATF along with a $200 "tax." Around three months later,
the paper work will come back and you will be authorized to possess a real live 40 mike mike. The price is a little restrictive,
(about $10,000) but it is possible. The same goes for machine guns, silencers, sawed off shot guns, and AOW's. A friend of
mine has a legally registered Browning 1919 belt fed machine gun, as well as a sten. It's pretty cool stuff if you can afford it.
<a href="http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html" target="_blank">http://www.autoweapons.com/products/

products.html</a>
Scroll down a good ways. There are several transferable M203s on there.
[ April 09, 2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: blacktalon ]
nbk2000 April 10th, 2003, 02:17 AM

For someone who's been registered more than a year, you seem pretty ignorant of my point of view as regards the law. :p
Yes, Virginia, you can get a 40mm with all the BATF permissions, tax stamps, fingerprints, yada yada...but then what?
You could never use it for its intended purpose because "they" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> would
immediately be looking for your ass, since you were so kind as to go through their hoops to buy it, telling them that you
bought it.
Also, BATF has a bad habit of fucking over people who buy these sorts of things, regardless of the paperwork you have from
them. Many class 3 dealers have been set up by BATF, then coerced into providing false witness against other dealers (and
buyers), with the threat of decades in prison being the stick.
No thank you.
Besides which, even if I wasn't a felon (notice I didn't throw "ex-" on there :D ), I still wouldn't want anyone to know that I had
these sorts of things. As a constitutionalist, I believe that the government has NO right to impose ANY sort of taxation or
restrictions on man portable infantry weapons.
The Second Amendment was intended to ensure the right of the population to be able to defend against foreign and domestic
tyrants by ensuring a massive civilian population (militia) armed with the weapons of the day. In the 1700's, that was a
musket or kentucky rifle. Today, it'd be SLAGL and Javelin.
Heavy shit like tanks and artillery would still be the domain of the small standing professional army that the founders
intended, rather than the bloated tick of almost 2 million we have now.
If the government knows you have it, they can take it away, which defeats the whole purpose, now doesn't it?
Thus, since you can't buy it legally without bullshit paperwork, that means you'll either have to make it or steal it, both of
which are highly illegal. Hence the reason why this is in an improvised weapons forum...to improvise weapons you can't legally
buy, see? :)
Also, who's going to sell you the HEDP ammo for your legal 40mm? Last I checked, there were NO suppliers willing to do so to
non-military buyers, because of liability. And, the last time it WAS available, it was almost $300/round! <img border="0"
title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
HypersonicGamer April 10th, 2003, 08:19 PM

I agree...
The Form 4 paperwork pertaining to the NFA firearms is a real pain in the ass - and the BATF usually take their sweet time in
going through all of it. The reason lies partly in the liability for the manufacturers - they won't make possessing one of these
weapons cheap.
Concerning the ammunition, training rounds are everywhere, but who wants training rounds? The actual HE grenades are taxed
as DDs as well, so basically your shooting off an expensive tax stamp - plus, who wants to be liable for selling you the damn
thing? These constraints are going to be strung so tight one day, that NFA weapons will cease to be in the hands of civilians.
You'll be lucky to get a slingshot in ten years, let alone a grenade launcher. The prices increase due to the '86 law and has cut
out a lot of people who want something besides a MAC. :rolleyes: Even the prices on Stens are getting to be outrageous -
people resort to making their own. You can't go to any gunshow without hearing people bragging about how they put together
a Mac or a Sten. There is also a high demand for NFA weapons - the idle rich have the money, and buy them at any set price.
Maybe the real problem is supply and hoarding - large dealers having an excessive supply and letting some trickle out. Lets
say there is a dealer with 2000 Macs sitting on the table and can sell them for $1500 a piece or maybe he will want to be a
nice guy and sell them for $800 a piece? What do you think he'll do... Heh, a nice 2000 Macs sitting on a table ready for some
pre-mades to be produced. If he is running his own business, he is going to try to rack up all the money he can get. So again
we are back to demand and hoarding - if you take a look at the price of some of this, it's damn near inflation! Heh, I'm sure
there are still RDIASs and Registered HK sears still being horded. Remember when the AWB came into place? AR-15s went
from around $600 --> $1000 OVERNIGHT. LOL - I bet an M16 would cost around $850 without the NFA act. The other
problem is the GCA firearms that never made it into the registry. There was a loophole...pre-ban magazines could be imported
from other countries. Clinton closed it up, it went against the "spirit" of the AWB and poof - no more AK waffle mags (maybe a
few crawled in a few months ago...)
The BATF CAN and WILL screw you over as NBK had stated above. They will arrest you, set an excessive bail, have better
lawyers in court, have bigger bubbas in the can, and spend all the money they can to get a conviction.
I hope the AWB sunsets in 2004...yes...AK-47s will flood the streets again. :D

Yes NKB, I actually agree with you 100,000% on all accounts and your opinion of the government and laws is similar to my
own. I was just pointing out that it is not actually "illegal" to own a 40mm. I never meant to sound like the BATF wouldn't screw
you with the information you send them. It is just a common misconception that machine guns, dd's, sawed off shotguns,
silencers, and switch blades are all together illegal for everyone(thanks to the media and movies), and that annoys me.
Everyone makes the argument that our forefathers did not have things like machine guns, so they couldn't have been talking
about things like that in the second amendment. Well as far as I see it, our forefathers had muskets, and the British
government had muskets. It was a level playing field. The attendants of the second continental congress just came out of an
tyrannical government and they wanted to prevent that from ever happening again, which would mean the people must be
armed, thus allowing them to rise up, (back in the days before everyone's mind was turned to mush anyway) and overthrow
anyone who wanted to take our liberties. For that to hold true these days, one would have to be able to go down to the local
sporting goods store and buy a TOW with no line and no waiting. The second amendment was not written to protect your right
to duck hunt! (Pretty much as you said, but that has been an argument I have made for a long time.)
Anyway, this weekend I am going to a machine gun show, which sells machine gun parts. You can also buy 40mm m203 and
M79 barrels with no hassle. :-) They are fully rifled and are in most cases new. If a person could some how "manage" to get
their devilish hands on one of these, one could theoretically make themselves a simple action and have a 40 that was much
more accurate than the smooth bores most people fabricate. :-)
Lastly, I have seen private individuals with legally registered 40s firing HEAT ammo. You need a type 21 (I think... not sure of
the #) license for that and you have to have a concrete magazine to store them in just like any other legal explosive. If Bill
Gates decided to jump through the hoops he could buy a fully stocked Destroyer. :-)
nbk2000 April 11th, 2003, 02:12 AM

And someone really creative might be able to swap the barrel of a 37mm "look-alike" underbarrel mounted flare launcher with
a real 40mm barrel to make an M203. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Then, with "harmless" training rounds that have been converted to lethal fragmentation grenades, you'd have something
serious to play with. :D
I saw a place selling 80% MK19 receivers for about a thousand. If only a person had a schematic for building one of those... :(
I've always wondered what was to stop a terrorist group from simply taking a shitload of advanced weapons from one of the
contractors that builds them? While heavily defended, from a civilian perspective, the contractors are quite unprepared to
defend against a military style assualt...with no lethal electric fences, minefields, claymores, MG defensive fire zones, etc to
repel a group attacking with explosives or CW.
And the locations of the companies that build things such Javelins and MK-19's aren't secret. 'Course, this would be a one-
time thing, since everyone else would be armed to the teeth thereafter in anticipation of being next. But you'd only need to
succeed once to become a very serious threat.
DaRkDwArF April 11th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Hell, Imagine storming the creaters of metal storm or the OICW and arming your cell with weapons like that, they maybe
small arms, but their 10 times the small arm then what the piggers are going to pull on you. Launching a 20mm shell into a
piggers squad car just as they roll into the driveway or unleasing 4,000 lead slugs into an entry team just as they bust down
your door... oh the possibilities....
Flake2m April 11th, 2003, 09:34 AM

While I would agree that th BATF would probaly screw you if you did own a 40mm grenade launcher.
The government make you register guns to stop people from having there own armories and turning neighborhoods into
urban battlefields.
I am pro gun but I do believe that if you own you should have the common sense to know when and how to use it. I am
guessing 90% of the forumites here dont want an there neighborhood becoming a battlefield 4 days a week.
As for the grenade launcher, I wonder if a "training round" could be converted to carry a WP payload? Or at the very least you
should be able the replace the orange powder with pepper spray.
A-BOMB April 11th, 2003, 01:14 PM

You can get the 1/4 ounce HE round that they use for training they are legal because of only 1/4 ounce of comp I think? saw
something about it on <a href="http://www.37mm.com" target="_blank">www.37mm.com</a> some one was selling them on
gunbroker.com or actionarms.com

While at a gun show over the weekend I found a couple of suppliers of actual rifled M203 barrels. No paper work, no
questions, no hassle. I believe they will even ship. The first guy's barrels were new for $350. The second guy's were used in
excellent condition for $195. The second guy however, had sections of rails. With a couple of those rails you could fit a simple
action to a pipe or a piece of stock, weld it up and you would be ready to rock. Here is their info:
Dennis A Todd
Law Enforcement and Collector
Auto Weapons and Destructive Devices
FFL Class 1, 3, 10
540 Baltimore Pike

Springfield, PA 19064
610-543-7300
Fax 610-543-7909
Neal Smith
Class III Firearms and Destructive Devices
Gatling Guns and Hotchkiss Revolving Cannons
Safari Double Rifles and Big Bore Rifles
Buy-Sell-Trade
8205 Lakeshore Blvd.

Mentor, OH 44060-1418
Phone And Fax

440-257-4872
Felonous Monk April 23rd, 2003, 02:52 AM

nbk2000 you mentioned in one of your posts that it would be nice to have a schematic for the MK-19 or H&K's GMG. As there
aren't any readily available it seems that prudent thing to do would be for the Rogue Science Forum to design it's own.
The first order of business would be to decide on a standard piece of design software, for example MasterCam, AutoCad,
BOBCad, CadKey, etc.. However recent reading on my part suggests that Solid Works would be an ideal software package for
this sort of application.
Secondly the desired parameters and characteristics of operation would be discussed, agreed upon and then more or less set
in stone.
Third; Either a standard munition and link system would be adopted, or the Forum would design its own perhaps optimized for
expedient manufacture. Swaged and pressed Copper pipe might be found suitable for this purpose.
Fourth; Once the munition envelope is decided upon, the feeding and extraction mechanism could be developed.
Fifth; The Bolt or Breech Block and it's element that communicates with fourth system developed. It would seem that the bolt
is the source for much of the weight in the Mk-19 as it appears to be a straight blow back system.
Sixth; the fire control system(safeties,trigger, hammers strikers or sears etc..) would developed alongside the Bolt.
Finally the Receiver including it's ergonomics, aesthetics and importantly the marriage between it and the barrel. The Mk-19's
barrel is said to not overheat under prolonged firing however it would be wise if any designs included provisions for quickly
changing hot barrels.
If you're interested post your thoughts and we will see if there is sufficient interest to warrant continuing a disscusion in this
vein.
I_am_the_Black_one April 29th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Hell yes mate im interested in your idea im only a amateur at weapons but i still think I could provide help. I just hope this
idea takes off. Do you or any one else have the software to do this . Also I think it would be a bad idea to associate this with
The forum
Felonous Monk April 29th, 2003, 10:10 AM

The Software is really not a problem in terms of people being able to get their hands on a decent CAD tool. But in insuring
everybody involved is using the same one. In terms of actually getting the project started it doesn't appear that there has
been enough interest to get things going. In my opinion this is precisely the sort of project that is appropriate to develop in
the forum. For example my experience deals mostly with mechanisms and design, I lack the knowledge from a chemistry
standpoint to develop quality munitions, though I could probably design a swage set that could form shells. Hence the Forum,
where else does knowledge and interest coincide?
So let's give this a try.
I suggest that any design developed use a delayed blowback system to reduce its compared to the americain and german
models.
zaibatsu April 29th, 2003, 11:29 AM

This subject interests me a lot, as I am quite interested in firearm mechanisms and methods of production, especially
expedient :)
The first thing I wish to establish - how expedient do we want to go? Producing the propellant? If so I suggest the AN
propellants developed in the late 19th century - we can make it and produce it with more repeatability that we could smokeless
powders.
Also, I think belt-feeding would necessitate a rather complex mechanism. How about increasing portability and have it drum
fed? Then again, the diameter of the grenade would make this a little difficult - how about reducing diameter to 30mm or so?
I hope to purchase a book on operations with dies, and is supposed to have a section on cartridge shells which could be very
useful. Also, primers could be punched and filled with a chlorate comp.
We'd probably have to produce our own barrels - shouldn't be too difficult for a smoothbore. And if we use the high-low
pressure system of the 40mm shells then we could perhaps use DOM tubing for the barrel.
nbk2000 April 29th, 2003, 01:58 PM

It'd likely be easier to use electric motors and cams instead of designing a recoil operated system, since a home-made
doesn't have to be as durable as a military weapon that has to endure abuse on the battlefield by lazy soldiers.
Felonous Monk April 29th, 2003, 04:24 PM

An electric motor (modified cordless drill?) turning a crank connected to a rod driving the breech block with a slot let into the
end of the rod would allow the breech block to pause and lock at the end of the cycle. a cam wheel like in gatling guns could
also drive the bolt. or perhaps slightly more compact then the previous two options; a cylinder with a continuous groove cut in
it the groove having an opposite or reversing pitch so each complete revolution would provide one forwards and backwards
movement.
A drum magazine seems like a sensible alternative to designing a belt feed system, in terms of propellants and primer's I
cant say i've given it much thought. Originally I was thinking along the lines of commercially available reloading supplies, but
a Forum specific system has its own appeal, being adaptable to all political climates(hopefully).
In terms of design software any suggestions; I can work in AutoC*d2000, BobC*d, MasterC*m/C*d v9. preferably MasterC*M
if anybody expresses interest in either the project or the software perhaps it might find it's way onto the FTP.
But if this is going to continue we should sort out at least the preliminary data for the munition.
Zaibatsu, your suggestion was 30mm o.d., Im amenable to that, i'll see what I can work out, but i can't guarantee a
reasonable result as i've done any design remotely like this.
zaibatsu April 29th, 2003, 09:23 PM

A mechanical crank system would make it less susceptible to problems caused by expedient munitions - variation in the
amount of propellant would vary the recoil, which would cause problems in the straight blowback system. But I think it might
over-complicate matters, a blowback system would have less exposed parts and absorb some of the recoil. My suggestion
would be simple blowback, just like an early smg.
Regarding the 30mm ammunition, that was only a suggestion. However, I think it is important to define what would be the
purpose of such a grenade launcher - AP? AA? OR a general purpose weapon? Naturally the AA role would only be effective
against light vehicles. Normal reloading supplies such as smokeless powder and primers are available in the UK, and therefore
it's reasonable to assume the same is true of Europe, so it would be possible to design around these. However, any other
components such as casing or shell needs to be homemade, as there is very little chance of purchasing these in the UK.
Whatever software is best for you is what I'd suggest we should use - I personally have no experience in this field and
therefore it would be nice to have someone to provide advice.
Felonous Monk May 1st, 2003, 12:45 AM

sorry for the delay in replying, tried to upload some software last evening, but it didn't go so well. Trying again today. I believe
we should aim for a general purpose machine capable of feeding and firing a variety of cartridges that fit within a certain
parameter. spent some time today doing some net research at www.corbins.com. despite the commercial nature of the sight I
believe at least some knowledge there of value. If anybody has a copy of their bullet design software it would be interesting to
model any proposed designs.
so with any luck look for a file entitled
"MasterCamV9 uploaded by felonousmonk second attempt.ace" it should be 130mb. I'm afraid i wasn't able to resume where i
left off before hence the new file. So ctrl_c (if you read this) you should feel absoulutely no obligation to the first file except
maybe to delete it.
hope to post some actual content soon.
nbk2000 May 1st, 2003, 02:10 AM

The original 40mm machinegun was a hand cranked version that used interlocking lobed gears to both feed/eject the casings
as well as form the firing chamber. Though this might require rather complicated machining. :(
Something that could be made would be to use DOM tubing to form both the grenade body, as well as the propellant casing,
by using a base plug in the grenade that fits tightly into the propellant case. The bottom of the propellant case is sealed with
a plug too, but this one is flush fitted. Since this is an improv device, no reason not to use electric ignition, rather than primer.
This would be suitable for AP only, I'd think, unless you can design a reliable SC that'll fit in such a small casing.
wrench352 December 18th, 2003, 03:04 AM

I will be uploading FM 3-23.27 MK-19 40mm grenade machine gun,mod 3 to the ftp shortly.Nov 03 edition.I hope you enjoy,
12Gauge December 26th, 2003, 01:47 AM

For anyone really wanting to obtain an m-203 or m-79 type weapon, in Canada they are not regulated at all- not even
considered to be firearms, for that matter. Actually, this is also true for real artillery. I've seen M-203 and similar launchers
here for around $2500-3000 Canadian dollars. Pretty expensive for what they are, but now the US state dept won't allow
export of Class 3 weapons for use by civilians....you have to sign an end user certificate to get a AR-180B for christ
sake....values on the launchers in civilian hands will undoubtably go through the roof- much like the machine gun prices in the
US
keith January 2nd, 2004, 02:15 PM

If you had a good friend in the Marines he could get one for practice and "loose" it and simply pay the $480.00 replacement
cost that Marines pay when they "loose" iteams. MY cousin can get me one but I'd rather make it for under $100. Single shot
12g shotgun with barrel removed and a 40mm DOM tube in its place. Rehook the new 40mm barrel to the drop hing the 12g
barrel was afixed to and there you go. The fireing pin will be perfectly centere if you doit right. You might have to mill some of
the shotguns action away right under where the 12g barrel was and fabricate a thing on top of the barrel to hold it closed (I am
going to use a remington single shot 12g. cost $75 for the gun and $40 for the 40mm DOM tube.
Also, I'd use blackpowder instead of smokeless liek teh military uses because youd only need about 60grains to shoot a
40mm canister about 300 yards and it wouldnt make hardly any noise. And almost no recoil :)
As for a HE round, what about filling the round with NG. NG can easily handle the G forces of launch without detonating yet on
impact it would detonate. I tested some of my NG that is about 3 months old by puting alil bit on a tissue and clamping it in
my huge vise and putting about 500 pounds of pressure on it.....nothing happend. I then took that same peice of tissue and
struck it with a hammer.....BOOOM
Maybe this is too dangerous though.
grendel23 January 2nd, 2004, 05:02 PM

The problem with using NG in the way you propose is a property of some liquid explosives called "sensitivity to adiabatic
compression".
If there is a small air bubble (and you have no way to know there isn't), the shock of firing will compress the bubble, heating
the air inside and detonate the explosive.
Just dropping a bottle of NG on a hard surface can cause an LVD.
Using any explosive in a hand fired weapon is very dangerous, NG would be suicide.
xyz January 2nd, 2004, 10:31 PM

Errr... If NG is suicide, then why do we have double base smokeless powders that contain it and why did the cordite in old .303
rounds contain 60% NG?
Pure NG may be suicide, but mixtures of NG and NC definitely aren't.
Blackhawk January 2nd, 2004, 11:57 PM

The NC I would assume would significantly de-sensatise the NG, enough for use, that and that it would be a more solid gell
rather than a liquid (blasting gelatin?). The point of what grendel23 was saying (I think) was that keith was considering using
NG as the HE head of his 40mm grenade, which as grendel said would cause significant sensetivity problems with the
accelartion experianced, problems you wouldn't get with a .303 as the NG mix is supposed to go off in the chamber ;)
grendel23 January 3rd, 2004, 07:22 AM

xyz, I didn't intend to state that any use of NG is excessively dangerous. I have made and used it myself and have found it to
be quite safe if made correctly and given the respect it deserves.
Blackhawk is correct that my main point was that pure NG is much too sensitive to be used as the HE charge in a grenade to be
fired out of a launcher.
There are many explosives which could be fired from a launcher, TNT, ammonium picrate, and yes you could probably use
some form of NG containing explosive such as blasting gelatin.
The hard part would be coming up with a fuze or detonator that would detonate the device on impact while never blowing up in
the tube.
This can be done, I belive the military devices use the setback at firing to arm the fuze, But I would not want to fire an
improvised version from the shoulder.
Skyscraper January 3rd, 2004, 09:38 AM

What exactly is the purpose of this 40mm grenade? I'm pretty sure that a 40mm buckshot round, which would be much easier
to make correctly, could disable any vehicle up to an armoured car, and would still be good at closer ranges with no risk to the
user.
keith January 3rd, 2004, 03:33 PM

Well I stated that I absorbed the Ng in a tissue. So it wasnt pure. I didnt think about the whole air bubble compressian thing
that you mentioned and I dont know much about it but I do know that I put atleast 500lbs of pressure on the Ng when I put it
into my table vise and nothing happend.
I have a Mac. not a windows so it's kinda hard to post pics or anything due to different softwere and stuff but if I could work it
out or post from my friends computer, would it be alright if I were to post some pics of my 40mm Grenade launcher made
from a single shot shotgun? any mods mind? This thread inspired me to finish it and so I did. I have yet to buy practice
rounds so I havent tested it yet but it will work beautifully.
kingspaz January 3rd, 2004, 06:00 PM

pictures say thousands of times more than words, go for it!
Anthony January 4th, 2004, 09:44 AM

You can't rely on the shock sensitivity of NG to make a round detonate on striking the ground. Even if it did work (it'd be very
unreliable at best), you'd probably only get a low order detonation. You need a proper detonator.
Also, NG soaked into tissue paper is just that - pure NG held between the paper fibers. It's not a mixture like blasting gelatin.
I'd also bet that compression in a vice and launching shock would affect explosives quite differently.
skyscraper - is 60 grains of propellent going to propell a 40mm buckshot load effectively? If you have to up the powder load,
then surely you have a canon, not a grenade launcher? :)
keith January 4th, 2004, 01:18 PM

I would use black powder because 50grains can propell a firework that weight about a pound 300 yards up. 100grains of BP is
plenty to propel any grenade as far as you could want it to go. Muzzle loaders use about 100grains so the recoil would be
similar to that. Another problem is getting the smokeless to detonate. Ive made homemade shotguns that still used normal
shotgun shells and homemade rifles taht use real rifle bullets but the didnt work.I finaly relized that if the projectile isnt tightly
in the barrel you run the risk of the powder only burning. Smokeless powder doesnt make enough gas to shoot the projectile if
it only burns. NC and NG are in smokeless powder so compare teh differences between detonation and deflaguration with
these HEs. And 60-100grains of smokeless powder is going to have excessive recoil with that heavy of a projectile.
By not pure Ng I ment it wasnt just sitting there. Sorry, shoulda been more specific. It was soaked up in cellulose(isnt that
what cotton and tissue is?) to keep it from getting air pockets and to de-sensitize it slightly. I know slow presure in a vise is
different than a shock,thats why I tried that test. When the projectile is launched it's more like a slow steady pressure rather
than a quik shock so it wont detonate apon fireing yet when it hits, its more of a quike shock. But as Anthony said my idea
isn't very reliable.
Anthony January 4th, 2004, 01:28 PM

Smokeless powder does not detonate in normal use. It does however burn more rapidly under pressure (like many large
rocket propellants). So if you have a loose-fitting projectile, the chamber pressure won't be very high, meaning the SP doesn't
burn very fast, making things worse.

But either way a loose fitting projectile wont work with smokeless like it will with black powder right?
Can blackpowder ignite magnesium ribbon? You could make tracer rounds for teh grenade launcher.
xyz January 4th, 2004, 11:14 PM

kieth, just because it uses the same powder quantity as a muzzleloader it doesn't mean the recoil will be the same.
Compare a .223 to a 12 gauge round, they both use similar amounts of powder but the 12 gauge kicks much more because it
is pushing a much heavier projectile/s.
A loose fitting projectile with smokeless won't work as well as a loose fitting projectile with BP. Smokeless needs more
confinement to burn at it's proper rate.
Why would you want tracer rounds for a grenade launcher :rolleyes: ? The purpose of tracers is so that you can see more
clearly where machinegun fire is going, you should be able to tell where the grenade went :rolleyes: . The only thing useful
about them would be the firestarting aspect but then you may as well just make an incendiary round.
keith January 5th, 2004, 12:28 AM

Ilumination rounds would be very fun at night. Yea I understand that the projectile weight has alot to do with recoil. My main
point was that black powder would be a better propellant choice for grenades. 40mm is the same diameter as my howitzer.
The tracer round was just a for fun idea. Surves no combat purpose but your not going into combat with this are you? If you
are I wanna come. I've always questioned the effectiveness of the 40mm grenade launcher because of it's accuracy problems
and it's small blast radious. Standerd infantry grenades have a kill zone of 5 meters and an injure zon of 10. The 40mm
grenades arent any more lethal than these. How close do you think you could land a grenade to your target at 200 yards?
Probably fun to shoot though.
xyz January 5th, 2004, 09:27 AM

Make that an injure zone of 15, and it is only the RELIABLE injury zone, grenade fragments are fully capable of killing
someone 200m from the blast, but it is unlikely due to the extreme dispersion of frags at these distances, still, that's why you
get behind cover after throwing/launching a grenade.
Smokeless powder will work better than blackpowder, you just need a projectile that is the right size for your barrel.
PHAID January 5th, 2004, 10:23 AM

NATO specs on all modern grenades states that at 20m there is basicly no chance of a lethal wound.
At 0-10m your probably dead and at 15m your wounded.
Defensive grenades have a slightly bigger blast radius.
Skyscraper January 6th, 2004, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Anthony
skyscraper - is 60 grains of propellent going to propell a 40mm buckshot load effectively? If you have to up the powder load,
then surely you have a canon, not a grenade launcher? :)
Maybe you do, but is there something wrong with a portable cannon? It has all the advantages of a real riotgun, with all the
compactness and versatility of a 40mm grenade launcher. Of course, if it were homemade, you'd need to make sure the extra
powder wouldn't add too much pressure, but otherwise, I think it'd be for the most part more effective and safer than an
explosive handload. One could also use it as just a really big shotgun, in places where punt guns are hard to get ahold of.
DRDAD January 25th, 2004, 08:14 PM

Maybe I missed it in the post but the fuse to the 40mm round is spin armed. Placing an impact fuse without this delay may
lead to detonation of the round in the barrel with catastrophic effect. The other unintended consequence would be a UXO
down range. Not something I would want to have to go look for if it didn t go boom.
Dave the Rave January 26th, 2004, 04:31 PM

Indeed its spin armed but its to hard to make it by improvised means. The best ways are a fuse that lits when the grenade
is shot and the plain impact detonation.
Othewise, the spin lock to the detonator can be replaced by an improvised one where the inertial force of the fire of the round
displaces a safety pin which holds in place another pin which rests against the barrel of the laucher. When the gun is fired, the
inertial force pulls the safety pin backwards, releasing the other pin which is held in place only by the wall of the barrel. When
the grenade lefts the barrel, the pin falls of its place releasing an spring loaded detonator that is then free to align with the
firing pin.
I will draw an sketch to post...

Other topic, why not make an "handheld mortar" instead of the 40mm grenade laucher ? On my wet dreams it is just like an
grenade launcher, where the case of the grenade is replaced by an 12ga propelled mortar. The reloading of the weapon is the
same as the regular grenade, the rear of the weapon is open and the complete round is placed. The weapon is closen and
cocked, then fired.
I believe that this gun is a good choice to homemade arsenals, cause the rounds are easily made, can be readily recharged
by the means of one 12ga round without the lead and the payload of the projectile can be increased.
Again my verborragy cannot fully describe my dreams, but I will draw it and post, as soon as I find how to post an pic hosted
at the ftp.

Here is my version of one reliable 40mm round.
With this design, there is no need of the case or the operation of unload the spent shell, prior to reloading the gun. By this
mean, the rate of fire is improved.
Another nice thing on this design is that the payload can be bigger, as the propeling charge is more powerfull tha of the
traditional 40mm lifting charge.
It uses a blank 12ga shell, with its full powder charge and, I hope, the recoill will be smaller than the kick of the shotgun
cause the barrel is bigber, givin more space to the expansion of the gases.
forumftp.serveftp.com/hosted_images/40mmmortar.jpg
This second image is the inertial detonator.
In this design, the grenade remains inert till its shot, when it arms by the means of the acceleration forces over the inertial
safety pin. After the dislocation of the inertial pin, the "gap" pin remains in spring loaded, but on its place by the means only
of the wall of the barrel.
When the grenade lefts the barrel, the force against the "gap" pin ceases, alowing the spring to releases, and the pin "jumps"
off its place, thrus freeing the way from the firing pin to the detonators cap.
The process then works as the usual, when the firing pin hits the target, the breakable pin is broken and the spring drivens
the firing pin against the detonator.
forumftp.serveftp.com/hosted_images/40mmindet.jpg
Jacks Complete January 28th, 2004, 06:20 PM

Have we made an decisions on the CAD software yet?
Also, something no-one here has talked about, is that the reason grenades are only partly effective a lot of the time is
because they are on the floor, and half the bits go into the floor.
Perhaps this beastie could throw some of the suggested "weebl" rounds? (Launching the Tetra Grenades NBK came up with
would be a bit tricky, though.) This would mean that the blast could be a little more focused on where it counts, like at the legs
of the body-armoured BATmen?
Dave the Rave January 29th, 2004, 09:15 AM

Yes, ideed JC !
But with my design, most of the fragments and explosive force are directed against legs and lower torso, because of the tail
and fins of the grenade. Besides, my design is based on the mortars, so it can be modified to deliver shaped charges.
I am working on an improvised version of the "tilting" detonator of the "potatoe masher" , to use on the 40mm handheld
mortar, so, it will became safer and will detonate as soon as the warhead find its foe... Or touches the ground.
As my images dont open, I will post it here to download.
Here is the inertial detonator.
Baughb January 29th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Here's one idea for a spin-centric arming device. A tube is constructed in such a manner so that it spans the entire width of the
40mm round, with the center portion of the tube sealed off. On both ends of the tube are electrical contacts, open by default,
and closed by a small ball bearing when it is in that position. Each end of the tube has a ball bearing placed in it, and a weak
spring placed in behind it that holds the BB against the middle partition under normal usage. When a force is applied, the
spring will collapse and allow the BB to contact the end terminals and close the circuit. A simple diagram would be:
_#_____________________#_
|======* |//////| *=====|
-#--------------------------#-
# is one side of the contact, * is a ball bearing of small diameter, = is a spring,

|, __, and --- denote walls of the device, and //// is a filler of your choice.
It would take some math & testing to figure out what sort of force the springs need to collapse under, but that's nothing too
hard. This system has the advantage of not arming due to outside impacts, or exterior forces because any exterior force would
cause only one of the arming bearings to hit a contact, where both are needed to close the circuit entirely. However, the
centrifugal force imparted by the spin forced upon the round by a rifled barrel _would_ place both BB's at the arming position,
in theory. I haven't run the numbers yet, and don't have the time or mental capacity to do it right now anyway, but if the
round's spin produces a reasonable force, it'll be a fairly safe arming device.
Couple it with a miniature timer circuit, and you can have the detonator arm after X time of BB contact, allowing you to have
the round arm X distance out of the barrel. The only downside I can think of right off would be that you'll lose a bit of room
normally occupied by HE, but hopefully not too much.

Great!
Have to wait for a mod to authorise your download, though.
Another thought I had during a rather boring meeting was a dual warhead, which fired at (for example) T and T+2 seconds.
The outer shell goes off, and takes out the legs (mostly) of those nearby (say a 35 degree arc, 360), then a second or two
later, a more 2D layer goes (5 degrees, 360).
This way, the round sails up and over, goes pop, then, a few seconds later, after the injured have fallen, the coup de grace.
This is infinitely easier than a sensor to detonate while the round is x feet off the deck, yet should get the same result.
If we look to the OICW, we can see the way these things are going. Time Of Flight detonation is do-able, in an improvised
munition, and is a resonable way to go which avoids the complexity and expense of integrating of accelerometers. This is
achieveable by a simple timer circuit, with (of course) a single level inertial trip (something on a spring!) to start the timer.
As far as the 40mm round goes, does anyone know what sort of performance we can expect? I can load BP or Nitro, or (though
I haven't yet tried) a rocket based system (or simpler base-bleed) could be used. These things are easily done by the
"amateur".
As far as barrels go, is there a truely international standard for tubes/pipes which would let us all use e.g. a type of gas main
pipe? Schedule 40 (US standard for water pipe, IIRC) doesn't exist in the UK, for example.
By the way, who is Tirany?
Added: I keep getting "Try again later, the server is too busy" messages, both when trying to post this, and when trying to get
past the main front page!
Further: Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /hsphere/local/home/roguesci/roguesci.org/theforum/admin/

db_mysql.php on line 40
New one: Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /
hsphere/local/home/roguesci/roguesci.org/theforum/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40
lumberjak5010 February 4th, 2004, 04:23 AM

Skyscraper
This info in strictly from my personal military experience in the field.The purpose of the grenade launcher round depends on
which type of grenade launcher and which round. I was issued a 203 on several occasions and we used it for many purposes.
One was parachute illumination flares to machine gunners could see them, to signal, or for general illumination. Smoke
marker grenades of all colors for evac or targeting with forward air. Paint marker and practice grenade for local targeting and
marking for small arty and TOW. Incendiary grenades to burn out and entrenched enemy or to set something afire like
vegetation to create smoke screens. Anti-personnel grenades obviously for killing enemy. String grenades to span a crevasse
so a rope could be pulled across and then a braided cable for personnel crossing. Wire grenades to drop commo wire across a
gorge. Tear gas and chemical agent grenades. Whistle grenades who's function I am not sure of.
Air burst grenades which I never used or saw. HE grenades were useful in knocking down a protected road block or stopping a
vehicle. And WP grenades which burned the heck out of stuff. One must be very careful with WP, it's very hard to stop once it
gets going. By far, the most common was the anti-personnel grenade. One note: some times, if you fired the grenade a
certain way, it could come right back and land in your lap before detonating.
As far as the discussion of effective range for a hand grenade, I noticed the baseball type grenades were very effective. Once
that grenade went off, there was a ten or fifteen second period of time before hundreds of pieces of schrapnel came raining
down on us which describes the range. I wouldn't want to be standing within 75 meters of a surface detonation of one. The
fragments from the baseball grenades are of all sorts of shapes but seem uniformily sized from 3mm to around 20mm or so.
They are very hot of course if you get hit with the initial detonation and some are quite sharp.Many factors determine the
effectiveness of a hand grenade. The most important factor is the hieght above ground at the time of detonation. Most of the
grenades I saw used detonated on the surface, in a hole or under a vehicle or some other object. If you got lucky and timed it
right, you might get a grenade to detonate at three or four feet off of the ground, which amongst enemy troops would be most
lethal. A hand grenade, effectively placed will kill five or six enemy. My experience was that grenades were used to keep the
head of the enemy down to allow friendly movement if no M60 was available,or to take out foxhole or bunker personnel. If
you are on the run, they are great for slowing down pursuers. They are also good for breaking things in general such as
disabling an enemy vehicle. Placing a grenade under an ammo can full of rocks with the pin out and the spoon down was an
effective booby-trap. If you tied a grenade to a tree and pulled the pin almost all the way out, then tied a string to the pin
across a trail, that was like a mini claymore.
Crash February 5th, 2004, 06:06 AM

A breakable safety pin would be too unreliable, and dangerous. It would be better to make the safety pin strong, and have it
spring loaded, functioning like a sear it would be held under the firing pin by a flammable string, that burns away when the
propellant is ignited, opening the action. I'm picturing a few small bits of aluminum or brass available in sheets at hobby
shops and the spring from a retractable pen.
It may also be possible to tie a big complicated knot in a string, that is tied to the firing pin and set in bondo with the top of
the knot exposed to the propellant,perhaps seperated by a peice of a plastic bag or NC plastic. The String could then be
soaked in a fuel/oxidiser mix that burns quickly when confined. When the fuse burns off the firing pin is let free.
This is much more compact than my other idea and could prove reliable, especially if you have access to safety fuse.
If your firing system is electrical then 2 inertial switches could be used facing opposite directions. The sudden acceleration of
the round trips the one facing forwards which triggers a relay, arming the other switch.
Or you could just drill a tiny hole through the firing pin and stick a paper clip through it, then remove it before you put it in the
gun. :wink:
NightStalker February 6th, 2004, 05:09 AM

Your post could have used a few paragraph breaks to make it more readable.
Just a little advice. :)
Dave the Rave February 6th, 2004, 04:09 PM

Man, The RPG7 uses an breackable pin, that can be removed prior to fire or let to break as soon as the rocket impacts on the
target. As I say, this pin isnt the main safety, is an plus. The main safety is the inertial pin and the secondary is the "rest
against" pin.
I personaly think that stick an fuse throug the firing pin and hope that it burns out to free the pin is trust so much in God. You
cant relly on fuses that cam be damp, or burn too quickly or can be accidentaly cut to initiate the grenade.
Now, to the serious posters.
JC, the idea of delayed explosion on a secondary layer is very good ! We can adapt an simply timer to the warhead to initiate
the system. Your idea of the coil can be ideal.
About the ammo, as far as I know, the common 40mm (250 grams) can be thrown about 500 meter, with the propelant of the
shell. My idea is use an common 12ga (30 grams of doubllebased) to shot 400 grams of explosive, the same 500 meters. As
I dont know the formula, maybe Nbk can provide us with some useful info.
The barrel: At my country we have the 1 in. fence pipe. Its an reinforced seamless steel pipe the same diameter as the
40mm barrel, and it can easily handle the 12ga pressure buildup. I think that is the most commom pipe, sold all over the
world, but I will research and post about it.
Hehehe ! Tirany, as the form of government... As does Nbk and Mega ! Its an reference to Montesquieu who said that the
people can only be free when governed by an Tiran, who takes from them the responsability to decide from themselves.
Those who dont make decisions cant be charged for it...
- Mods, sorry about my image stretcheing the layout of the forum, at my monitor it was ok. It will not happen again ! -
MP5Guy February 10th, 2004, 02:31 PM

Dave The Rave good luck loading that 1" Seamless Stainless Fence Pipe, better get out the lathe and turn that sucker just a
bit. 26mm is roughly 1" so your better cancel the 1" and order some 1 1/2"which is roughly 39mm... :eek:
40mm Pom Pom Gun Barrel
http://www.hunt101.com/img/100277.jpg

Yep, but I am from Brazil and thing here are not like the rest of the world... I was thinking on the 1 1/2in. which haves (at my
Country) 40mm dia, but I mistype and write only the "1"... hehehee !!!
Anyway, point taken and I will revise my posts for now on.
Nice junkyard, its all your ? Man, the things I could do with all those metal parts and tools... I even think of start datin a girl
Ive meet, just because her dad owns a HUGE junkyard...
Baughb February 10th, 2004, 04:43 PM

Dave, your idea seems a bit...clunky...at best, IMO. You're creating an entirely new ammo, really, and fitting it to a 40mm
launcher. It seems kind of backwards, honestly. Plus, your ammo idea is pretty complicated. I've got to wonder how easy it'd
be to produce quickly.
Also, there's the barrel detector on in your plans, a bit of the projectile that actually makes contact with the barrel all of the
way out. That just seems like a very bad idea. If you're going to go with a rifled barrel, why not use the centrifugal force to do
the work for you? I posted a while ago with a rough idea of how it'd work. It'd be small, easily adapted to a shell that would fit
inside of a 40mm casing.
After all, isn't that what the improv. weapons forum is all about? If it ever came down to fighting with the Man, being able to
produce effective weapons (and still be able to use whatever can be salvaged from your enemies?). That may not be 100% of
the goal, but I think it's a thought on all of our minds.
(BTW, Dave: Tyranny)

Look Baugbh, The idea is make an 40mm from scratch, did you realize how hard could be to rifle an 40mm barrel ?
When you use my design, you wont have to take out the prevoius spent shel, just to put a new round inside the barrel. About
the "rest against" system, isnt hard and ads a safety to an improvised weapon. By the way, all mortars uses the idea and it
was working for decades.
Your idea was nice, but it will take some of the payload out to make room to batery and all those spprings and contacts. On
the other hand, my project will give an bigger payload, with an simplier detonator.
Another thing that I like on my design is that, with the inertial safety and the "potato masher" detonator, the round can be
used without the need of the launcher. You only need to hit the bottom of the round agains something hard do loose the
inertial pin, then the safety will pop out and the detonator can initiate the explosive as soon as the round lands, thrown by
your own hands.
BTW, thank for your copydesk, but, as you are not an Tyrant, I will mantain my signature as shown.
MP5Guy February 10th, 2004, 06:44 PM

And that Fence Pipe must be made of Kryptonite as 30 Grams of "Double Base" works out to 462 Grains pushing a 6160 Grain
Projectile (400 Grams). A pretty Healty Dose for even Ord Steel With 1/2" Wall let alone Fence Post Stock. It is gonna Fuckin
Blow Up In The Tube Dave.
You're Gonna Put Your Eye Out :(
MP
Dave the Rave February 11th, 2004, 11:08 AM

Good point Mp5guy, probably my calcs about the weight of the propelent are wrong... I will find it out and post again. But I
think that the pipe can hold the pressure, cause it will build up slowly, and the chamber that will be pressurized will increase
its size as the mortar moves forward.
- Mp5guy, Youre rigth, when I search my files I found that the weigth of 30 grams was about the whole cartridge, with lead
shots, wad and powder. But there is nothing about the weigth of the propelent only. What do you think about the ideal
propeling charge ? -
JoeJablomy February 17th, 2004, 04:19 AM

US 40mm LV rounds use .33g of M9 smokeless. 40mm HV use 4.2g-4.64g (M2 propellant). Bear in mind that this is with a
high pressure chamber, and we still don't know precisely what kind of smokeless it is, because there could be any number of
"M9" and "M2" propellants.
See TM 43-0001-28 for the cartridge data.
See http://stinet.dtic.mil/str/dodiss4_fields.html for mil specs, which may include the propellants in question.
Overall, your best bet is probably to use the propellant masses I gave as a general starting point and experiment.
Grenade man March 6th, 2004, 02:56 PM

Hello, I'm new here. Nbk200 your pic of the nylon case cutaway don't work for me, can you send it by e-mail or I don't know at
steelrain89@hotmail.com and if you or anybody in this site know where can I find some real not nylon 40mm cases like m169,
m118 or m918 or something like this, just email me please!! or just reply but I prefer e-mail please, thanks a lot you all
seem to be nice people!
++++++++++++
When asking someone to help you, or give you something, it's generally considered a good idea to SPELL THEIR NAME RIGHT!
:rolleyes:
It shows that you're not some greedy grasping n00b who's too wrapped up in himself to pay attention to little details like
MANNERS. ;)
NBK
JoeJablomy March 6th, 2004, 04:55 PM

Nylon cases can be bought on ebay by the dozen, and metal cases are less common and more expensive but are still an
everyday item. 10 linked HV cases sell for about $10; LV cases seem to be a bit more expensive; possibly $5 ea. The easiest
way to find them is to search for "40mm" and look under 'militaria' in the results.
BTW, grenade man, do you plan to reload them? How? Are there specific drawbacks to nylon cases for reloading with
improvised projectiles?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Powerlet Propelled Grenades
Log in
View Full Version : Powerlet Propelled Grenades
nbk2000 January 20th, 2003, 08:46 PM

I got the idea for this while reading about the COMBLOC GP-25 40mm grenade launcher at <a href="http://club.guns.ru/eng/gp25.html" target="_blank">this site</a>.
Unlike a conventional 40mm grenade launcher that uses casings to contain the burning propellant charge, the propellant charge for the VOG-25 grenades are contained within
the grenade itself, thus there is NO casing to eject, simplifying weapon design and enabling a high rate of fire.
<img src="http://www.volny.cz/ak-47/gp_30/vog-25p.jpg" alt=" - " />
in the picture, the propellant chamber is the "nipple" on the left end of the VOG-25P (Frog) grenade body
So, while doing further research on the VOG-25P airbursting grenade used by this weapon, I did a google search that came up with <a href="http://www.airburstrockets.com/
index.html" target="_blank">this site</a>. It got me to thinking about using a compressed gas instead of the pyro propellant I'd originally thought of.
Knowing how easily CO2 powerlets are to obtain, I thought that these would make good propelling charges since they contain 12 grams of CO2 at
more than 800PSI, which is way more power than the meager 120PSI used by these rockets which go more than 300 yards straight up.
The grenades, as I envision them, have a powerlet cast centrally within the grenade body (made of a NIPOLIT type explosive) with the impact fuse cast in the nose, and the
BB frags on the circumference. The entire body of the grenade is explosive, maximizing effectiveness, unlike military grenades where the fuse mechanism takes up most of the
volume.
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_Powerlet_Side.jpg" alt=" - " />
The launcher would be a simple plastic pipe with a ball or spring detent to hold the grenade in place so it doesn't fall out. A spring loaded hammer is cocked back and released
to strike the firing pin, which is simply a sharp nail, which pierces the powerlet seal, releasing the gas, and expelling the grenade.
For rifling, you could cast in a small plastic dowel that runs straight through to both sides of the grenade body. The small protusions of the dowel would engage 2 bars that
would cause the grenade to spin in the same manner as the MLRS.
The nipple of the powerlet is slightly recessed within the body of the grenade to protect it from accidental puncture.
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_Powerlet_Rear.jpg" alt=" - " />
Because of the simplicity of the design, and the low pressures involved, no sophisticated metal machining would be required. Also, because of the lack of pyro propellant, the
device would emit no smoke or flash to give away your position.
<img src="http://www.37mm.com/lotw/images/sf-298.jpg" alt=" - " />
While I don't think you'd get anywhere near the same range as the VOG-25 (400 meters), you would be able to get the grenade further up, and there faster, than if you had
thrown it. Even just 60 yards range puts you about 20 yards out of the range of an enemies hand-thrown grenades.
Also, being a projectile, it allows you to fire through narrow openings with precision to engage targets you'd otherwise not be able to engage with hand thrown grenades.
If half a "superball" was used as the nose, the grenade would bounce back into the air after impacting a hard surface (like a street) from a steep angle, where it would then
airburst. A 1/10th second IC delay, using an impact detector like that found in those annoying blinking ball toys, would be the trigger.
You might even be able to hit an enemy hiding behind a corner if you can bounce the grenade off a wall behind them. :D
heaton3805 January 21st, 2003, 11:01 PM

I just watched the movie Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever and saw this thing for the first time. Anyway, I got to dreaming last night about how easy it would be to make one of these,
and dreampt just about the same idea as you did...Though mine ignites on impact since I haven't much of a clue on how to work with electrical delays...Anyhow, I just just
dreampt of having an ingnition that used a small cone tip that was connected to a normal everyday rocket ignter and a few little watch batteries. Maybe tonight I might dream
up a nice easy made explosive to use with these :rolleyes:
Al Koholic January 21st, 2003, 11:50 PM

We can develop this idea to be quite good I believe. Right now I see the surely uneven hole a nail will make in the end of the CO2 cartridge as a flaw (possibly dangerous to
you or "your side").
The uneven hole which could be unbalanced could potentially turn the loose projectile on one of your own valued interests, or if anything, cause a lower range and poorer
reliabilty.
By simply fashioning a metal jacket consisting of a section of pipe around the CO2 cartridge we can possibly increase the effectiveness of such a device. After the metal jacket
(which must fit nice and snug over the cartridge) is in place, make a metal cap for it that has a hole drilled in it, directly in the center, without any gross imperfections like an
angle or small metal frays.
Now when the nail is engaged, it will push through the hole and still rupture the CO2 cartridge but the gass will now enter a secondary chamber so to speak and from here it
will exit straight and without any variation from shot to shot.
This is a very simple method which with a little effort and time, could be even more optimal in that you could figure out what the optimum nozzle diameter is, you could
fashion a real nozzle with the correct angulature and form so as to maximize exit gas velocity, etc etc...
This could even be adapted to larger (higher pressure) tanks to make small, high power improvised rockets. Imagine a 30 litre 3600psi N2 tank afixed inside a pipe with a
fashioned nozzle. Figure out a way to rupture the tank in a controlled way...
nbk2000 January 22nd, 2003, 03:08 AM

If the propellant is expended before the projectile leaves the barrel, than it will follow a ballistic trajectory.
If the projectile is still venting propellant once it's left the barrel, than that will act as a rockets thrust, causing the grenade to veer off course.
So, the main thing to ensure is that all propellant is expended while the grenade is still contained within the barrel.
One variable I'm worried about is the effect of temperature on pressure. Grenades fires in hot weather would travel further than those in extremely cold weather. This variable
would effect accuracy unless you could compensate with a temperature adjustable sight. :(
If the powerlets were custom made (I wish) to have a frangible glass disk, then there'd be no worries about uneven puncture, since the disk would instantly shatter to dust. :)
A high pressure gas like helium would greatly reduce the hot/cold variable. Though at the ranges this would be useful for, I doubt a foot or two will matter much.
This might be a good idea (more developed, of course) for MOUT because of the near total stealth of this launch method, compared to the usual 40mm grenades. The popping
of a powerlet with a spring-loaded centerpunch isn't much louder than the popping of a ballon.
In the extremely close and personal range of MOUT, being able to fire your weapon without giving yourself away would be a huge advantage. Especially at night since any little
bit of flash would be hugely magnified in the enemies NVD.
Agent Blak January 22nd, 2003, 03:53 AM
After a great deal of testing would be able to Range preformance via Temperature. Have a launch tube set at a given angle. I don't believe that you would be able to achieve
acurrate distances without the use of a PSI(Kpa)guage; this is always an option.
I am always Sketchy about operating improvised/Commercially produce device with moving parts in extreme Temp.
Your Whole device would be able to be made of ABS enforced with Fiberglass resin. This is due to there being no Pyrotechnic charge which after repeat firings will degrade the
materials. This is not true with CO2 Powerlets.
The only concern I have is the cost of practice rounds($1 per can add up).
nbk2000 January 22nd, 2003, 05:28 AM

Well, the practice round could be made of body putty plastic resin (properly weighted), with the powerlet being removable for replacement. Then, buying powerlets in bulk
would reduce practice shots to about 20 cents per shot. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than the $15/shot for the 40mm! :)
Mr Cool January 22nd, 2003, 07:51 AM

I don't think uneven rupture of the powerlet's seal would be a problem, if you used a firing pin with a perfecly round cross section all the way down the point, and a good deal
of force behind it.
One potential problem that I forsee is that the CO2 would rapidly drop in temperature, so that after a short time the pressure would be absolutely negligable. It might already
be going fast enough, or it might not. Experimentation is needed...
Marcus January 22nd, 2003, 10:34 AM

I had a similar idea to this a while ago so i made a prototype launcher. Pictures of this can be found here:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marcuschurch2000" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/marcuschurch2000</a>
(i know everyone hates geocities but hey never mind)
The barrel is made from a piece of 22mm copper pipe (id 20mm) so the powerlet is wraped in masking tape to make a snug fit. The powerlet seal is punctured by a sharpened
screw mounted in the bolt face. The major problem is that (as has already been discussed) although the barrel is 420mm long the powerlet is still venting gas as it leaves the
muzzle causing an erratic flight.
In the pyrotechnics section ther was a disscussion about spin stabilized rockets. The gyrojet rifle was mentioned which used small spinnig rockets.A similar effect could maybe
be achieved if the powerlet was fixed inside a metal tube and the end was sealed with a plug that 3 holes in it. The centre hole would hold a nail which would puncture the seal
and two outer hole could be angled to impart spin. I know im rambling but its difficult to write what i mean.
What does anybody think?
A-BOMB January 22nd, 2003, 11:07 AM

I was thinking of something like this a bit more complex but you dont need to worry about temp or if all the propellent is spent before it leaves the barrel.
<img src="ftp://ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/Hosted%20Images/New%20Folder/imp%20launching%20grenade.jpg" alt=" - " />
Anthony January 22nd, 2003, 11:17 AM

If NO2, N2 etc, basically non-liquified gas cartridges are available at a reasonable price, I'm sure they'd vent much faster. Due to them not having to take the time to abosrb
the energy required for the liquid CO2 to change state. Non-liquified carts would contain less gas though so thrust might be reduced, even though the gas is likely held at higher
pressure than the CO2.
The mention of NV brought up a small thought - when fired, the operator would be washed in cold CO2. So if they enemy immediately swept the area with a thermal imaging
device, the cold cloud of gas *might* help conceal the operator.
nbk2000 January 22nd, 2003, 12:48 PM

IIRC, the CO2 in the powerlets is a liquid under great pressure. Once that pressure is released, the liquid instantly changes into gas or "dry" ice, being violently expelled out of
the powerlet.
The time I used a centerpunch to vent one, it was all vented (except for wisps) the instant I punched it, and the hole was perfectly round.
What about the nitrous oxide ones? Better?
The problem is how to hold the grenade still while whacking it with a punch. If you hit it fast enough, the inertia of the grenade would be enough, I'd think.
A-bomb, you wouldn't want to use any kind of pyro propellant with a NIPOLIT grenade body because NIPOLIT is made of NC, hence very flammable. <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
heaton3805 January 22nd, 2003, 09:33 PM

The best that I've been able to come up with so far is using the NO's (some of my burnt out buddies call them whippits...) since they can be purchased at 25 a box for around
$8-$12, and also don't freeze up like the CO2 does, ingaged by a steel rod (sharpened of course) centered inside of a small cylinder to keep the firing pin (the rod) constently
aligned inside the firing mech.
As far as holding the grenade in place to be punctured, just use the ball & spring detent that was mentioned in the beginning. If two of these are used opposite each other in
the barrel and a little bit of rifling put into the outter casing of the grenade that lines up correctly with the detents, it should create the desired spin while leaving the barrel. This
therefore solves the problem with spin, puncturing, and holding (so that it doesn't fall out while on the move).
The barrel shouldn't be very long, since the gas is expelled nearly immediatly and would loose propelling power unless the inner barrel was air tight. One would, of course, have
to experiment with this to get their desired effect...But hey, isn't that always the case? :p
mark January 22nd, 2003, 10:15 PM

Do you think with like a 4 foot launch tube the rockets could just be dropped down the barrel to fire? This would make it like a mini morar round, and would let you launch a lit
m80 tipped round. Im very interested in this project, but does anone know if these things have enough power to launchthemselves out the barrel?
nbk2000 January 22nd, 2003, 11:05 PM

There used to be a handle that would grip the neck of a powerlet, then punch the seal, only allowing the gas to vent once the handle was released. It was for some kind of
model "rocket" back in the 50's that would fly on a string. As for distance...I don't know.
Agent Blak January 23rd, 2003, 01:02 AM

I would advice Creating a dye or mold to manufactor the rounds. This would allow the rounds to be all Pretty much the Same Size. It would also allow for the Powlet to be
centered aswell.
Your best bet would be to use a cast Polyester Resin as this would have slight mount of flex; Assists in the sealing action.
The Ideal way would be to have slightly tighter fit at the Breach. This allows for the build up a Gas(PSI/KPA). This will cause the round to act more as if it were shot opposed to
being thrown; Plus giving you greater range. Aswell it will help to hold the round in place when the firing pin strikes.
NIP. is not a primary... you know that right? It is different that AP Putty; both are castable though
nbk2000 January 23rd, 2003, 01:32 AM

Hmmm...use a tight fitting neoprene gasket cast into the grenade to grip a nipple that goes into the hole at the base of the grenade, aligning and holding the powerlet seal
with the striker. :)
vulture January 23rd, 2003, 03:38 PM

How about surrounding the CO2 powerlet with a little bit of pyrotechnic composition that is ignited just before or even at the moment of rupturing the vent hole, so the liquid/
gas is heated up very fast. Given the high burning temperature of most pyrotechnic compositions this would make the effect of ambient temperature on range insignificant. Add
to that the added gas production by the pyro comp.
Ofcourse this would rule out nipolit as the explosive charge.
[ January 23, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]
Anthony January 23rd, 2003, 08:37 PM

The carts do hold liquid CO2 under high pressure. Once the pressure in the container drops i.e. you puncture it, the liquid boils off and changes state into gaseous CO2. The
energy required to change state is taken from the immediate surroundings. If it can't draw the energy fast enough then you get solid CO2 (no thrust) and also the temp drops,
droping pressure with it (reduced thrust).
I don't think a small pyro charge will make an signicant difference, firstly because of the very short contact time and also because it takes a lot of heat to warm up CO2.
Butane is similar. It takes a lot more pyro comp to burn a hole in a full plastic lighter than an empty one.
The pyro charge would also negate the advantages of a non-combusting propellant.
I think ambient temp is going to make more of a difference in range than a few yards. For example:
"a full CO2 cylinder at 80 degrees F will have 969 PSI in it. The same full cylinder at 40 degrees F will have only 567 PSI in it"
There's a full graph here: <a href="http://www.airsmith.com/co2n2/co2graph.htm" target="_blank">http://www.airsmith.com/co2n2/co2graph.htm</a>
A possible explanation for a CO2 cart emptying instantly in open air, but still venting when exiting Marcus' launcher's barrel is the pressure in the barrel is keeping the CO2 in
liquid state for longer.
nbk2000 January 23rd, 2003, 11:40 PM

Well, after punching my powerlets, I'd see wisps of vapor coming out, but that was just residual vapors with no pressure remaining in the powerlet.
I knew temperature is going to affect the pressure, so this'd have to be compensated with a temperature adjusted sight. This is assuming that the powerlet concept has
sufficient range to make it worth bothering with.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Rifle Grenades
Log in
View Full Version : Rifle Grenades
Zyklon_B January 23rd, 2003, 10:46 PM

Does anyone know what is required in re-arming a rifle launched grenade? Do they use a booster charge other then just the blank cartridge?
<img src="http://swordsdaggersandsuch.bizhosting.com/cgi-bin/image/templates/_grenade.jpg" alt=" - " />
I thought that rifle grenades would present a easier method of launching grenades then a "grenade launcher" such as the 40mm. Rifle grenades are fairly available in a wide
variety, from those that use normal handheld grenades, to those that use shaped charges. They come in a variety of shapes and styles:
<img src="http://www.adrax.com/watsons/g052.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.big-ordnance.com/grenades/M67RG1.JPG" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.big-ordnance.com/grenades/M17.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.big-ordnance.com/grenades/M9A1.JPG" alt=" - " />
BoB- January 24th, 2003, 06:07 AM

Rifle grenades dont use blanks, they use reinforcements at the rear to catch the bullet. Soldiers very rarely have a chance to sit down and prepare something.
You could always convert an old rifle to fire the grenades exclusively, this would completly remove the chance for any confusion since the rifle would only ever be loaded with
blanks.

I'm pretty sure that some rifle grenades were fired with blank rounds, maybe before they came up with the bullet-catching design?
Marcus January 24th, 2003, 12:44 PM

Yes Anthony is correct. Rifle Grenades were invented during WW1 by soldiers who strapped hand grenades to a rod and fired them using blank charges from their rifles.
Kriegsminister January 24th, 2003, 01:03 PM

These things look more like rockets than grenades...
I doubt that a blank cartidge provides enough power to launch a grenade very far because they weight quite a lot (at least compared to a normal bullet). It might work better
if you had some dowel you could insert into the barell, because if you just place the grenade on top of the barell there will be quite some space for the gases to expand wich
will lower the pressure that launches the grenade.
There might be some smaller ones that could be fired that way, but I guess these larger ones contain some kind of a booster, which is ignited by the blank cartidge.
The bullet catching thing might work better, but I think such a design would also require a more lightweight grenade.
Grenades are fun! During my time at the army I tossed some hand grenades, which is a very exciting thing to do...

You'd be surprised how far you lob a reasonable weight with a small powder charge. Consider that some substantial mortar rounds are fired with the propellent charge in a
12ga shotgun cartridge!
A-BOMB January 24th, 2003, 05:50 PM

Bullet catching :rolleyes: Rifle grenades use crimped grenade launching blanks, on semi-auto rifles that launch a grenade you need to turn off the gas system (like on M66
yugo(sks))so that all of the gas from the round in used to launch the grenade. I've never heard of a bullet catching system.
nbk2000 January 24th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Bullet-trap rifle grenades are the standard now. The old style depended on a soldier remembering to load a special blank cartridge prior to launch. If he forgot and fired a ball
round....BOOM!
Go to <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/riflehandgrenades.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/

riflehandgrenades.htm</a> for further info.
Zyklon_B January 24th, 2003, 07:22 PM

So then the old grenades at the gunshows and army surpluses require only blanks. Very usefull!
There are a array of weapons that can fire rifle grenades, such as the yugo SKS, mauser rifles, M1 Garands, M1 carbine and the list goes on. With a bolt action rifle dedicated to
shooting nothing but grenades there shouldn't be any problem. Mausers can be found for cheap and don't require any valve to make sure the gas only comes out the muzzle.
But then again most everyday assault rifles can also be adapted to using rifle grenades. The advantage is the less sensitive environment(compared to inside a barrel) your
explosive devices have to be exposed to, less weight, since in a instant you can leave the grenades behind, where with the 40mm you still have either the launcher attached to
the gun, or you have to carry a completely different launcher.
nbk2000 January 25th, 2003, 12:03 AM

Not just any ol' blank cartridge will work though.
If you use a regular blank, like the kind used to simulate gunfire, you'll end up with the grenade landing a few yards in front of you.
What's needed is special grenade launching blanks, which use a different type of powder, more of it, and tighter crimping, to achieve the pressure levels needed to throw the
grenade the distance needed.
Zyklon_B January 25th, 2003, 12:58 AM

Here is a website with some load data for grenade launching blanks in 7.62 NATO: <a href="http://medlem.spray.se/coonan/762x51/762x51.html" target="_blank">http://
medlem.spray.se/coonan/762x51/762x51.html</a>
I can't seem to find any other load data in any other calibers, can anyone help? :confused:
Al Nobel January 25th, 2003, 08:30 PM

Maybe a little bit out of toppic, but I found last autumn some WW2 grenades near Berlin , which looked like CO2 cartridges (4 times as large as normal ones).Dont know if
those are rifle grenades or not.They are definetafelly to small for normall mrser-granaten (sorry but I dont know the correct english word).Any idea what those could be?
Thanks
Mrsergranaten=mortar grenades
[ January 25, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Machiavelli ]
SawedOff8gaugeman January 28th, 2003, 01:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />... on semi-auto rifles that
launch a grenade you need to turn off the gas system (like on M66 yugo(sks))so that all of the gas from the round in used to launch the grenade.<hr /></
blockquote>The point isn't actually "directing all the pressure" for the grenade but avoiding the gun having random parts fall
off. :rolleyes: Firing rifle grenades puts "some" stress on the rifle's gas system.
nbk2000 January 30th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Did any of the UXO you found look like this?
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/gpg30.gif" alt=" - " />
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust8.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust8.htm</a>
concrete feet February 13th, 2003, 04:39 PM

i've always had reservations about using a dowel (wooden at any rate) in a rifled barrel.
i am afraid that, due to the nature of the wood's grain, the gas pressure would cause the grain to seperate, thus increasing the diameter of the dowel. i have even wondered if,
once expanded, the dowel would be gripped by the rifling, causing yet more friction.
i worry also that using a smaller dia. dowel to compensate would result in loss of gass pressure and retard the range of the projectile.
BTW, if anyone can say for sure whether my reservations are warrented or not i'd like to know, as i prefer not to make statements that may be false.
it is my understanding that the bullet-trap designs lose acuracy with increased range, as the bullets exit through the side (in all models i've seen) and temorarily destablize the
flight after clearing the rifle.
[edit: edited for spelling]
[ February 13, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: concrete feet ]
shooter3 February 13th, 2003, 06:27 PM

Rod type rifle granades had a bad habit of expanding the barrels and ruining them.
concrete feet February 13th, 2003, 11:20 PM

beyond merely ruining the barrel i worry about the danger of the barrel fragmenting and injuring (or killing) the shooter.
SithLord January 6th, 2004, 07:57 PM

Hello! This topic is why I joined your forum. Has anyone here actually successfully launched a 22mm grenade off of a fal or sks?? Obviosly if anyone replies.. than they did it
successfully, because either they still have all their fingers or else they have voice recognition software. ;)
I would just try it myself from far away with a string tied around the trigger, but.... SKS=$150 grenade=$20 trip to Arizona to buy another SKS=$500.... so I'm not to hot
about blowing up my gun.
I found you on google btw I saw a thread about google searching for you guys and how you rated. Thought you'd like to know that it actually works sometimes.
roguesci.org was #3 on the search for "40mm practice grenade"
among the other interesting things I saw while searching for the non-existant answer to my question:
A russian-english dictionary: rifle-grenade noun mil.
A 22mm grenade for breaking down doors: http://www.isayeret.com/gear/simon/simon.htm
What an actual Yugoslavian SKS grenade looks like: http://www.inert-ord.net/yugos/yughr/m60/
roux January 10th, 2004, 03:13 PM

the solution to the use of a wooden dowel would be some kind of pipe cap fitted over the back end of the dowel.
SithLord January 10th, 2004, 04:54 PM

ATTENTION AL NOBEL: I believe that the grenade you are refering to is a german manufacture high explosive with the designation m 30. There is one that will be on ebay for
the next six days you can look at to see if that's it. I don't know if it's that one or a similar one. Try to unscrew the front end cap. If you can than you might see a string that
can be pulled. DO NOT PULL IT!! It is the activation that you can use before you throw it. It might arm the grenade. So, anyway, this grenade was meant to be for either a rifle
or to throw. Kinda smart of them.

Anything like a short dowel would be a disaster!
If you want to bulged barrel or to blow your gun to bits, try sticking a heavy lump down the barrel, so the gas pressure wave hits it, and the barrel will not love you for it!
The only safe way to do this would be to have a stick long enough to reach the end of the blank, so that the pressure doesn't spike like it would with a gap.
Obviously, if you have millions in R&D to spend, and don't mind the loss of a few rifles, you can make one better than that, as seen in the military world, but otherwise, it is
borrowed time!
Too many black powder shooters have destroyed modern repro firearms (and old ones too) by not fully seating either the wad or the bullet in the barrel, causeing the gun to
explode, and a rifle grenade will weigh a lot more than any bullet!
Make sure you use a long stick, or a small charge!
Mike76251 January 10th, 2004, 11:42 PM

So launching the grenades looks like it has been covered (the correct blank charge) but what about the detonator?
I took one (like the top pic) apart and saw a hollow area in the nose for what I guessed to be piezoelectric cystrals.
I assume the round hits something and the cystrals develop a charge to fire a cap.
If so...........what type of cap and how much current would it take to set it off?
The copper stand-off inside even the blank training rounds is a very handy thing BTW.
roux January 12th, 2004, 08:22 PM

so what kind of material(or length of material) would be better suited for shooting a grenade from a rifle? and wouldnt a homemade firearm be more economical for shooting
off a grenade than useing a real one(especialy for testing)?
daysleeper January 15th, 2004, 06:41 PM
a little different than the rest of these post, a few years back the Shotgun News used to carry an ad by a company that made
a device that would go onto the muzzle end of a AK or sks barrel, like a twist on flash hider, this device then had a steel cup structure that held a can sized object, like a beer
or pepsi can, it was actually stated in the ad that it was designed to shoot full cans of beer or soda loaded with SAND!, but i have not seen or been able to locate this company
for 5 years now. These devices used blank rounds and boasted a 300 yard range i believe.
anyone got anything else on this device or company to help out this thread?
this is my first post...please be gentle, lol
---------------------
Your post does look especially different because your keyboard seems to lack the "shift "key. It's a prerequisite for being a member to our forum, so you better get one ;)!
Rhadon
Mike76251 January 16th, 2004, 02:48 AM

Those things were alot of fun alright but liability insurance today means you can't sell them anymore.
Many weapons out there just aren't designed to take this kind of punishment.
Cyclonite January 16th, 2004, 08:55 AM

Back to the UXO question, if it fits over a rifle barrel and when you look in the back end there is just the chamber for the rifle to go in or a series of pierced bullet
catches than its a rifle grenade. You dont need to rearm it, it either didnt arm due to a malfunction of its armed and didnt strike the target at the right angle or didnt
have enough impact. In that case its armed right now and you may want to get rid of it, it could very well kill you. Iv seen grenades that have just a tiny grain of sand
that was stuck in just right preventing the striker from hitting the primer and it just needed a tiny nudge to turn you into pink mist. For everyone, if you do decide to
fuck with an UXO make sure it hasnt been fired or the fuse is gone. Some of these items are very temperamental and are not worth your life. Some have anti
withdrawal devices on the fuse that will result in detonation upon trying to remove it.
nbk2000 January 16th, 2004, 05:09 PM

This would be the perfect time to practice using water-charges to knock off the fuse, or rupture the cases open so you can extract the explosive within, since I'd think it's only
the explosive within the UXO that the pyro is after, not the shell itself.
Rhadon, not only is there a bunch of people buying imitation keyboards that lack shift keys, but there's also a lot of bogus keyboards lacking space bars, capital I letters, and
even paragraph return keys! I won't even get into the incomprehensible non-standard english keyboards.
My god, what's this world coming to?! ;)
AsylumSeaker January 16th, 2004, 10:05 PM

Reading an AK 47 users manual I notice that the AK can use the thing described by daysleeper to lob regular hand grenades. I have also been told of RPGs, like an RPG 7 style
one which have a rod on the end and you can launch it from the barrel of a rifle. Interesting.
daysleeper January 18th, 2004, 02:32 AM

Hey Asylumseaker does it give a picture or perhaps detailed specs of this device? I would love to get my grips on one.
Karstjager August 21st, 2006, 06:46 AM

I think simply way to do design rifle grenades copy type russian VPGS ramrod-rifle grenade.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4716/vpgsxj7.th.jpg
big pic.-
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4716/vpgsxj7.jpg
WBR,
Poroch
w22shadow August 27th, 2006, 07:41 PM

I stumbled across a company selling "dummy" rifle grenades today. I doubt it would be too difficult to make a "live" example with similar specifications. :)
Links:
"Israeli Training Grenade with Green Aluminum Tube - Fully Inert"
http://www.keepshooting.com/militarysurplus/collectibles/israeli_training_grenade.htm
"USGI WWII Rifle Grenade Adapter with Inert Grenade"
http://www.keepshooting.com/militarysurplus/collectibles/riflegrenadecombo.htm
I have been interested in the potential uses of the "grenade launcher" on the Yugoslavian M59/M66; it is a very inexpensive weapon (http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/
Yugoslavian_Model_59_66_7_62x39_SKS_Rifle.html).
nbk2000 August 28th, 2006, 02:33 AM

An even better deal:
http://www.keepshooting.com/militarysurplus/collectibles/rifle-grenade-kit-israeli.htm
6 grenades, plus all the spare parts so you can practice to proficency with them, for $200.
Once you're good with 'em, replace the inert head with a cast HE head containing an impact fuze. Bombs away. :)

An even better deal... Sweet. :cool: Once you're good with 'em, replace the inert head with a cast HE head containing an impact fuze. Bombs away. :) Inert-Ord.net (http://
www.inert-ord.net/), along with a wealth of information on other subjects, has several great articles on the device:
Links:
"Yugoslavian M60P1 HE Rifle Grenade"
http://www.inert-ord.net/yugos/yughr/m60/index.html
"Walt's Page" (User: open/Password: 1945 (http://www.inert-ord.net/opndr.html))
http://www.inert-ord.net/yugos/yughr/m60/Walt/index.html
"Yugoslavian M93 HEAT Rifle Grenade"
http://www.inert-ord.net/yugos/yughr/m93/index.html
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4505/yugoslaviangrenadefusedm1.jpg
More Links:
"Launching Rifle Grenades with the M70"
http://home.comcast.net/~m70AK3/RGlaunch.htm
"Yugoslavian M59/66 SKS Battle Rifle"
http://home.comcast.net/~pslromak3/SKSpage.htm
"Rifle Grenade Launching with M59/66"
http://home.comcast.net/~pslromak3/RGLAUNCH.htm
Diabolique September 14th, 2006, 04:49 PM

Concerning piezo-fuses, be very carful of them, particularly after they have been fired. When going into the impact areas in Arizona, it was important to watch out for them due
to even your shadow on a warm day to stress the tourmaline crystal enough for it to generate a electric impulse sufficient to set off the round. Not often, but once is enough to
ruin your day, if not the rest of your life.
The design of the RPG-7 warhead was such that chain link fence can crush it and short out the firing impulse. That has saved a few lives, but the military seems to have
forgotten that trick.
neo-crossbow July 11th, 2007, 10:38 PM

I'm pretty sure that some rifle grenades were fired with blank rounds, maybe before they came up with the bullet-catching design?
I know this to be true with the M1 Carbine, I also know that the grenade launching round was different to its blank round. Had more go go from memory.
They still can be purchased in the right circles, its a bit of a relic though
Roaster72 July 16th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Google is your friend.
http://www.bloomautomatic.com/
Food for thought.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > EMP device
Log in
View Full Version : EMP device
Arthis February 9th, 2003, 07:13 AM

The EMP wea pon is one of the m ost powerful tools som e o n e c a n dream about, in order to put anarchy or so without causing
any casualties.
End of the introduction.
I found a few link about EMP: <a href="http://www.eskim o.com/~bilb/freenrg/empweap.html" target="_blank">http://

www.eskim o.com /~bilb/freenrg/empweap.html</a> ,
<a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec06.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/
p2sec06.pdf</a> that m ay be interesting.
</fo nt><blockquote>quote:<hr /> A com mercial 100 kV DC power sup ply was used to charge the 20-stage Marx,
where it charged its capacitors in parallel, and then via a series of
spark gaps discharged them in series. With the power supply set to 27 kV,
the Marx would outpu t a 265 kV, 3500 ampere, 21.4-nanosecond pulse <hr /></blockquote>This seems to be a good EMP device, but then a few questions co m e t o m y m ind: such a
generator should deliver a very high pulse, considered that atom ic bombs deliver a pulse of 100 kV (if I rem ember well). Later
in the text, it's said that they m a n a g e d t o d e s t r o y c o m puters... Considering that they m a d e t h e e x p e r i m e n ts on the ground, I
u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e r a n g e o f t h e e x p e riment was not really wide .
A ve ry wide range can be reached with a HEMP (High-altitude EMP), between 20-40 km. It would be able to reach, if launched in
the m iddle of the USA, the whole North Am erica. The curve of the Earth is reducing the ran g e o f g r o u n d - b a s e d e x p l o s i o n s , b u t
considering that EMP is a electrom agnetic field, it should be able to "curv" itself, with interferom etry for exam p l e , a s t h e p u l s e
produced is so fast that the source can be considered as coherent.
The fact that the pulse delivered by the marx generator is long (21.4 ns) com p a r e d t o t h o s e e m itted by be tter system s
(~10ns), and very long com pared to the one delivered by nuclear weapons (~a few ns, basically 1 ns) may be one point to be
taken into account.
Another point I was wondering about is the physical aspect of the pulse. The pulse is a electromagnetic wave, but its generated
by e xcited electrons hit by photons. Are the ele ctrons also moving (I kno w they are not part of the pure EM wave) allowing the
device to have an exponential effect in its area of detonation ?
Finally, such a device would be a really great stuff for anyone: think about what you can do with. You can destroy
c o m m unications, then attack a place, or it may allow to pose bom bs without being recorded by cam eras, and it m ay turn a city
into anarchy: imagine new-york without electricity: I doubt many system s are protected against EMP. (Mayb e I s h o u l d h a v e
seen Ocean's Eleven twice: it gives me b a d i d e a s , t h o u g h I k n e w t h e s y s t e m well before).
nbk2000 February 9th, 2003, 11:31 AM

You're not going to get nation -paralyzing EMP without exploding a m ulti-m e g a t o n H-bom b in the e xosphere. NO THING even
c o m e s c l o s e t o m a t c h i n g t h e E M P p u l s e o f a n u ke, in either raw power, or in rise time.
Arthis February 10th, 2003, 07:48 AM

I know that we cannot m ake a nation-paralysing EMP generator, and of course it's not what I want. I first would like to
u n d e r s t a n d s o m e p o i n t s , t h a t I a s k e d , b u t n o m atter I keep searching. And the test m a d e i n t h e l i n k I g a v e u s e d a
c o m m ercial high voltage gene rator to charge the m arx generator, what I, as one m ay gue ss, can't afford.
W hat I want is to m a k e e v e n a s m a l l E M P d e v i c e , i n o r d e r t o b e a b l e t o p r o v o k e e v e n s m all power defficien ces, or/and destroy

low ranged electronic devices. I think it's possible to m ake that with affordable material, though I haven't checked yet all what
is needed to.
I t w o u l d b e u s e d f o r e x a m ple to cut all system s of a place I wan t to get in: when you want to raid a deposit (is it the right word
?), you take less risks if you cut com m unications, even for a short while.
But anyway, no one h as any a nswer about the theory, about what I asked ?
Mr Cool February 10th, 2003, 12:25 PM

Here we go again...
T h e o u t p u t o f the Marx bank will need to be coupled to som e s o rt of electrical resonator, be it a big magne tron with big,
powerful m agnets to cope with the high voltage , or an LC circuit like in a tesla coil. This se cond one would be simplest, there
are plans on the internet for producing tesla coils of ma ny kW . Make it the bipola r type and you wouldn't need a ground
connection. You'd need an output capacitance, the toroid/sphere, that was physically large with a large radius of curvature. This
way you're le ss likely to get arcing, which would use up energy that would otherwise go into the wave.
T h e o u t p u t o f t h e M a r x b a n k c o u l d a l s o b e c o u p l e d t o a flux com p r e s s i o n g e n e r a t o r ( I I R C that's what they're called), where a
solenoid with a large current through it is progressively shorted by a copper cylinder that is expanded by an explosive charge.
"atom i c b o m b s d e l i v e r a p u l s e o f 1 0 0 k V "
Atomic bom bs produce no electricity. Maybe the photons responsible for the EMP have energies of around 100keV? But this
s e e m s quite a low energy...
It's m y understanding that the photons from the nuke blast hit electrons in the gas of the a t m o s p h e r e , a n d e j e c t t h e m
(inverse bremstrahlung radiation, sp?). The high-energy electrons produced are under the influence of the Earth's m agnetic
field , which causes them t o b e n d a n d e m it radiation, similar to synchrotron radiation (charged particles accelerating emit EM
radiation).
A high altitude EMP would need m a s s i v e a m ounts of power to do anything at the surface, due to the inverse square law. O nly
nukes can provide this power.
A n o n - n u k e o n e c o u l d b e m ade, but it would not be a concealable "bom b" type device. It would ha ve to be truck/lorry sized to
have a significant effect.
A rich terrorist could probably create an EM area-denial device, using lots of generators and lots an d lots of modified microwave
ovens, picked up at a scrap yard. Modify the ovens to work with their doo rs open, and m a k e a w a l l o f t h e m o n o n e s i d e o f a
lorry. Turn on the generators, and anyone too close gets very hot and is forced to retreat. But gas would be m ore cost
effective!!
Arthis February 10th, 2003, 12:38 PM
It's a pretty surprising difference comp ared to what we can find on the web, I remem ber having read about E-bom bs for 400$
o n a s e r i o u s m a g a z i n e , a n d t h o u g h I n e v e r b e l i e v e d t h e i n f o r m ation.
Thanks for the info anyway.
Another link for anyone interested despite difficulties: <a href="http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.m il/airchronicles/kopp/
apje mp.htm l" target="_blank">http://www.airpower.m axwell.af.m il/airchronicles/kopp/apje mp.htm l</a>
<sm all>[ February 10, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Arthis ]</sm all>
controlphreak June 15th, 2003, 03:21 PM

The magazine by the way was Popular Science and they were talking about it. If I remm eber correctly, they designed one in
very gernal detail where in the end of the bom b (where the fins were) they had th e p r o p e l l e n t s , a n d t h e n a h u g e b a ttery and
then a capacitor. Then infront of that, they had a copper pipe filled with C-4 or som e other explisve com p u n d s u r r o u n d e d b y a
thick copper wire. Then in the cone, they had a warhead that created shrapnel. The theory behind it was that an instnat before
detonation, allt he power in th e battery would g o into the capacitor and then into the copper coil, which would then create a
m agnetic field. The core rod would explode and create shrapnel which would act like a m oving short circut.
I apologize if I am wrong, my first post on this board, a nd I am doing that from m emory.
Controlphrea k
Tuatara June 15th, 2003, 07:53 PM

Mr C ool has it 99% right. Sadly Tesla coils do n o t o p e r a t e a t a h i g h e n o u gh frequency to be of any use (typically under 1 MHz).
Marx bank wont work without some form of antenna to radiate the power - and it is extrem ely difficult to build a really
wide band antenna to handle the kind of power you want to transmit.
B e s t r e s u l t s s o f a r h a v e b e e n d o n e u s i n g B I G m a g n e t r o ns, powered by a compulsator (com pensated pulsed altnerator - really

im p r e s s i v e b e a s t i e s , g o s e a r c h ; ) ) o r a f l u x c o m p r e s s i o n g e n e r a tor, which is more along the lines of interest in this forum as it
uses an explosive to generate electrical power (single use only!)
Oh, and any URL with 'freenrg' in it instantly sets off m y 'pseudo-science' warning bells.
firebreether June 16th, 2003, 04:05 AM

If you want a reusable device for short range attacks. I'd suggest HERF- alot of that going on here: www.voltsam ps.com (http:/
/www.voltsam ps.com ) Itll be weak, but have a useable range, and be built from o ff the shelf (literally) components. Or at
least, instead of both ering with a m arx generator, first try a sim ple cap d ischarge bank, Then work your way up if you need to.
Non reuseable probably flux com pression device. Problem is testing destroys your device so requires muchos dollars.
The electrons created in a nuclear EMP event are m oving fast, and chang ing direction fast too, this is what causes the EM waves
to form i believe. Im not sure what an exponential effect in the area of detonation m eans, but im a s s u m ing we arent talking
nuclear anym ore, which would mean th at there wont be (m )any stray electrons. But with any wave taveling in a spherical path
outward, the intensity will follo w the inverse square law, double the distance, you get 1/4 the intensity, if that helps.
The process where electrons a re excite d by incident pho tons is called com pton scattering. And I believe prom pt fission
g a m mas tend to average in the 1 MeV range.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Sem i - A u t o M a y h e m
Log in
View Full Version : Semi-Auto Mayhem
Spudkilla February 19th, 2003, 09:08 PM

W ell, I was b ored today, so I went abo ut looking at som e of my old favorite places, and b ehold! W hile I was at Xinventions,
s o m ething caught m y eye. The webm a s t e r t h e i r h a s d e v o l o p e d a s e m i - a u t o m atic pneum atic air cannon, powered by a CO2
tank so that it is portable. I would provide information on how to build it, yet it costs fiftee n <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> dollars to get the plans! Rip-off!
I wish I knew m o r e a b o u t t h e a u t o - l o a d i n g m e c h a n i s m . Here is what he says about it on the site: <blockquote><fon t

size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr />It uses a bolt-
like system which grabs and p laces the am m o in the ba rrel, directing the air flow only to the projectile being fired, and springs
back to catch another projectile automatically. <hr /></blockquote>I
also wish I could see his "detailed diagram s "
T h e C O 2 s y s t e m is pretty easy. All you need is a regula tor, set to about 100 PSI, and as soon as you fire, the CO2 tank will
automatically refill the air resevoir.
I cannot tell what type of cannon it is, but if I h ad to guess, I would say it is either a diaphragm or piston type cannon. I'm
thinking of "borrowing" som e m oney from my friends to order th e plans. If I ever do, I wo u l d u p l o a d t h e m to the FTP.
The knowledge of this would be very good. You could safely and effectively build a system to launch tear gas, or other
g o o d i e s . Y o u c o u l d e v e n b u i l d one to be operated by re mote control.
Any speculation on how the "a utom atic loading mechanism " works?
A picture:
<img src="http://www.xinventions.com/m ain/spud/pac6.h1.jpg" alt=" - " />
*EDIT* I encountered problem s with PGP Corporate Desktop 7.1 1, and had to uninstall. W ith it on my com puter, I could not
post new topics at E&W , or check m y hotmail m ail :(
EDIT: Couldn't reduce the size of the im a g e y o u p o s t e d u s i n g U B B c o d e , s o s w a p p e d i t f o r a s m a l l e r o n e t o s t o p t h e p a g e

stretching ou t. - Anthony
<sm all>[ February 19, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Anthony ]</sm all>
Anthony February 19th, 2003, 11:14 PM

In it's present state it doesn't seem to o g o o d .
By the creator's description, you drop a round into the stubby "m a g a z i n e " a n d t h e g u n a u t o m a t i c a l l y c h a m bers it. To me tha t
isn't semi-auto - it's breach lo ading single shot.
You might as well load directly into the breach with a hand operated bolt, or a bre ak barrel action. W h i l s t a g a s o p e r a t e d b o l t
m ay offer a slight advantage in firing rate, it also consu m e s m o r e g a s a n d d e c r e a s e s r e l i a b i l i t y .
Now, if it was full auto, or even true sem i, with a decent mag, then it'd be m ore of a weapon. At present it's a bolt action
breach loading CO2 powered gun - all of which have been done long ago.
Even as a full auto it wouldn't be anything new. IMO the creator although quite a sm art gu y (but not a patch on the
p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m of Ed Goldmann), is just out to m ake a few quick bucks.
Unless you really wan t to build one *ju st like* his and want cut-along-the-dotted-line instructions, anyone would be better off
saving their m oney and utilising the existing information available on the internet. Particularly that provided by people m ore
interested in spudguns themselves than dollars.
Sorry, but "buy my plans!" sites piss m e off.
Energy84 February 22nd, 2003, 03:53 AM

<a href="http://geocities.com/autoaircannon/index.htm l" target="_blank ">http://geocities.com / a u t o a i r c a n n o n / i n d e x . h t m l < / a >

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > full auto Saiga?
Log in
View Full Version : full auto Saiga?
phyrelord February 21st, 2003, 12:04 PM

I was curious about the saiga shotguns. W ith them being similar to AKs can they be m ade full auto? Maybe cutting off the
barrel at the end of the gas feed to eliminate about a foot of length. Can a pistol grip be mounted on to them. If so how is
there a bolt that runs through the stock like the Remington shotguns or would the lower receiver have to be replaced. W hat i
would like to do is m ake a 20 gauge, full-auto, easily concealable, room clearer, for squirrels of co urse. I was also wondering if
a n y o n e h a d a n e x p l o d e d d i a g ram for the parts and if anyone knew whether or no t i could buy larger m a g s o r m a k e t h e m .
Thanks
BoB- February 21st, 2003, 01:42 PM

I've always u nderstood the grips to be interchangable;
<img src="http://club .guns.ru/im a g e s / s a i g a 2 0 k - s m . j p g " a l t = " - " / >
Jumala February 21st, 2003, 07:47 PM

I dont know the saiga shotguns but Ive seen a website about Franchi SPAS 12 and more modern guns.
SPAS 12 has this thre e m o d e s - P u m p , S e m i-auto or Fu ll auto
<a href="http://spas12.com / s p a s 1 2 n o t . h t m " target="_blank">http://spas12.com / s p a s 1 2 n o t . h t m < / a >
I would also like to know how it works.
Here is a pic of a SPAS 15
<img src="http://spas12.com /spas/fuc_spas15b.jpg" alt=" - " />
<sm all>[ February 21, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Jum ala ]
zaibatsu February 22nd, 2003, 09:14 AM

I'm not sure, but I know that switching from full/sem i-auto to pump disconnects the gas-cycling system. I'd imagine that the
p u m p-m ode is just like cycling a semi-auto rifle action by hand. About th e Saigas, I'd ima gine that anything that's sem i-auto
can be converted to full auto, especially if its based on the AK design.
Also, if you eliminate a foot or so after the gas tube you'd BETTER be opening up the gas-tube hole a lot, to ensure reliable
cycling.
phyrelord March 1st, 2003, 12:45 PM

zaibatsu how would i go about opening that up. The AK i had it was almost impossible to get down in the gas port. would it be
e a s i e r t o s h a v e s o m e weight off of the bolt carrier assem bly? Does anyone know if i can m ake a larger m agazine. I would like
to m ake a drum, wou ld it be possible to change an ak drum over to 20 gauge? i want to get at lea st 10 rounds, any ideas are
greatly appreciated.
zaibatsu March 1st, 2003, 05:53 PM

I'm not sure how to g et to the gas port on the AK, aren't the barrels pressed in at the factory? Som e h o m e b u i l d e r s u s e
hydraulic presses capable of 3-5 tons of pressure. Altho ugh I'm not that clear on how its done. However, on a FN FAL the barrel
screws off, and to open up the gas port if you dram atically shorten the barrel I think you drill then ream it out to .125".
MacCleod March 1st, 2003, 06:11 PM

T h e s e m i - a u t o v e r s i o n s o f t h i s s h o t g u n h a v e t h e t r i g g e r a s s e m bly mounted at the very end of the reciever,whereas the pistol
grip version's trigger is set forward several inches (to facilitate said pistol grip).You m ight be able to m odify an existing pistol
grip stock to fit it,though (like on the Benelli assault shotguns).
T h e r e a r e 1 0 r o u n d s t i c k m a g s a n d 2 0 r o u n d d r u m m ags for the US-AS 12 shotgun that could be modified to fit,but because
they're pre-b an, thier cost is prohibitive-$100 p lus for the sticks,and $600 to $800 for the drum s.
Go to- <a href="http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/saiga-12.html" target="_blank">http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/saiga-12.html</a>
to see side-by-side pic's of both versions (the pistol grip variety is only a vailable to law enforcement/military).
<sm all>[ March 01, 2 0 0 3 , 0 8 : 3 0 P M : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : M a c C leod ]</sm all>
phyrelord March 4th, 2003, 12:26 AM

what is the best way to cut a barrel down i had planned on using a hacksaw and m iter box then sanding the barrel down with a
very fine san dpaper. Afterwards i was going to use the bluing kits to reblue the end of the barrel. Is this the best way to do it
at hom e ?
zaibatsu March 4th, 2003, 05:15 PM

The best way is to m ake the cut then use a lathe and lots of coolant to finish the end true. However, a m itre box and hacksaw
to roughly cu t it off, then finishing with an engineers square thing (Can't think of the name, looks like an L shape) and a file
to straighten it up. If this is ju st a shotgun barrel then I don't think it'd b e that im portant to finish the end exactly square, but
with a rifle or airgun its very important. W ork slowly with the file and it should go fine, and give yourself some room for error.
Anthony March 4th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Don't forget to recrown the barrel too. A power drill and counter-sink bit, or a drem el with appropria te tool should suffice.
stickfigure March 19th, 2003, 10:00 AM

The Saiga co uld be converted if you got the parts, they should b e a b o u t s a m e b u t, the Sa iga's trig ger group is farther back in
the receiver, where th e grip is. That wo u l d b e a p r o b l e m for the folding stock idea of Phyrelord's, the grip is in the wrong place
a n d i t w o u l d t a k e a g o o d g u n s m i t h t o m ove the trigger group forward. An alternative would be to leave the trigger in place and
u s e t h e s t o c k a s a m o l d o r t e m plate to have a custom folder m ade for it. The USAS m a g s a r e a g o o d i d e a , o r o t h e r 1 2 - g a u g e
m a g s . A l s o i t c o u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o u s e y o u r m a g s a s a t e m p l a t e t o m ake your own out of sheet m etal, sheet m etal is
a m azingly easy to bu ild stuff out of, m ags are welded with a spot-welder that is e a s y t o u s e .

The Saigas can be converted just like an AK-47 . You just have to get an AK full auto trigger group with the auto sear, and drill
the extra hole for the auto sear. You will have to custom m a n u f a c t u r e a n auto sear pin ho wever, because the Saiga's receiver
is slightly wider than a standard AK. Then you would have to weld a sm all trip on the bolt carrier to trip the auto sear. W ith a
full auto ham m er, you would then be ready to rock and roll. (A full auto shotgun is absurd however. They are not co ntrollable
enough to be particularly effective. I have shot a full au to SPAS. W ith 00 buck shot, it certainly did put out a wall of lead, but it
was extremely hard to keep your finge r on the trigger long enou gh to em pty the 25 round drum. Stick with sem i auto.)
BlackTallon April 10th, 2003, 01:26 AM

A couple of other thin gs I forg ot to me ntion...
Stick figure... Look at the pic Bob posted at the top. That is actu ally a folding stock. They are standard on the Non-BATF-
ASSRAPED versions of the Saigas.
Also, You can buy 10 round m ags for them . Don't bother trying to m a k e y o u r s e l f o n e . T h e y a r e $ 3 5 . J u s t a b o u t a n y s u p p l i e r o f
Saig as should carry them . If that doesn't flip up your dress though, the SPAS I shot had a 25 round drum. I im agine with a
little imagination you could convert them it fit in a Saiga even th ought the m ag catch is totally different. The 75round AK dru m
to 20 bore id ea could have m erit, but I tend to im agine it would just be a pain in the ass. Anyway, 75round drums are $80. I
h a v e s e e n S P A S d r u m s for $100 in NFA circles. It's not worth destroying a good drum to try to save $20. Anyway, I don't think
the feed lips would allow the shot shells to feed properly without some serious m achine work.
<sm all>[ April 10, 2003, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: BlackTa llon ]

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > "Scew Action" Firearms
Log in
View Full Version : "Scew Action" Firearms
Axt February 24th, 2003, 05:16 AM

Heres a couple guns which ive dubbed "screw action", very simple & versatile.
This is the gun I made reference to in the gun turret thread, though I lost the original so I made it again.
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/pengun.jpg" alt=" - " />
It uses a couple "olive pressure fittings?" joined in a coupling? (ive no idea what the actual fittings names are) originaly made to fire a dart via a shotshell primer, but as the
dart is destroyed every shot you can load a #7.5 shot into the 1/8" brass barrel (about .10cal) for quite a high velocity. The dart works quite well and is very quiet as the
barrel volume more then doubles before the dart leaves the muzzle.
<a href="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/pengundiagram.jpg" target="_blank">Diagram</a>

<a href="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/pengunbreak.jpg" target="_blank">Parts</a>
<a href="http://miss.fnpsites.com/pengunshoot.avi" target="_blank">test avi</a> <-- LINKS DOWN
This one is a 12ga handgun, never fired from my hand as I dont truly trust the ergonomics of it in regards to recoil.
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/12ga.jpg" alt=" - " />
The 12ga itself using a load of shot I think would only be lethal to about 2 or 3 metres. A 1oz slug is the round of choice.
Its nice as (in theory) you could screw any sized barrel onto it in any calibre as long as its a rimmed case. Ive seen the 20mm pipe (used in the barrel) with ID's down to 9mm.
and if you use the shotshell to provide the propellant even up to <a href="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/grenadelauncher.jpg"
target="_blank">40mm</a> :)
[ March 17, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Axt ]
Mr Cool February 24th, 2003, 08:44 AM

The dart gun is very neat - have you done any penetration tests?
Do you use wadding behind the projectile?
Edit: what exactly is happening in the video? It isn't very clear...
[ February 24, 2003, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]
Observer February 24th, 2003, 08:55 AM

Looks like the dart goes through the wooden board, then the bottle. Bubbles enter the bottle after the projectile has passed as the water starts to pour out.
Nice construction by the way.
Axt February 24th, 2003, 09:27 AM

Does the movie work? did for me at home but it isnt for me now..
Not sure what the movie is but its the .10cal ball shooting through either a aerosol can or a plank & 1.25L coke bottle of water, in either case it went right through.
If the movie is the one with the plank, the fins get stuck in the wood, it doesnt penetrate as far as the lead ball, which I think is supersonic, though its a lot smaller and a lot
louder.
For the wadding I guess you mean with the .10cal ball, it doesnt need it as after the first shot there is enough residue in the barrel to hold it in place.
edit: Observer has noted what movie it is, but its the lead ball not the dart, and water didnt actually pour out until the bottle had 10 (very small) holes in it.
[ February 24, 2003, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Axt ]
dave February 24th, 2003, 05:53 PM

Great gun, sort of reminds me of my gun. Your gun uses pipe to make, i was just wondering what schedule is that pipe and has it ever failed on you?
Ezekiel Kane February 24th, 2003, 07:24 PM

Thats a great idea man. It reminds me of the scene in Phantasm where the boy tapes a shotgun shell onto a hammer and swings it into the door, blowing a six inch hole in it.
Anyway, you might consider designing the tip to release a poison held in the dart upon impact. I'm not sure how much work that would require, though. Just an idea.
Axt February 24th, 2003, 09:06 PM

There is a number of pipe sizes in the barrel, to provide the right sized chamber/barrel.
We dont use the "schedule" system in Australia, though I have heard talk of it so there may be direct equivalents. Ours is sold as light/medium/heavy/extra heavy etc.. in
seamless/seamed. 20mm is same as 3/4" (about 26mm OD) and 25mm is 1" (I think around 32mm OD) based on the BSP thread sizes.
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/12gabarrel.gif" alt=" - " />
I made it as strong as I could with what was on hand, the pipe is unlikely to fail, the weld at the back of the fitting is probably the weakest part which there has been no
problems with.
Poison would not be too easy with this design as the dart fits over the barrel as opposed to inside it, so must be hollow.
[ February 24, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Axt ]
Charlie Workman March 3rd, 2003, 03:30 AM

Nice piece of work, Axt. It's always good to see someones ideas in action. You've basically reinvented the "Airrow" gun which is manufactured in the US. It uses the same tube
down the center of the dart (or crossbow bolt in their case). It uses common .22 blanks to launch the bolt at about 450 feet per second. Noise is said to be about half of that of
a conventional .22. If you're interested in finding out more, do a websearch on "airrow". Keep up the good work, you've given me some ideas to play with on my own.
smokey March 7th, 2003, 11:24 AM

nothing like a bit of good old aussie lateral designing its a nea idea, thanx for sharing it with us
(Nothing like a worth-while post, either :p ~MrC)
[ March 07, 2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]
Axt March 7th, 2003, 11:08 PM

Did you search for " <a href="http://www.swivelmachine.com/html/rimfire.htm" target="_blank">airrow</a>" not "airarrow" ...
It seems to give a surprisingly high velocity to the arrow, considering its weight and the "dead air space" between the charge and arrow. You could probably increase the
velocity by adding wadding to a wire runnig up inside the arrow to remove the air space, though you would get more noise/pressure.
Heres some misc. construction pics I took while making it, was going to make a site but im pretty bloody lazy.
firing pin
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/firingpin.jpg" alt=" - " />
opposing faces
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/faces.jpg" alt=" - " />
working parts
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/pengunbreak2.jpg" alt=" - " />
To avoid confusion the thing at the back of the dart in pic (first post) is a small rifle primer (probably where the wadding question came from is it?), dont bother with anything
less then shotshell primers as I did try small rifle/large rifle/large pistol/shotshell, with shotshell by far the best with no pressure problems.
The holes to accomodate the primers were -

small rifle - 4.5mm
large rifle/pistol - 5.5mm
shotshell - 6.5mm (6mm is a tight fit, hard to get back out)
A 2mm drill bit firing pin is right size for shotshell primers and perfect fit inside the 1/8" fitting, so fits together easy with little work needed.
[ March 07, 2003, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Axt ]
Mr Cool March 8th, 2003, 12:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />probably where the wadding
question came from is it?<hr /></blockquote>My wadding question came from my confusion, I didn't understand
how it worked fully. I didn't realise that the pipe went inside the arrow, so I was wondering what stopped the gases from just rushing past it. But now it is clear.
smokey March 8th, 2003, 03:44 PM

thanks axt, i did spell it wrong ( i can be a dumbass somtimes )
i have seen a similar rifle to the airow a long time ago it was used for harpooning small whales , it consiste of a 303 with nothing forward of the magazine exept the barell with
everthing turned of so that it was just a smooth tube a hollow spear about 3 foot long with a mean motherfukin barbed head on it and a loop to attach a line to it i never saw
it fired though i would think that it would only be used over 10 - 50 metres
Bigfoot March 11th, 2003, 11:42 AM

Just in case anyone's wondering, I believe "olive fittings" are known as compression fittings in the US. A look at the compression rings will tell you why the nick "olive".
Why not reverse the bolt? Then, using a wingnu, you'd have a safety of sorts.
[ March 11, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Bigfoot ]
Fukineh March 12th, 2003, 07:45 PM

This is very interesting as just a few days ago I (before reading this) started experimenting with my own zip guns and I am almost finished making one out of brass fittings like
yours. The main difference is, my gun uses C7 assault rifle and C9 light machine gun blanks as a charge and I load home made ammunition in front of the blanks. Where do I
get these in Canada? My friend is in the army, and he can easily jack blank ammunition. He could jack live ammunition and grenades if he really wanted to, but if he where
caught.......
Anyway, I am very pleased with the power displayed by a crude prototype (it shot a small screw through a wooden cabinet). Since my friends role in the army is a C6 gunner
(heavy machine gun), I would eventually like to construct one of these to shoot C6 rounds. I don't know how safe and effective that would be in a handgun, however, so we
would probably have to make that one a rifle.

Heavy machine gunner? So we're talking large calibre, .308<, pressures created by those rounds will be large. Plus, you'll have to cut a chamber using a chamber reamer as
they are bottle-necked and not straight wall cartridges. Plus, to make any use of the large powder charge you'll need a long barrel. In short, I'm doubtful, but it'd be great if
you could, and if you do - post pics <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Fukineh March 13th, 2003, 12:24 AM

Don't worry, I won't be taking any chances with C6 ammunition (7.62 mm rounds). That's just a long term plan for now.
BTW Axt; I would love to see how you did the trigger configuration on your hand gun. I need to have a fireing pin that does not obstruct loading my gun (it loads from the
back, and the pin hole is in the screw on end cap which gets taken off to reload.)
[ March 12, 2003, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Fukineh ]
BoB- March 15th, 2003, 06:02 PM

I'm also curious, is the 12gauge pistol firing mechanism just like the dart guns'?
Axt March 16th, 2003, 12:28 AM

The wingnut safety isnt a bad idea, as is the "hammer" always sits on the firing pin, a couple turns just to pull it off would make it safer, though could also become a bit of a
pain.
Yes the trigger mech. is nearly the same for both.
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/12gatrigger.jpg" alt=" - " />

Thanks for the diagrams. What I'm probably going to end up doing with my gun is to have the chamber and barrel on a hinge that can bend down while I load, then fold back
up to the firing pin system after it has been loaded.
So are you using just the primers to fire darts/pellets? If so, how much power to you get? I may try making a tiny pocket sized primer gun if it acually provides adaquite power.
One could even make it more or less semi auto if they attatched the pellets to the primers first and made a magazine. This could also be accomplished with .22 rounds, which
strangely enough, I dont have access to; I can only get hold of high caliber amunition easily.

Yes, its just the shotshell primer. If you managed to get the movie before it went down you would have seen what it could do.
I remember once in a shooting magazine there was someone loading .22cal pellets over shotshell primers in a 22 hornet case. If I remember right the velocity was around
650fps, though I think the pellet would have been decellerating before it got to the muzzle in a rifle.
As you could imagine, a primer forms a very fast propellant therefor quite well suited to short barrels firing light, small calibre rounds.
Fukineh March 17th, 2003, 03:51 AM

Sounds cool; is there any way that you could try re-linking to video?

No, I dont have the movie anymore, and I wont make it back home for a couple months to make another.

Guess I will just have to try it for myself then. I just got hold of some .22 shells, so I'm also going to make a prototype for them. I'm hoping that if I make something small
(pocket sized) the charge won't be overly wasted, then again, with rifle ammunition in a handgun you aren't usually going to get great efficiency.
I'm currently working on the handle and trigger for my C7 blank ammunition gun, and when it's done I may post some pictures.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > W hat to do with a Ram s e t g u n ?
Log in
View Full Version : What to do with a Ramset gun?
A-BOMB February 26th, 2003, 01:29 AM

I was just at a hom edepot and was in the tool section when I saw this Ra m s e t / R e minton .27 cal semi-auto power nail driver.
But they had it strapped to the display with som e wire rope so I went and got a bolt cutter off the shelf and pop! the wire just
came off all of a sudden I cant under stand why <im g b order="0" title="" alt="[W ink]" src="wink.gif" /> W ell any ideas what I
can use it for? I'm thinking of useing it to break locks b ecause I fired I without a nail into a 12" beam(wood) and it knocked a
BIG chunk out of it. T hen I tried it on 3m m steel plate and it punched a hole right throught it I just wished I stol...... I m e a n
borrowed, ya thats what I m e a n , m o r e a m m o a n d m a y b e s o m e insturctions.
W ell heres the website, <a href="http://www.ram set-red h e a d . c o m " target="_blank">www.ram set-re d h e a d . c o m </a> look for the
Cobra
and heres a pic of it

<a href="ftp://ewf:sd 3 3 2 g f @ 2 0 9 . 1 9 5 . 1 5 5 . 8 0 / h o s t e d % 2 0im ages/new%20folder/tech0001.jpg" target="_blank">ftp://
e w f : s d 3 3 2 g f @ 2 0 9 . 1 9 5 . 1 5 5 . 8 0 / h o s t e d % 2 0 i m a g e s / n e w % 2 0 f o l d e r / t e c h 0 0 0 1.jpg</a >
<sm all>[ February 26, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: A-BOMB ]</sm all>
BoB- February 26th, 2003, 02:04 AM

Give the com pany a call, they should be able to send you an instruction m anual, just tell them you lost your copy. It would be
*very* interesting if you could convert it into a working firearm .

BoB I don't think I'll be able to convert it to "live" amm o because of the .27cal rounds tha t it shoots. And the part that you
have to press it against something to cock it and close that chamber. But I just got an ide a how I can fire bolts from it, I'll see
if it works and if it works I'll draw a diagram. And Vod don't try anything yet I'm still testing I'll tell you if it will work. Got to go
m u s t g e t s l e e p , t o o m a n y h o u r s o f p l a ying half-live.

O n m y unit the piston com e s o u t t h e e n d a b o u t 2 . 5 " a n d no way would it cut into the lock, but it cuts(semi-shatters) the wood
around the lock. So a fter a coule of shots the wood is easily just knocked out withe the lock attached. I'll post pic of m y trials
o n t h e d o o r o f a a b a d o n e d h o u s e / g a r a g e l a t e r w h e n t h e b a t t e r i e s f o r m y cam era recharge.
uvw February 28th, 2003, 06:06 AM

i purchased a ram set gun at a garage sale for $10, its easily convertable to m a k e i t s h o o t l i v e a m m o if you re-machine a new
barrel for it will happily shoot things. anyway using a long thread in it because its so hard it will easily smash through the locks
on a phone box, usually driving the lock throught the box or just sm ashing it off. or perhaps other locks.
I_am_the_Black_one March 6th, 2003, 01:03 AM

M a y b e u c o u l d u s e t h e R a m set to fire sm all darts Tip em with poison and they wo uld Be great to hunt the local err... gam e
I a m not fam ilur with the design of the Ram set but would sabots work if they where attach ed to a peice of wire sum ulating the
nail
A-BOMB March 6th, 2003, 02:11 AM

Now I'm thinking of using it to l a u n c h a g r a p p e l i n g h o o k I ' m m a k i n g o r b a r b e d m etal spik es with parachuet cord attached.
Anthony March 6th, 2003, 06:48 AM

W ow, just like a cordless demolition hamm er, but with more pun ch!
I gotta check the availability of these things over here...
Stoic March 6th, 2003, 08:03 AM

Anthony, you can buy them from Machine Mart. :D

I C a n't find them on their web site and no results for searchstrings of "ramset" or "hilti" and "nailgun" only brings up oversized
stap le guns.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Homemade Nuke
Log in
View Full Version : Homemade Nuke
10fingers February 27th, 2003, 03:17 AM

If one had the Plutonium or Uranium how hard would it be to construst a nuclear device? From what I have read it really
doesn't sound that difficult, especially a gun type. I think the implosion type device would be more of a challenge.
I have no interest in building such a thing but I was thinking if a terrorist group was to obtain the fissionable material it might
not be too difficult for them to do it.
What do you guys think?
Ezekiel Kane February 27th, 2003, 04:52 AM

I've read conflicting reports concerning how easily obtainable plutonium/uranium is. I've also read that traditional purification
systems required the government to set up miles of subterranean pipelines.
To construct a basic U-235 device, you would need QUITE an amount of uranium, and some U-238 to act as a neutron-
deflecting fission plate. A gun type device would be simple enough to construct, you just need sufficient force to propel the
smaller amount into the larger base, achieving critical mass.
A plutonium implosion type device would be MUCH harder to construct. You would need to cut 32 identical sphere-wedges of it
and separate them with (I believe) beryllium. A charge must be placed behind on each wedge to force it inward, thus creating
a critical plutonium mass. While this method is more effective if you have the means, most terrorists just don't.
The gun type is feasible, if you managed to obtain the U-235. I've read one report of a man stealing near-weaponsgrade
uranium right out of huge drums outside a nuclear power plant. I've also seen what United Nuclear (<a href="http://
www.unitednuclear.com/" target="_blank">http://www.unitednuclear.com/</a>) charges for uranium samples. Even though
uranium and its oxide are not (to my knowledge) restricted or monitored in any regular sense, if you buy a hundred kilograms
of uranium, expect a spook knocking on your door.
[ February 27, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Ezekiel Kane ]
NERV February 27th, 2003, 06:38 AM

You need nearly pure u-235 for atomic bombs, not u-238. I read somehere about a 15 year old kid who made nearly pure u-
235 in his shed. So it cant be the difficult to produce. Ill see if I can find anything intresting on extracting it.
[He did not make nearly pure U-235, not even close. If it was that easy nukes would be springing up all over the place.]
[Sorry confused U-233 with U-235.]
[ March 02, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: NERV ]
J February 27th, 2003, 02:09 PM

IMO, it's highly unlikely a terrorist could build a nuke. A Uranium device requires several tens of kilos of weapons grade U,
which isn't exactly easy to get hold of. And then the two or more subcritical masses must be forced together quickly enough to
produce a complete fission. If an incomplete fission occurs, there will be a small explosion, and most of the U will be scattered
around like a dirty bomb.
As for a Plutonium device, this would be far too difficult for the average bomb maker to construct. Someone used to making
pipe bombs full of TNT extracted from anti-tank mines just won't have the skill, even with the resources. A clever nuclear
physicist would be required for this, and a lot of money.
Even if a terrorist group did build a bomb, there's a high chance it wouldn't work. You can't exactly use trial and error with
these!
I'm much more worried about the electronics failing in some dilapidated Soviet missile silo and one of these being fired by
accident.
A43tg37 February 27th, 2003, 02:41 PM

NERV,
That 15-year old kid who "extracted uranium" in his shed wouldn't happen to have been "radioactive Boy Scout" David Hahn,
would it have? Because while he had quite a few interesting things stored in his mothers' potting shed (pure radium extracted
from radium watch hands, a quarter of his Pontiac's trunkload of pitchblende, americium from hundreds of smoke detectors,
thorium that was hundreds of times purer than that found anywhere in nature, and lithium that he was using to purify the
thorium) but no uranium-235 (besides the minute quantities in the pitchblende. He tried (and failed) to make a breeder
reactor with the radioactive materials he had. Howevr, what interests me most was his procedure for obtaining thorium from
gas mantles (and yes, I know that the newer gas mantles contain no thorium, but there are still hundreds of thousands of
older mantles around). If one were to use a simple barium or lithium based purification process like he did, one could
concievably get nearly pure thorium 232, which can be converted to uranium 233, which can be used in a gun-type bomb just
like U-235. This process would require thousands of gas mantles and hundreds of lithium batteries (these were the source
David Hahn used for his lithium; it might be easier to just purchase lithium if it isn't particularly restricted, or buy it as the
bromide/chloride salt as a pool chemical and extract the lithium from that) but has the advantage of not requiring the
purchase of any uranium or uranium compounds. Oh, and lest anyone say that the thorium to uranium process would never
work, it was the process North Korea planned to use back in the late 1950's to procure fuel for its reactors (Korea has
considerable thorium reserves), and they abadoned it not because it was unworkable, but because the Soviets basically just
gave them the technology for heavy water uranium fueled reactors, along with the needed uranium. Finally, if anyone would
like the full story of the "radioactive Boy Scout" and the methods/techniques he used fro obtaining and extracting his
radioactives, I can post it here. I have the full version from Harper's magazine; the one from Reader's Digest and most online
versions are heavily edited.
NERV February 27th, 2003, 04:50 PM
Yea it was the David Hahn kid. I think he made his U-233 by bombarding thorium 232 with neutrons. Its nothing to complex,
the only problem is getting enough materials to do it. His neutron gun was made of a lead block filled with Radium; a tiny
hole in the front was covered with Beryllium to produce neutrons. I am not sure though as to what he used to slow the
neutrons down.
spydamonkee February 27th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Can the gun type Nuke be made from Pu?
you need less Pu per kiloton yield than a uranium nuke IIRC
<a href="http://www28.brinkster.com/emcatalouge/file/atomh.html" target="_blank">http://www28.brinkster.com/

emcatalouge/file/atomh.html</a>
Ezekiel Kane February 27th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Yeah, excuse me - I put U-238 where I should have put U-235 and vice versa. It's fixed now.
Haggis February 27th, 2003, 07:08 PM

If it is not too much trouble, I would be interested in the articles.

Since the premise was if you had the uranium/plutonium, I'd say it would be fairly simple to build a nuke.
Given enough U235 that is :) If you're got enough then you wouldn't even have to worry about setting up the neutron reflector
correctly (or having one at all). All you'd need is the explosives and electronic detonation that many of us here "play" with on a
regular basis.
I think many of the people on this forum would be sucessful first time in building a large U235 gun-type device. Pu implosion
type, I would fancy our chances :) Even the Americans weren't sure if it'd work till it touched down on Japan...
EP February 27th, 2003, 09:22 PM

If (and that's a BIG if) you had the fissile material needed, I think a gun-type would be well within reach. The US was sure
enough it would work that they didn't even test it first. It was just an AA gun barrel 3in in diamater with the plug fired into the
target with smokeless powder. Im not sure if it had a neutron emitter or not, but that probably wouldnt be too hard.
A43tg37 February 27th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Ok, here's the article:
Harper's Magazine Nov, 1998 The radioactive boy scout: when a teenager attempts to build a breeder reactor. (case of David
Hahn who managed to secure materials and equipment from businesses and information from government officials to develop
an atomic energy radiation project for his Boy Scout merit-badge)
Author/s: Ken Silverstein When a teenager attempts to build a breeder reactor
Golf Manor is the kind of place where nothing unusual is supposed to happen, the kind of place where people live precisely
because it is more than 25 miles outside of Detroit and all the complications attendant in that city. The kind of place where
money buys a bit more land, perhaps a second bathroom, and so reassures residents that they're safely in the bosom of the
middle class. Every element of Golf Manor invokes one form of security or another, beginning with the name of the subdivision
itself--taken from the 18 hole course at its entrance--and the community in which it is nestled, Commerce Township. The
houses and trees are both old and varied enough to make Golf Manor feel more like a neighborhood than a subdivision, and
the few features that do convey subdivision--a sign at the entrance saying "We have many children but none to spare. Please
drive carefully"--have a certain Back to the Future charm. Most Golf Manor residents remain there until they die, and then they
are replaced by young couples with kids. In short, it is the kind of place where, on a typical day, the only thing lurking around
the corner is a Mister Softee ice-cream truck. But June 26, 1995, was not a typical day. Ask Dottie Pease. As she turned down
Pinto Drive, Pease saw eleven men swarming across her carefully manicured lawn. Their attention seemed to be focused on
the back yard of the house next door, specifically on a large wooden potting shed that abutted the chain-link fence dividing
her property from her neighbor's. Three of the men had donned ventilated moon suits and were proceeding to dismantle the
potting shed with electric saws, stuffing the pieces of wood into large steel drums emblazoned with radioactive warning signs.
Pease had never noticed anything out of the ordinary at the house next door. A middle-aged couple, Michael Polasek and
Patty Hahn, lived there. On some weekends, they were joined by Patty's teenage son, David. As she huddled with a group of
nervous neighbors, though, Pease heard one resident claim to have awoke late one night to see the potting shed emitting an
eerie glow. "I was pretty disturbed," Pease recalls. "I went inside and called my husband. I said, `Da-a-ve, there are men in
funny suits walking around out here. You've got to do something.'" What the men in the funny suits found was that the potting
shed was dangerously irradiated and that the area's 40,000 residents could be at risk. Publicly, the men in white promised the
residents of Golf Manor that they had nothing to fear, and to this day neither Pease nor any of the dozen or so people I
interviewed knows the real reason that the Environmental Protection Agency briefly invaded their neighborhood. When asked,
most mumble something about a chemical spill. The truth is far more bizarre: the Golf Manor Superfund cleanup was provoked
by the boy next door, David Hahn, who attempted to build a nuclear breeder reactor in his mother's potting shed as part of a
Boy Scout merit-badge project.
It seems remarkable that David's story hasn't already wended its way through all forms of journalism and become the stuff of
legend, but at the time the EPA refused to give out David's name, and although a few local reporters learned it, neither he nor
any family members agreed to be interviewed. Even the federal and state officials who oversaw the cleanup learned only a
small part of what took place in the potting shed at Golf Manor because David, fearing legal repercussions, told them almost
nothing about his experiments. Then in 1996, Jay Gourley, a correspondent with the Natural Resources News Service in
Washington, D.C., came across a tiny newspaper item about the case and contacted David Hahn. Gourley later passed on his
research to me, and I subsequently interviewed the story's protagonists, including David--now a twenty-two-year-old sailor
stationed in Norfolk, Virginia. I met with David in the hope of making sense not only of his experiments but of him. The
archetypal American suburban boy learns how to hit a fadeaway jump shot, change a car's oil, perform some minor carpentry
feats. If he's a Boy Scout he masters the art of starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together, and if he's a typical adolescent
pyro, he transforms tennis-ball cans into cannons. David Hahn taught himself to build a neutron gun. He figured out a way to
dupe officials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission into providing him with crucial information he needed in his attempt to
build a breeder reactor, and then he obtained and purified radioactive elements such as radium and thorium. I had seen
childhood photographs of David in which he looked perfectly normal, even angelic, with blond hair and hazel-green eyes, and,
as he grew older, gangly limbs and a peach-fuzz mustache. Still, when I went to meet him in Norfolk, I was anticipating some
physical manifestation of brilliance or obsession. An Einstein or a Kaczynski. But all I saw was a beefier version of the clean-cut
kid in the pictures. David's manner was oddly dispassionate, though polite, until we began to discuss his nuclear adventures.
Then, for five hours, lighting and grinding out cigarettes for emphasis, David enthused about laboring in his backyard
laboratory. He told me how he used coffee filters and pickle jars to handle deadly substances such as radium and nitric acid,
and he sheepishly divulged the various cover stories and aliases he employed to obtain the radioactive materials. A shy and
withdrawn teenager, David had confided in only a few friends about his project and never allowed anyone to witness his
experiments. His breeder-reactor project was a means--albeit an unorthodox one--of escaping the trauma of adolescence. "I
was very emotional as a kid," he told me, "and those experiments gave me a way to get away from that. They gave me some
respect."
David's parents, Ken and Patty Hahn, divorced when he was a toddler. Ken is an automotive engineer for General Motors, as is
his second wife, Kathy Missig, whom he married soon after the divorce. David lived with his father and stepmother in a small
split-level home in suburban Clinton Township, about thirty miles north of Detroit. Ken Hahn worked extraordinarily long hours
for GM. With close-cropped hair and a proclivity for short-sleeved dress shirts, Ken radiates a coolness that, combined with his
constant preoccupation, must have been confounding to a child. When asked about his undemonstrative nature, Ken
attributes it to his German ancestry. Yet for all his starchiness, it was Kathy who was David's chief disciplinarian. David spent
weekends and holidays with his mother and her boyfriend, Michael Polasek, an amiable but hard-drinking retired forklift
operator at GM. Golf Manor is demographically similar to Clinton Township, but the two households could not have been more
different emotionally. Patty Hahn committed suicide in the house a few years ago, but Michael still lives there surrounded by
pictures of her. ("She was a beautiful person," he says. "She was my whole life.") He keeps five cats and a spotless
household, and looks like a member of Sha Na Na. Despite the fact that David was shuffled between households, his early
years were seemingly ordinary. He played baseball and soccer, joined the Boy Scouts, and spent endless hours exploring with
his friends. An abrupt change came at the age of ten, when Kathy's father, also an engineer for GM, gave David The Golden
Book of Chemistry Experiments. The book promised to open doors to a brave new world--"Chemistry means the difference
between poverty and starvation and the abundant life," it stated with unwavering optimism--and offered instructions on how to
set up a home laboratory and conduct experiments ranging from simple evaporation and filtration to making rayon and
alcohol. David swiftly became immersed and by age twelve was digesting his father's college chemistry textbooks without
difficulty. When he spent the night at Golf Manor, his mother would often wake to find him asleep on the livingroom floor
surrounded by open volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In his father's house, David set up a laboratory in his small
bedroom, where the shelves are still lined with books such as Prudent Practices for Handling Hazardous Chemicals in
Laboratories and The Story of Atomic Energy. He bought beakers, Bunsen burners, test tubes, and other items commonly
found in a child's chemistry set. David, though, was not conducting the typical adolescent experiments. By fourteen, an age at
which most boys with a penchant for chemistry are conducting rudimentary gunpowder experiments, David had fabricated
nitroglycerine. David's parents admired his interest in science but were alarmed by the chemical spills and blasts that became
a regular event at the Hahn household. After David destroyed his bedroom--the walls were badly pocked, and the carpet was
so stained that it had to be ripped out--Ken and Kathy banished his experiments to the basement.
Which was fine with David. Science allowed him to distance himself from his parents, to create and destroy things, to break the
rules, and to escape into something he was a success at, while sublimating a teenager's sense of failure, anger, and
embarrassment into some really big explosions. David held a series of after-school jobs at fast-food joints, grocery stores,
and furniture warehouses, but work was merely a means of financing his experiments. Never an enthusiastic student and
always a horrific speller, David fell behind in school. During his junior year at Chippewa Valley High School--at a time when he
was secretly conducting nuclear experiments in his back yard--David nearly failed state math and reading tests required for
graduation (though he aced the test in science). Ken Gherardini, who taught David conceptual physics, remembers him as an
excellent pupil on the rare occasions when he was interested in classwork but otherwise indifferent to his studies. "His dream in
life was to collect a sample of every element on the periodic table," Gherardini told me with a laugh during an interview at
Chippewa Valley before his 8:20 A.M. class. "I don't know about you, but my dream at that age was to buy a car." David's
scientific preoccupation left less and less time for friends, though throughout much of high school he did have a girlfriend,
Heather Beaudette, three years his junior. Heather says he was sweet and caring (she once returned from a weeklong trip to
Florida to find a pile of lengthy love letters) but not always the perfect date. Heather's mom, Donna Bunnell, puts it this way:
"He was a nice kid and always presentable, but we had to tell him not to talk to anybody. He could eat and drink but, for God's
sake, don't talk to the guests about the food's chemical composition." Not even his scout troop was spared David's scientific
enthusiasm. He once appeared at a scout meeting with a bright orange face caused by an overdose of canthaxanthin, which
he was taking to test methods of artificial tanning. One summer at scout camp, David's fellow campers blew a hole in the
communal tent when they accidentally ignited the stockpile of powdered magnesium he had brought to make fireworks.
Another year, David was expelled from camp when--while most of his friends were sneaking into the nearby Girl Scouts' camp--
he stole a number of smoke detectors to disassemble for parts he required for his experiments. "Our summer vacation was
screwed up when we got a call telling us to pick David up early from camp," his stepmother recalls with a sigh. Up to this point
the most illicit of David's concoctions were fireworks and moonshine. But convinced that David's experiments and increasingly
erratic behavior were signs that he was making and selling drugs, Ken and Kathy began to spot-check the public library, where
David told them he studied. Invariably, David would be there as promised, surrounded by a huge pile of chemistry books. But
Ken and Kathy were not assuaged, and, worried that he would level their home, they prohibited David from being there alone,
locking him out when they were away, even on quick errands, and setting a time for their return so that he could get back in.
Kathy began routinely searching David's room and disposing of any chemicals and equipment she found hidden under the bed
and deep within the closet.
David was not deterred. One night as Ken and Kathy were sitting in the living room watching TV, the house was rocked by an
explosion in the basement. There they found David lying semiconscious on the floor, his eyebrows smoking. Unaware that red
phosphorus is pyrophoric, David had been pounding it with a screwdriver and ignited it. He was rushed to the hospital to have
his eyes flushed, but even months later David had to make regular trips to an ophthalmologist to have pieces of the plastic
phosphorus container plucked carefully from his eyes. Kathy then forbade David from experimenting in her home. So he
shifted his base of operations to his mother's potting shed in Golf Manor. Both Patty Hahn and Michael Polasek admired David
for the endless hours he spent in his new lab, but neither of them had any idea what he was up to. Sure, they thought it was
odd that David often wore a gas mask in the shed and would sometimes discard his clothing after working there until two in
the morning, but they chalked it up to their own limited education. Michael says that David tried to explain his experiments but
that "what he told me went right over my head." One thing still sticks out, though. David's potting-shed project had something
to do with creating energy. "He'd say, Òne of these days we're gonna run out of oil.' He wanted to do something about that."
Like Michael, few people whom David confided in understood what he was doing. Ken Hahn, who had taken chemistry courses
in college, could follow some of what David told him but thought he was exaggerating for attention. "I never saw him turn
green or glow in the dark," he says. "I was probably too easy on him." It probably didn't feel that way to David. Although Ken
is immensely proud of David's experiments now that they have a certain notoriety, at the time they represented a breakdown
in discipline. As fathers are wont to do, Ken felt the solution lay in a goal that he didn't himself achieve as a child--Eagle
Scout. As teenagers are wont to do, David subverted that goal. In addition to showing "scout spirit," Eagle Scouts must earn
twenty-one merit badges. Eleven are mandatory, such as First Aid and Citizenship in the Community. The final ten are
optional; scouts can choose from dozens of choices ranging from American Business to Woodwork. David elected to earn a
merit badge in Atomic Energy. His scoutmaster, Joe Auito, who lives on a rural road an hour or so north of Detroit and who
resembles an aging Deadhead rather than the rock-ribbed conservative I'd expected, says he's the only boy to have done so
in the history of Clinton Township Troop 371. David's Atomic Energy merit-badge pamphlet was brazenly pro-nuclear, which is
no surprise since it was prepared with the help of Westinghouse Electric, the American Nuclear Society, and the Edison Electric
Institute, a trade group of utility companies, some of which run nuclear power plants. The pamphlet judiciously states that
America is a democracy and "the people decide what the country will do." The pamphlet goes on to suggest, however, that
critics of atomic energy were descended from a long line of naysayers and malcontents, warning that "if America decides for or
against nuclear power plants based on fear and misunderstanding, that is wrong. We must first know the truth about atomic
energy before we can decide to use it or to stop it."
David was awarded his Atomic Energy merit badge on May 10, 1991, five months shy of his fifteenth birthday. To earn it he
made a drawing showing how nuclear fission occurs, visited a hospital radiology unit to learn about the medical uses of
radioisotopes,(1) and built a model reactor using a juice can, coat hangers, soda straws, kitchen matches, and rubber bands.
By now, though, David had far grander ambitions. As Auito's wife and troop treasurer, Barbara, recalls: "The typical kid
[working on the merit badge] would have gone to a doctor's office and asked about the X-ray machine. Dave had to go out
and try to build a reactor." What is a breeder reactor? This simplistic description comes from a publication that David obtained
from the Department of Energy (DOE): "Imagine you have a car and begin a long drive. When you start, you have half a tank
of gas. When you return home, instead of being nearly empty, your gas tank is full. A breeder reactor is like this magic car. A
breeder reactor not only generates electricity, but it also produces new fuel." All reactors, conventional and breeder, rely on a
critical pile of a naturally radioactive element--typically uranium-235 or plutonium-239--as the "fuel" for a sustained chain of
reactions known as fission. Fission occurs when a neutron combines with the nucleus of a radioisotope, say uranium-235,
transforming it into uranium-236. This new isotope is highly unstable and immediately splits in half, forming two smaller
nuclei, and releasing a great deal of radiant energy (some of which is heat) and several neutrons. These neutrons are
absorbed by other uranium-235 atoms to begin the process again. A breeder reactor is configured so that a core of plutonium-
239 is surrounded by a "blanket" of uranium-238. When the plutonium gives off neutrons, they are absorbed by the uranium-
238 to become uranium-239, which in turn decays by emitting beta rays and is transformed into neptunium-239. Following
another stage of "radioactive decay," neptunium becomes plutonium-239, which can replenish the fuel core. The nuclear
industry used to tout breeders as the magical solution to the nation's energy needs. The government had opened up two
experimental breeders at a test site in Idaho by 1961. Amid great fanfare, in 1963 Detroit Edison opened the Enrico Fermi I
power plant, the nation's first and only commercially run breeder reactor. The following decade, Congress appropriated billions
of dollars for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor in Tennessee. Hopes ran so high that Glenn Seaborg, chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission during the Nixon years, predicted that breeders would be the backbone of an emerging nuclear economy
and that plutonium might be "a logical contender to replace gold as the standard of our monetary system." Such optimism
proved to be unwarranted. The first Idaho breeder had to be shut down after suffering a partial core meltdown; the second
breeder generated electricity but not new fuel. The Fermi plant--located just 60 miles from Clinton Township--was plagued by
mechanical problems, accidents, and budget overruns, and produced electricity so expensive that Detroit Edison never even
bothered to break down the costs. In 1966, the plant's core suffered a partial meltdown after the cooling system
malfunctioned; six years later the plant was shut down permanently. In 1983, when it was estimated that completion costs
would deplete much of the federal budget for energy research and development, Congress finally killed the Clinch River
program.
If he knew of such setbacks, David was in no way deterred by them. His inspiration came from the nuclear pioneers of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Antoine Henri Becquerel, the French physicist who, along with Pierre and Marie Curie,
received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1903 for discovering radioactivity; Fredic and Irene Joliot-Curie, who received the prize
in 1935 for producing the first artificial radioisotope; Sir James Chadwick, who won the Nobel Prize in physics the same year for
discovering the neutron; and Enrico Fermi, who created the world's first sustainable nuclear chain reaction, a crucial step
leading to the production of atomic energy and atomic bombs.(2) Unlike his predecessors, however, David did not have vast
financial support from the state, no laboratory save for a musty potting shed, no proper instruments or safety devices, and, by
far his chief impediment, no legal means of obtaining radioactive materials. To get around this last obstacle, David utilized a
number of cover stories and concocted identities, plus a Geiger-counter kit he ordered from a mail-order house in Scottsdale,
Arizona, which he assembled and mounted to the dashboard of his burgundy Pontiac 6000. David hadn't hit on the idea to try
to build a breeder reactor when he began his nuclear experiments at the age of fifteen, but in a step down that path, he was
already determined to "irradiate anything" he could. To do that he had to build a "gun" that could bombard isotopes with
neutrons. David wrote to a number of groups listed in his merit-badge pamphlet--the DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), the American Nuclear Society, the Edison Electric Institute, and the Atomic Industrial Forum, the nuclear-power industry's
trade group--in hopes of discovering how he might obtain, from both natural and commercial sources, the radioactive raw
materials he needed to build his neutron gun and experiment with it. By writing up to twenty letters a day and claiming to be a
physics instructor at Chippewa Valley High School, David says he obtained "tons" of information from those and other groups,
though some of it was of only marginal value. The American Nuclear Society sent David a teacher's guide called "Goin' Fission,"
which featured an Albert Einstein cartoon character: "I'm Albert. Und today, ve are gonna go fission. No, ve don't need any
smelly bait and der won't be any fish to clean. I mean fission, not fishin'." Other organizations proved to be far more helpful,
and none more than the NRC. Again posing as a physics teacher, David managed to engage the agency's director of isotope
production and distribution, Donald Erb, in a scientific discussion by mail. Erb offered David tips on isolating certain radioactive
elements, provided a list of isotopes that can sustain a chain reaction, and imparted a piece of information that would soon
prove to be vital to David's plans: "Nothing produces neutrons ... as well as beryllium." When David asked Erb about the risks
posed by such radioactive materials, the NRC official assured "Professor Hahn" that the "real dangers are very slight," since
possession "of any radioactive materials in quantities and forms sufficient to pose any hazard is subject to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (or equivalent) licensing." David says the NRC also sent him pricing data and commercial sources for some of the
radioactive wares he wanted to purchase, ostensibly for the benefit of his eager students. "The NRC gave me all the
information I needed," he later recalled. "All I had to do was go out and get the materials."
Armed with information from his friends in government and industry, David typed up a list of sources for fourteen radioactive
isotopes..Americium-241, he learned from the Boy Scout atomic-energy booklet, could be found in smoke detectors; radium-
226, in antique luminous dial clocks; uranium-238 and minute quantities of uranium-235, in a black ore called pitchblende;
and thorium-232, in Coleman-style gas lanterns. To obtain americium-241, David contacted smoke-detector companies and
claimed that he needed a large number of the devices for a school project. One company agreed to sell him about a hundred
broken detectors for a dollar apiece. (He also tried to "collect" detectors while at scout camp.) David wasn't sure where the
americium-241 was located, so he wrote to BRK Electronics in Aurora, Illinois. A customer-service representative named Beth
Weber wrote back to say she'd be happy to help out with "your report." She explained that each detector contains only a tiny
amount of americium-241, which is sealed in a gold matrix "to make sure that corrosion does not break it down and release
it." Thanks to Weber's tip, David extracted the americium components and then welded them together with a blowtorch. As it
decays, americium-241 emits alpha rays composed of protons and neutrons. David put the lump of americium inside a hollow
block of lead with a tiny hole pricked in one side so that alpha rays would stream out. In front of the lead block he placed a
sheet of aluminum. Aluminum atoms absorb alpha rays and in the process kick out neutrons. Since neutrons have no charge,
and thus cannot be measured by a Geiger counter, David had no way of knowing whether the gun was working until he recalled
that paraffin throws off protons when hit by neutrons. David aimed the apparatus at some paraffin, and his Geiger counter
registered what he assumed was a proton stream. His neutron gun, crude but effective, was ready. With neutron gun in hand,
David was ready to irradiate. He could have concentrated on transforming previously nonradioactive elements, but in a decision
that was both indicative of his personality and instrumental to his later attempt to build a breeder reactor, he wanted to use
the gun on radioisotopes to increase the chances of making them fissionable. He thought that uranium-235, which is used in
atomic weapons, would provide the "biggest reaction." He scoured hundreds of miles of upper Michigan in his Pontiac looking
for "hot rocks" with his Geiger counter, but all he could find was a quarter trunkload of pitchblende on the shores of Lake
Huron. Deciding to pursue a more bureaucratic approach, he wrote to a Czechoslovakian firm that sells uranium to commercial
and university buyers, whose name was provided, he told me, by the NRC. Claiming to be a professor buying materials for a
nuclear-research laboratory, he obtained a few samples of a black ore--either pitchblende or uranium dioxide, both of which
contain small amounts of uranium-235 and uranium-238.
David pulverized the ores with a hammer, thinking that he could then use nitric acid to isolate uranium. Unable to find a
commercial source for nitric acid--probably because it is used in the manufacture of explosives and thus is tightly controlled--
David made his own by heating saltpeter and sodium bisulfate, then bubbling the gas that was released through a container of
water, producing nitric acid. He then mixed the acid with the powdered ore and boiled it, ending up with something that "looked
like a dirty milk shake." Next he poured the "milk shake" through a coffee filter, hoping that the uranium would pass through
the filter. But David miscalculated uranium's solubility, and whatever amount was present was trapped in the filter, making it
difficult to purify further. Frustrated at his inability to isolate sufficient supplies of uranium, David turned his attention to
thorium-232, which when bombarded with neutrons produces uranium-233, a man-made fissionable element (and, although
he might not have known it then, one that can be substituted for plutonium in breeder reactors). Discovered in 1828 and
named after the Norse god Thor, thorium has a very high melting point, and is thus used in the manufacture of airplane
engine parts that reach extremely high temperatures. David knew from his merit-badge pamphlet that the "mantle" used in
commercial gas lanterns--the part that looks like a doll's stocking and conducts the flame--is coated with a compound
containing thorium-232. He bought thousands of lantern mantles from surplus stores and, using the blowtorch, reduced them
into a pile of ash. David still had to isolate the thorium-232 from the ash. Fortunately, he remembered reading in one of his
dad's chemistry books that lithium is prone to binding with oxygen--meaning, in this context, that it would rob thorium dioxide
of its oxygen content and leave a cleaner form of thorium. David purchased $1,000 worth of lithium batteries and extracted
the element by cutting the batteries in half with a pair of wire cutters. He placed the lithium and thorium dioxide together in a
ball of aluminum foil and heated the ball with a Bunsen burner. Eureka! David's method purified thorium to at least 9,000
times the level found in nature and 170 times the level that requires NRC licensing. At this point, David could have used his
americium neutron gun to transform thorium-232 into fissionable uranium-233. But the americium he had was not capable of
producing enough neutrons, so he began preparing radium for an improved irradiating gun. Radium was used in paint that
rendered luminescent the faces of clocks and automobile and airplane instrument panels until the late 1960s, when it was
discovered that many clock painters, who routinely licked their brushes to make a fine point, died of cancer. David began
visiting junkyards and antiques stores in search of radium-coated dashboard panels or clocks. Once he found such an item,
he'd chip paint from the instruments and collect it in pill vials. It was slow going until one day, driving through Clinton Township
to visit his girlfriend, Heather, he noticed that his Geiger counter went wild as he passed Gloria's Resale Boutique/Antique. The
proprietor, Gloria Genette, still recalls the day when she was called at home by a store employee who said that a polite young
man was anxious to buy an old table clock with a tinted green dial but wondered if she'd come down in price. She would. David
bought the clock for $10. Inside he discovered a vial of radium paint left behind by a worker either accidentally or as a
courtesy so that the clock's owner could touch up the dial when it began to fade. David was so overjoyed that he dropped by
the boutique later that night to leave a note for Gloria, telling her that if she received another "luminus [sic] clock" to contact
him immediately. "I will pay any some [sic] of money to obtain one."
To concentrate the radium, David secured a sample of barium sulfate from the X-ray ward at a local hospital (staff there
handed over the substance because they remembered him from his merit-badge project) and heated it until it liquefied. After
mixing the barium sulfate with the radium paint chips, he strained the brew through a coffee filter into a beaker that began to
glow. This time, David had judged the solubility of the two substances correctly; the radium solution passed through to the
beaker. He then dehydrated the solution into crystalline salts, which he could pack into the cavity of another lead block to build
a new gun. Whether David fully realized it or not, by handling purified radium he was truly putting himself in danger.
Nevertheless, he now proceeded to acquire another neutron emitter to replace the aluminum used in his previous neutron gun.
Faithful to Erb's instructions, he secured a strip of beryllium (which is a much richer source of neutrons than aluminum) from
the chemistry department at Macomb Community College--a friend who attended the school swiped it for him--and placed it in
front of the lead block that held the radium. His cute little americium gun was now a more powerful radium gun. David began
to bombard his thorium and uranium powders in the hopes of producing at least some fissionable atoms. He measured the
results with his Geiger counter, but while the thorium seemed to grow more radioactive, the uranium remained a
disappointment. Once again, "Professor Hahn" sprang into action, writing his old friend Erb at the NRC to discuss the problem.
The NRC had the answer. David's neutrons were too "fast" for the uranium).(3) He would have to slow them down using a filter
of water, deuterium, or tritium. Water would have sufficed, but David likes a challenge. Consulting his list of commercially
available radioactive sources, he discovered that tritium, a radioactive material used to boost the power of nuclear weapons, is
found in glow-in-the-dark gun and bow sights, which David promptly bought from sporting-goods stores and mail-order
catalogues. He removed the tritium contained in a waxy substance inside the sights, and then, using a variety of pseudonyms,
returned the sights to the store or manufacturer for repair--each time collecting another tiny quantity of tritium. When he had
enough, David smeared the waxy substance over the beryllium strip and targeted the gun at uranium powder. He carefully
monitored the results with his Geiger counter over several weeks, and it appeared that the powder was growing more
radioactive by the day. Now seventeen, David hit on the idea of building a model breeder reactor. He knew that without a
critical pile of at least thirty pounds of enriched uranium he had no chance of initiating a sustained chain reaction, but he was
determined to get as far as he could by trying to get his various radioisotopes to interact with one another. That way, he now
says, "no matter what happened there would be something changing into something--some kind of action going on there." His
blueprint was a schematic of a checkerboard breeder reactor he'd seen in one of his father's college textbooks. Ignoring any
thought of safety, David took the highly radioactive radium and americium out of their respective lead casings and, after
another round of filing and pulverizing, mixed those isotopes with beryllium and aluminum shavings, all of which he wrapped
in aluminum foil. What were once the neutron sources for his guns became a makeshift "core" for his reactor. He surrounded
this radioactive ball with a "blanket" composed of tiny foil-wrapped cubes of thorium ash and uranium powder, which were
stacked in an alternating pattern with carbon cubes and tenuously held together with duct tape.
David monitored his "breeder reactor" at the Golf Manor laboratory with his Geiger counter. "It was radioactive as heck," he
says. "The level of radiation after a few weeks was far greater than it was at the time of assembly. I know I transformed some
radioactive materials. Even though there was no critical pile, I know that some of the reactions that go on in a breeder reactor
went on to a minute extent." Finally, David, whose safety precautions had thus far consisted of wearing a makeshift lead
poncho and throwing away his clothes and changing his shoes following a session in the potting shed, began to realize that,
sustained reaction or not, he could be putting himself and others in danger. (One tip-off was when the radiation was
detectable through concrete.) Jim Miller, a nuclear-savvy high-school friend in whom David had confided, warned him that real
reactors use control rods to regulate nuclear reactions. Miller recommended cobalt, which absorbs neutrons but does not itself
become fissionable. "Reactors get hot, it's just a fact," Miller, a nervous, skinny twenty-two-year-old, said during an interview
at a Burger King in Clinton Township where he worked as a cook. David purchased a set of cobalt drill bits at a local hardware
store and inserted them between the thorium and uranium cubes. But the cobalt wasn't sufficient. When his Geiger counter
began picking up radiation five doors down from his mom's house, David decided that he had "too much radioactive stuff in
one place" and began to disassemble the reactor. He placed the thorium pellets in a shoebox that he hid in his mother's
house, left the radium and americium in the shed, and packed most of the rest of his equipment into the trunk of the Pontiac
6000.
At 2:40 A.M. on August 31, 1994, the Clinton Township police responded to a call concerning a young man who had been
spotted in a residential neighborhood, apparently stealing tires from a car. When the police arrived, David told them he was
waiting to meet a friend. Unconvinced, officers decided to search his car. When they opened the trunk they discovered a
toolbox shut with a padlock and sealed with duct tape for good measure. The trunk also contained over fifty foil-wrapped
cubes of mysterious gray powder, small disks and cylindrical metal objects, lantern mantles, mercury switches, a clock face,
ores, fireworks, vacuum tubes, and assorted chemicals and acids.The police were especially alarmed by the toolbox, which
David warned them was radioactive and which they feared was an atomic bomb. For reasons that are hard to fathom, Sergeant
Joseph Mertes, one of the arresting officers, ordered a car containing what he noted in his report was "a potential improvised
explosive device" to be towed to police headquarters. "It probably shouldn't have been done, but we thought that the car had
been used in the commission of a crime," Police Chief Al Ernst now says sheepishly. "When I came in at 6:30 in the morning it
was already there."
The police called in the Michigan State Police Bomb Squad to examine the Pontiac and the State Department of Public Health
(DPH) to supply radiological assistance. The good news, the two teams discovered, was that David's toolbox was not an atomic
bomb. The bad news was that David's trunk did contain radioactive materials, including concentrations of thorium--"not found
in nature, at least not in Michigan"--and americium. That discovery automatically triggered the Federal Radiological Emergency
Response Plan, and state officials soon were embroiled in tense phone consultations with the DOE, EPA, FBI, and NRC. With
the police, David was largely uncooperative and taciturn. He provided his father's address but didn't mention his mother's
house or his potting-shed laboratory. It wasn't until Thanksgiving Day that Dave Minnaar, a DPH radiological expert, finally
interviewed David. David told Minnaar that he had been trying to make thorium in a form he could use to produce energy and
that he hoped "his successes would help him earn his Eagle Scout status." David also finally admitted to having a backyard
laboratory. On November 29, state radiological experts surveyed the potting shed. They found aluminum pie pans, jars of
acids, Pyrex cups, milk crates, and other materials strewn about, much of it contaminated with what subsequent official reports
would call "excessive levels" of radioactive material, especially americium-241 and thorium-232. How high? A vegetable can,
for example, registered at 50,000 counts per minute--about 1,000 times higher than normal levels of background radiation.
But although Minnaar's troops didn't know it at the time, they conducted their survey long after David's mother, alerted by Ken
and Kathy and petrified that the government would take her home away as a result of her son's experiments, had ransacked
the shed and discarded most of what she found, including his neutron gun, the radium, pellets of thorium that were far more
radioactive than what the health officials found, and several quarts of radioactive powder. "The funny thing is," David now says,
"they only got the garbage, and the garbage got all the good stuff." After determining that no radioactive materials had
leaked outside the shed, state authorities sealed it and petitioned the federal government for help. The NRC licenses nuclear
plants and research facilities and deals with any nuclear accidents that take place at those sites. David, of course, was not an
NRC-licensed operation, so it was determined that the EPA, which responds to emergencies involving lost or abandoned atomic
materials, should be contacted for assistance. In a memo to the EPA's Emergency Response and Enforcement Branch, the
Department of Public Health noted that the materials discovered in David's lab were regulated under the Federal Atomic Energy
Act and that the "extent of the radioactive material contamination within a private citizen's property beg for a controlled
remediation that is beyond our authority or resources to oversee."
EPA officials arrived in Golf Manor on January 25, 1995--five months after David had been stopped by the police--to conduct
their own survey of the shed. Their "action memo" noted that conditions at the site "present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment," and that there was "actual or potential exposure to nearby
human populations, animals, or food chain...." The memo further stated that adverse conditions such as heavy wind, rain, or
fire could cause the "contaminants to migrate or be released." A Superfund cleanup took place between June 26 and 28 at a
cost of about $60,000. After the moon-suited workers dismantled the potting shed with electric saws, they loaded the remains
into thirty-nine sealed barrels placed aboard a semitrailer bound for Envirocare, a dump facility located in the middle of the
Great Salt Lake Desert. There, the remains of David's experiments were entombed along with tons of low-level radioactive
debris from the government's atomic-bomb factories, plutonium-production facilities, and contaminated industrial sites.
According to the official assessment, there was no noticeable damage to flora or fauna in the back yard in Golf Manor, but
40,000 nearby residents could have been put at risk during David's years of experimentation due to the dangers posed by the
release of radioactive dust and radiation. Last May, I made the 90-mile drive from Detroit to Lansing, where Dave Minnaar
works in a dreary building that houses several state environmental agencies. Because Patty Hahn had cleaned out the shed
before Minnaar's men arrived on the scene, he never knew that David had built neutron guns or that he had obtained radium.
Nor did he understand, until I told him, that the cubes of thorium powder found by police at the time of David's arrest were the
building blocks for a model breeder reactor. "These are conditions that regulatory agencies never envision," says Minnaar. "It's
simply presumed that the average person wouldn't have the technology or materials required to experiment in these areas."
David went into a serious depression after the federal authorities shut down his laboratory. Years of painstaking work had
been thrown in the garbage or buried beneath the sands of Utah. Students at Chippewa Valley had taken to calling him
"Radioactive Boy," and when his girlfriend, Heather, sent David Valentine's balloons at his high school, they were seized by the
principal, who apparently feared they had been inflated with chemical gases David needed to continue his experiments. In a
final indignity, some area scout leaders attempted (and failed) to deny David his Eagle Scout status, saying that his
extracurricular merit-badge activities had endangered the community.
In the fall of 1995, Ken and Kathy demanded that David enroll in Macomb Community College. He majored in metallurgy but
skipped many of his classes and spent much of the day in bed or driving in circles around their block. Finally, Ken and Kathy
gave him an ultimatum: Join the armed forces or move out of the house. They called the local recruiting office, which sent a
representative to their house or called nearly every day until David finally gave in. After completing boot camp last year, he
was stationed on the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise aircraft carrier. Alas, David's duties, as a lowly seaman, are of the deck-
swabbing and potato-peeling variety. But long after his shipmates have gone to sleep, David stays up studying topics that
interest him--currently steroids, melanin, genetic codes, antioxidants, prototype reactors, amino acids, and criminal law. And it
is perhaps best that he does not work on the ship's eight reactors, for EPA scientists worry that his previous exposure to
radioactivity may have greatly cut short his life. All the radioactive materials he experimented with can enter the body through
ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact and then deposit in the bones and organs, where they can cause a host of ailments,
including cancer. Because it is so potent, the radium that David was exposed to in a relatively small, enclosed space is most
worrisome of all. Back in 1995, the EPA arranged for David to undergo a full examination at the nearby Fermi nuclear power
plant. David, fearful of what he might learn, refused. Now, though, he's looking ahead. "I wanted to make a scratch in life," he
explains when I ask him about his early years of nuclear research. "I've still got time. I don't believe I took more than five
years off of my life."
(1) Individual atoms of an element have the same number of protons in their nuclei. This "atomic number" determines the
element's chemical properties and position in the periodic table. The number of neutrons within atoms of the same elements
can vary, however. Known as isotopes, these variations have unique physical properties because the number of neutrons
affects the atom's mass. Most elements have at least two naturally occurring, stable isotopes. But isotopes of heavier
elements (those with more protons) are often unstable. Called radioisotopes, and often artificially produced, these nuclei
undergo some form of radioactive decay--alpha, beta, or gamma--to become more stable. In alpha decay, the nucleus loses
two protons and two neutrons, thus transforming into another element two atomic numbers below it on the periodic table. In
beta decay, either a neutron is converted into a proton, and the atomic number rises, or the opposite occurs, pushing the
atomic number down. Gamma radiation--in which energy is emitted but no transformation occurs--can accompany alpha or
beta decay (where the atomic number falls) or can occur on its own. Americium-241, for example, is a radioisotope of
americium. Its atomic number is 95, its atomic mass number is 241, and it becomes neptunium-237 through alpha decay.
(2) Another role model, similar to David in temperament, was the Englishman Francis William Aston. He invented the mass
spectrograph in 1920, which he used to identify more than 200 isotopes. As a child, writes Richard Rhodes, Aston "made picric-
acid bombs from soda-bottle cartridges and designed and launched huge tissue-paper fire balloons...." (3) Manhattan Project
scientists discovered that some neutrons can move at speeds of about 17 million miles per hour. If they are slowed down or
"moderated," to about 5,000 miles per hour, they have a better chance of being absorbed by another atom. Ken Silverstein's
last article for Harper's Magazine, "The Boeing Formation," appeared in the May 1997 issue. He lives in Washington, D.C.
spydamonkee-A gun type bomb almost certainly [i]can be made from plutonium-239. The Manhattan Project's scientists
probably chose not to do this because of the fact that such a bomb would be far too alreg for an airplane of that time to carry.
The problem was this: plutonium gave off more neutrons than U-235. Far more. So much so, that in a "Little Boy" gun-type
bomb, the chain reaction would be started by stray neutrons emitted before the pieces of plutonium even came together and
formed a critical mass (i.e neutrons from the piece of plutonium traveling toward the target piece would iniate fission while only
partway down the gun barrel, causing the bomb to "fizzle"). The scientists had determined that this could be corrected by
having a larger and more powerful explosive charge, combined with a longer gun barrel, and thus the plutonium projectile
would be traveling at a much higher velocity, and reach the plutonium target before it could be bombarded by too many stray
neutrons. However, in order to do this, it was calaculated a barrel distance of anywhere from 19 to 25 feet (there were several
different estimates) would be needed. That was for the barrel alone, and not counting the outer casing, radar fuse, tail fins,
space for both plutonium projectiles (additional lengths of barrel would be needed for them), and room for the powder charge
that would fire the plutonium projectile. Weight and more importantly, length considerations made putting such a device into a
bomb that could easily be carried in an aircraft nearly impossible (remember, the Enola Gay and Bock's Car, the B-29's that
carried the bombs, both had to have their bomb bays modified just to carry Little Boy and Fat Man). Besides, by 1944
scientists had developed the plutonium implosion system and were relatively sure it would work. Had they not, and had we had
the gigantic B-36 by the end of WWII, there might have been a plutonium gun-type bomb, but we didn't, and so the
plutonium implosion design was chosen for the second atom bomb. Finally, most of this information on plutonium gun-type
bombs came from a book called "US Nuclear Weapons: A pictorial and history" or something like that. I seem to remember
my library having it, I'll check it out and see if I can find any additional relevant or useful information (this book is LOADED
with all sorts of info and plenty of juicy technical specs on every type of nuclear and thermonuclear weapon design
configuration available).
[ February 27, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: A43tg37 ]
mrcfitzgerald February 28th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Obviously a gun design has significant advantages in simplicity and
reliability, however there are other designs out there than just spherical implosion devices and gun-types. For instance a
Planar Implosion system could be used, that is instead of using common propellents to accelerate an Uranium/Plutonium
bullet down a barrel, an explosive charge can be used in conjunction with a flying plate (Used to create a planar, or flate,
consistent shockwave) to propel a flat Uranium/Plutonium mass towards another mass of Uranium/Plutonium. The result would
be an insertion times several magnitudes higher than even the fastest gun driven divices. Unfortunantly, one may expect
rather low efficiency yeilds with this option (Though it may be offset with fusion boosting.)
Another Implosion device that interests me would be the Cylindrical Implosion system, which would use a series of flying
plates along the outside perimiter of the Cylinder to create a uniform Imploding shock wave. This regular shockwave would
then implode a hollow cylinder of Uranium/Plutonium to Critical mass.These devices have been used before (I forget which
tests) and, with fusion boosting, it would likely approach the efficiency found in todays spherical Implosion devices.
Any of these methods for implosion could, with reasonable research, be developed by a forum member (Though the
fabrication of the core, tamper, and reflector would provide quite a challange.) If you wish to learn about the concepts and
designs of nukes, visit the Nuclear Weapons FAQ at <a href="http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html"
target="_blank">http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html</a>
the author does a much better job at demonstrating the workings of these devices than I can.
[ February 28, 2003, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: mrcfitzgerald ]
green beret February 28th, 2003, 01:22 AM

Thats fascinating, but if he knew so much, why didnt he take the time to protect himself? :confused:
A makeshift lead poncho and changing clothes afterwards?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
That article also states that he made nitric acid by mixing KN03 and sodium bisulfate, heating it and bubling the gas through
water, that would be a very cheap method, has anyone tried it?
xyz February 28th, 2003, 05:25 AM

Green Beret - I have a swimming pool and you can buy large 10Kg buckets of sodium bisulfate for lowering the Ph. They
should be available from large supermarkets/hardware shops or pool shops. Pool shops (in Australia anyway) are usually VERY
suspicious of anyone buying anything :( .
green beret February 28th, 2003, 07:51 AM

Thanks xyz, yeah pool shops are real bastards, a better place for sodium bisulfate is Big-W its about ten dollars for three
kilos.
NightStalker March 1st, 2003, 12:15 AM

"It's simply presumed that the average person wouldn't have the technology or materials required to experiment in these
areas."
Translation:
"The average sheeple is content with the mind destroying drivel we put out on TV, and thus is no longer capable of
independant thought, rendering them harmless as a threat to our continued reign of despotic power."
I_am_the_Black_one March 6th, 2003, 02:21 AM

I dont know much about chemristy well i know basicly nothing so can u guys explain this in laymans terms Also i have
wondered for a few years about Americum being used in bombs i was thinking more along the lines of dirty bombs Could this
be done if your had a significant amount of it or can americum be used easly to make a preriqsite for a dirty bomb ?
I would like to state that i hav no intentions of making a dirty bomb i am only asking from ceurosity

Explain chemistry to you in lay-man's terms? Would you also like the Internet on CDROM?
If you had read the most recent thread in Battlefield Chemistry (let alone done a search), your question would have been
answered in full.
How you figured that using americum for dirty bombs fitted into the topic of "nukes", I have no idea.
Be gone, and READ!
Ghostcustom 24 March 6th, 2003, 06:32 PM

"Dirty Bombs" - that would be a civilian term. The correct name for such a device is a neutron bomb or an "ER" warhead
(enhanced radiation).
kingspaz March 6th, 2003, 06:42 PM

well actually enhanced radiation weapons and neutron bombs are not simply dirty bombs. they are precise weapons. the
neutron bomb releases a vast amount of neutron radiation where as the enhanced radiation weapon is a small nuclear
warehead which typically has a low yield but releases a relatively large amount of fallout of a short half life. the surrounding
area is thus cleansed of life allowing friendly troops to take over most buildings relatively intact after a week or so once a
sufficient number of hlaf lives have passed (usually 4). these weapons are refered to as dirty because they typically have a
large amount of fallout.
a 'dirty bomb' however refers to the scattering of radioactive materla using conventional explosives.

You are right and I wish to thank you for correcting me there <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> , but that
was posted in response to the earlier one. You can be as specific as you want in this field but to expand on what you said
earlier: <blockquote>quote:<hr />the neutron bomb releases a vast amount of neutron radiation where as the enhanced
radiation weapon is a small nuclear warehead which typically has a low yield but releases a relatively large amount of fallout of
a short half life.<hr /></blockquote>1. an ER warhead is a neutron
bomb in most senses,
2. they both give off neutron radiation (in general terms),
3. and the ER warhead (salted device) can have variable half lives depending on what it is "salted" with. The longest half life
salting agent, Zinc-64, had a half life of 244 days (wich depending on you view is long or short). But in a war zone wich this
was intended to be employed in (against tank crews) 244 days or more is a lot of time too wait for an area to decontaminate
to reasonable levels.
>Again "dirty bomb" and neutron bomb ect. are general terms and you can get very specific with them
[ March 09, 2003, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Ghostcustom 24 ]
mrcfitzgerald March 7th, 2003, 08:35 PM

On the issue of "Dirty bombs". Yes the word dirty bomb is a media buzzword at the momment. There are four types of
weapons that the term can relate too,
1. A radioactive dispersion device wich only spreads radioactive material by explosive force -There is no nuclear explosion-
2. A "Neutron bomb" though this is not in the true sense a dirty bomb (as it does not release as much fallout per given yeild
as does a normal fusion device) it does release a deadly flux of neutrons that can kill up to twice the range as a normal bomb
of comparable yeild. This type of weapon was envisioned in order to effectivly and immediatly eliminate a T-82 tank charge,
as the neutron flux could take them out far more efficiently than normal blast effects.
-This is a nuclear bomb-
3. A "salted device" which uses a blanket of radioactive material surrounding a fusion core (This is the core of the fusion part
of the Teller-Ullam device). It is designed to decrease the immediate danger of the fall out but increase the length of time a
given area stays radioactive.
-This is a nuclear bomb-
4. A "dirty bomb" is commonly used to show a difference between a Teller-Ullam device with a fissionable (U-238 or HEU)
jacket surrounding the fusion fuel, or a non fissionable material such as lead. -This is a nuclear bomb-
As for the mention of the Enhanced Radiation device, it usually is used to talk about a Neutron Bomb as it enhances the initial
radiation pulse in order to maximize killing via radiation.
[ March 07, 2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: mrcfitzgerald ]
rancid_matt November 15th, 2004, 03:38 PM

There are two reasons why normal people (including terrorists) can't build a nuke:
- they can't design it (no, it's not simple, not simple at all, whatever you may think)
if anyone want's to build one, he/she must at least have a universite degree in nuclear physics and access to several libraries
to research the important variables (the cross-section for one. you may try to find it, it took me days)
- they can't build it. you simply need too advanced equipment and protection.
If you really want to build such a device, i would recommend electrically heating a Lithium-deuteride mixture to extreme
temperatures and compress that.
mrcfitzgerald November 19th, 2004, 07:56 PM

Do you have evidence to back up that hypothesis?
As one who has access to the libraries for research, and most of the imporant variables (all gleaned from open literature of
course) -I have come to believe that it is possible to design and build a 1 or 2 kiloton nuclear device. The matter is simple
enough, any intelligent person can figure out all the variables required for a gun-type nuclear device. It is not really (the gun-
type at least) that complex. Heck, I can even pull of efficiency formulas to tell me what the yield is given the number of critical
masses.
The only difficult variable is the Uranium, and this is what limmits terrorists and "rogue" nations. Condsider the fact that,
currently, there is several hundred tons of enriched uranium present in Russia alone. Of this, a terrorist only needs about
100lbs -likely less. Also consider the fact that we had a project in which newly graduated phyicist worked from scratch and
designed a workable device. Note: they designed and implosion type because they figured that a guntype was too simple.
The end result is that it is somewhat possible... A feeling shared by many experts in the field. (Most importaint of which would
be Carey Sublette and Richard Garwin).
Now as for electrical ignition of Fusion fuel....Well if that was possible, I think the military would be using it... I have looked at
two related concepts, the Z-pinch and the MTF fusion schemes (as they are most easily adapted to weapons). The use of an
FCG brings the concept close to break even, the problem is fusion fuel -got tritium? (the military only has about 4 kilograms
total...) Anyway, the concept is not possible, except for the super-powers -and even then it is not worth the effort at that level.
Marvin November 20th, 2004, 01:44 AM

Once you have enough bomb grade uranium or plutonium, making a bomb isnt rocket science. Making a high yeild bomb is
difficult but getting a decent bang would not be hard, particulally from uranium.
Gun system was simple, but it wasnt compressing anything. The more you compress the smaller the critical mass is and if you
can do this rapidly the higher the yeild is for a given amount of fissionable material. Implosion type puts the core under
millions of atmospheres of pressure making its density at point of ignition much higher.
The U-235 crossection in unclassified books is usually for thermal neutrons, it isnt useful for designing a bomb. It is my
understanding that the neutron cross section for fission neutrons is kept secret along with how it changes for different energies
in the region.
10fingers November 20th, 2004, 03:34 AM

You better be careful, Marvin. You might get a visit some night by ragheads that want you to come work on a project in their
tent.
rancid_matt November 20th, 2004, 07:17 AM

Making a bomb, is quite difficult. If your calculations aren't exact enough, your bomb will just fizzle. Don't take it that easy,
really don't. You need at least a degree in nuclear physics, trust me. Did you think about igniting the fission, because if you
don't have the exact mixture and mass, it won't start. What if your neutrons leave before fission takes place, a factor wich can
easily be overseen. Or what if you create a too small nuclear explosion that will just throw out all of your fissionable material
with a small bang. Now, thrust me, it ain't simple at all.
And for this electrical fusion i refer to US patent no 6,654,433. I personaly am sceptic about electrical fusion, like the
Farnsworth Fusor and such.
Marvin November 20th, 2004, 08:08 PM

"Making a bomb, is quite difficult. "
Getting the fuel is next to impossible. Making a bomb if you have enough is far more engineering than physics.
"You need at least a degree in nuclear physics"
I assume from this that you are in the process of getting a degree in physics. You will be dissapointed. There is very little in
most physics degrees that relate to a nuclear bomb and none of it is essential in that form.
"if you don't have the exact mixture and mass, it won't start."
"What if your neutrons leave before fission takes place"
I'm sorry rancid, but these are the objections of someone almost clueless about bombs. Someone that doesnt know the
physics well enough, but more importantly hasnt read the highly detailed information allready public on bombs. The history,
the design, the materials and accurate descriptions of both little boy and fat man. You will learn more about making a weapon
in a few hours of reading the carey sublette stuff than in the whole of a physics degree.
For reference the best objections I can think of would be bomb preignition, which is when the core ignites well before maximum
critical mass is reached, and that this is made much worse if you have to use reactor grade plutonium, which is most likley the
fuel someone would have to use. Also an implosive lens is highly advanced convensional explosives design, most likely
needing someone skilled/experienced in detonics.
10fingers,
I think it more likley I'd be asked by the people that in the propaganda war took the blue pill.
j_dmillar November 20th, 2004, 11:51 PM

Everyone seems to reject plutonium on the basis that an implosion system is too hard to design and build for all but the best
educated and trained professionals. I think that a gun system would be perfectly adequate for a terrorist, if they could get
plutonium.
Now, before you all get excited about this and tell me I have no idea, etc... This makes more sense than you might think. Do
you recall why, exactly, plutonium "can't" be used in a gun system? It is, I believe, because the mass makes the transition
from sub to super-critical too slowly. As the critical point is reached, the devices detonates 'prematurely', dispersing the mass
and wasting almost all the energy. A terrorist, though, seeks, as the name implies, terror. He would be quite happy with a tiny
fraction of a full yield.
Consider the immense power of even a small nuclear bomb - usually multi-kiloton. If one gets a 10th of a percent efficiency
from the device (relative to a good design. Far lower still compared to the theoretical energy available.), it still has the power
of several tons equivalent of TNT. Picture the immense effect of several tons of TNT detonated in a massive crowd -- panic,
chaos, 100s of deaths. Add to that the radiation -- deadly. The remaining 99%+ of the plutonium being spread around the
area to contaminate the survivors -- deadly.
Then consider the effect on the public. They see that a nuclear device has been detonated in their country, by some terrorist.
The experts are on TV announcing that the yield was incredibly small for the amount of plutonium used. There is no weapon
left to inspect, so they don't know it was supposed to be so low-yielding. It must have been a fluke -- maybe their design was
faulty, maybe it was just a slight mistake in construction or quality control problem. Who knows where the next one will hit, and
how many blocks of city will be destroyed when it doesn't fizzle?
Ok, sorry about the long story about it. Basically what I'm saying is that you can get *some* fission out of a gun-type
plutonium weapon, and *any* fission will be enough for an impact in a terrorist weapon.
nbk2000 November 26th, 2004, 07:40 PM

Reactor grade uranium (~10%) will work, but be "dirty" as hell, and weigh tons.
But in the back of a truck? ;)
FUTI November 29th, 2004, 04:17 PM

to I am the black one: If I remember well, Am 242 AFAIR has critical mass of only about 12 g, but it is hell to make it so
forget it. I hope I guessed right isotope of Am don't take it as sure. US wanted to use it as source for neutron bomb
This is second time that I find this story about boy scout reactor and it is geting better:)
I love this guy and I would like to shake his hand (wearing gloves of course:)), but I doubt he is with us anymore:(
Anthony November 30th, 2004, 02:28 PM

He is still alive. At least untill recently, as I saw him in a TV documentary about his nuclear adventures.
It's a nice story, but he was probably as close to having a working reactor as you are to a space mission after discovering fire
:)
tom haggen December 3rd, 2004, 08:47 PM

One thing about what rancid matt says is true. You need extremely sophisticated equipment to build an atom bomb. First of
all you need to machine the U-235 that is going to fit in side of your atom bomb. Your talking like a 500,000$ piece of
machinary to be able to perform such a task.
anachy December 18th, 2004, 11:47 AM

It all depends on the size of the explosion that you want. If you don't need something that big, 'dirty' and not so complicated,
you can make a good shot at it.
The explosive lens system is too complicated for home building, so one should try a gun type, probably with an implosion and
Uranium hydride (deuteride is much better, but expensive$!).
A cylindrical rod is assebled of the UD3 (coated of course!) that slides into a cylinder that has a diameter of about 5 inches.
Nextly, a track along which the core slides is put. it is slid at high speeds using a sort of gun or rocket and the end is plugged
with beryllium. This UD3 assembly is than compressed explosively. It may have a beryllium tamper for more power
mrcfitzgerald December 19th, 2004, 08:26 PM

No, Uranium Hydride will not work in a nuclear device. The hydrogen moderates the neutrons, and causes them to travel
slower. This has the effect of reducing the number of chain reactions before disassembly, and this leads to not only a higher
critical mass -but a much lower efficiency. Uranium Hydride was used in two test, both of which fizzled with a yield of only 200
tons. The gov't scrapped the idea after that...
Marvin December 19th, 2004, 11:40 PM

anarchy,
"The explosive lens system is too complicated for home building, "
This seems to be missing the point somewhat. If you have enough material for a gun type, thats what you make. If you have
significantly less than 2 critical masses a gun type is going to do nothing impressive, and if you have plutonium it isnt going to
work at all. Under those circumstances an implosive system is the only choice.
tom,
The first bombs didnt use expensive assembly machinery at all, it was all done by hand. Uranium can probably be worked on
a metal lathe.
malzraa December 23rd, 2004, 03:44 AM
Actually, any radioactive compound can be used in a nuke, IF it is chain-fissionable. That means that it produces an average
of 2 or more neutrons when it fissions. 92-235 works, as does 94-239. However, too high can cause pre detonations and
fizzles (like 94-240). So, if you can get either 235 or 239, yes it is possible. All you need to do is make a mass of it larger
than it's mean free path and kaboom!
Marvin December 23rd, 2004, 08:12 AM

malzraa,
I'm sorry but the two recent threads on this are allready beyond what you've posted. More interestingly, virtually everything
you have written is wrong on a technicality. For radioactive compound you needed 'isotope', a compound has more than one
element which isnt required, and nor is it required that the isotope be radioactive, though all known examples are I think.
Producing 2 or more neutrons per fission avarage would get you a chain reaction in a big enough setting, but think, why 2?
Wouldnt 1.5 be enough? 1.1? 1.000001? Secondly this is not the only requirement for a chain reaction, U-238 produces lots of
neutrons when it fissions, and it can be fissioned by neutrons, but it cannot self sustain. See if you can figure out why.
Its background neutron flux that causes predetonations, nothing to do with the chain branching. I can see what you are trying
to say by the mean free path, and you mean the path between fissions rather than scattering. This would I think be roughly
valid for an avarage neutron production of 2, but for high branching you need less fissions to maintain and vice versa.
As an aside its theoretically possible for a compound to chain react where the isotopes individually would not. I can think of of
a few theoretical systems, non would actually work because of lousy nuclear stats. I'd be interested in hearing any
suggestions, purely for the purpose of broadening the thinking in this thread.
Clasically >1 critical mass, obtained either by slamming 2 masses together, or by compressing a non critical mass (Any
amount of fissile material can be >1 critical mass if compressed enough). In practice forming slightly more than one crical
mass slowly gets you a criticality accident, but no bang. 2 is the minimum anyone should really aim for and it needs to be
done correctly.
I think there is something of a gap between what is taught in schools and universities and what is on the net in detail about
the bombs. Maybe this thread can be fleshed out a bit to cover this gap.
Silentnite January 4th, 2005, 01:33 AM

Lets say we are talking about a terrorist. Wouldnt they want to make it as dirty as possible, and while I am sure that explosive
capacity is all well and good, I think J_DMiller had a very valid point. Its the idea of it happening that matter to people. I recall
the government hushing up the japanese bombing us with the Hot-air ballons in WW2...
But yeah, if we had all the materials, I would say its not rocket science.
Slightly OT but how hard is rocket science anyways? Its never seemed so hard to me...
akinrog January 4th, 2005, 06:10 AM

Lets say we are talking about a terrorist. Wouldnt they want to make it as dirty as possible, and while I am sure that explosive
capacity is all well and good, I think J_DMiller had a very valid point.
I believe the terrorists shall not spend a few ten (hundred?) millions to create an inefficient bang. They may find more uses
for the money spent on such an inefficient nuclear device. Assume that you are spending USD 20 millions (which I believe very
optimistic estimate, the amount may rise abouve hundred millions) for building such a bomb. With this amount of money, you
may recruit cadres, buy ammo and weapons for them and create several conventional explosive devices.
In addition, there is a serious retailiation risk, given the fact that US levelled out Afghanistan following 9/11 events. What if
they used a nuke device. In that case, I believe, US government would leave a big crater covering entire Afghanistan.
Slightly OT but how hard is rocket science anyways? Its never seemed so hard to me...
I believe rocket science not very hard. But the precise navigation systems are really hard. But recently I heard from TV that
Hezbollah of Lebanon constructed a mannless aircraft to take photos of Israeli targets. Regards.
telkanuru January 5th, 2005, 05:34 PM

On the politics side, It's really not the bang that matters, it's the word 'radioactive', and the inability to inhabit a nice portion of
NYC for several years/decade (unless there is some cleanup technique that I am not familiar with, which is inherently
possible). Fear of death, not death itself is the key.
Also tangentially, guidance systems are not particularly difficult. You require a $200 solid-state chip to detect acceleration in
the 3 planes of space, a cheap microcontroler, some basic multivariate calc, and a wiring diagram.
To the point, I do not believe it would be difficult to construct a primative atomic device, given the amount of materiel on the
theory avaliable. That's not to say that anyone could do it, but anyone with a good degree of intellegence could pull it off (and
we wouldn't really know if they didn't...).
pyromaniac_guy January 30th, 2005, 07:17 PM

There are two reasons why normal people (including terrorists) can't build a nuke:
- they can't design it (no, it's not simple, not simple at all, whatever you may think)
if anyone want's to build one, he/she must at least have a universite degree in nuclear physics and access to several libraries
to research the important variables (the cross-section for one. you may try to find it, it took me days)
- they can't build it. you simply need too advanced equipment and protection.
why design a nuke when you can just copy the design of the little boy bomb - all of the critical details for it are portty much
public domain now.
the only thing that you couldnt easily replicate from the little boy design is the nuetron source, but thats no biggie - just use a
highly accurete switch to trigger the gun that launches your slug of u235 towards it's target and set off a zetatron from an oil
well exploration nuetron source at the proper time and BOOM!
Silentnite January 31st, 2005, 02:49 AM

I remember reading that a large volume of water will wash away most radioactivity... Is there any truth to this? It sounds
reasonable enough.
Although it would require a LOT of water.
grendel23 January 31st, 2005, 05:21 AM

Water will wash off radioactive dust, IE; fallout. Warships have systems to hose down the decks in case of contamination. The
water doesn't make the dust less radioactive of course, it just washes it away.
Jacks Complete February 1st, 2005, 06:36 PM

Silentnite, rocket science is quite tricky, you have to get your drag, mass and thrust just right, or else you get tumbling. Drag
too high, it won't fly. Drag too low, it flies high, but probably tumbles and you have no control over it. Thrust center has to be
in front of the drag. The CoG has to be between the two, for the entire flight.
Non-trivial, especially if throwing a copper lined warhead weighing several pounds. For something like a nuke, you are talking
at least 20Kg, so you need a huge rocket engine.
As regards fallout, you can wash it away, but on something like a steel ship, it isn't too hard, as there is nothing to really hold
on to things. On a tarmac road, where you will just be washing it into the fabric of the road, on grass, on mud, etc. it will stay
for years. Places with growing grass and plants are worst, since the roots hold on to the radioactive isotopes, and everything
stays nasty for a long time.
Further, washing a kilo of "nuke dust" into the Pacific isn't going to do that much once it is diluted. Washing down a road will
put a lot of that into the sewers, onto the grass, and leave you with really nasty hotspots.
fr0sengh0st February 18th, 2005, 01:15 PM

In the news today it was reported that 66lb of plutonium had bee n lost at a nuclear processing plant he re in the UK. (Enough
the article said for 7 nuclear bombs - allthough it didn't say whether it was the right grade)
http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=120681
It turned out that this loss was due to inaccuracies in the measuring equipment they used. However if someone who worked
there had proper security clearance then they might be able to sneak some out and they would blame the loss on
inaccuracies.
Tribal March 5th, 2005, 05:27 AM

I just wanted to ask...
Do they put uranium in artillery rounds, it's just that I heard trom news, that some uranium was recovered in Ukrain and they
said one could build a bad a-bomb with it, but could be used in artillery shots and ARMOR.
I was courius, what did they mean with ARMOR...
FUTI March 5th, 2005, 12:20 PM

Uranium strengthens the steel if you add some. In WWII Alies were scarred to death that Hitler started a nuke bomb project
when they recieved the information Germans digging lot of uranium ore. Germans acctually use uranium to strenghten their
tank armor.
Bert March 5th, 2005, 12:25 PM

Nuclear Weapons FAQ (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html)- Enough said.
linfieldfc March 10th, 2005, 07:31 PM

depleted uranium (U-238 left over after enrichment) is used in shells instead of lead that used to be used to make a bigger
impact when the shell hits as it is rather heavy and i presume dense


Rocket-Boy March 27th, 2005, 11:43 PM

Hrm, I guess the implosion device wouldn't even be that difficult. If the people are skilled enough to obtain the radioactive
material, then they could likely whip up some composition 4, and create a sphere around the material of c4, enough of it to
the point that the explosion force would be large enough to complete fusion. I'm picturing a guy with a good 40lbs of C4, to
the point it won't much matter if it doesn't fuse, because of the huge radioactive crater thats left. As for obtaining the
radioactive iso's, well, what about old russian equipment on the market?


j_dmillar May 9th, 2005, 08:28 PM

Um... Not to offend you, Rocket-Boy, but I think that you do underestimate significantly the difficulty in constructing an
implosion device. Just putting a sphere of C4 (or any other explosive) around the fissionable material is not going to work.
Sorry if I'm underestimating you, but I can just picture a sphere being detonated at only one point and the explosive force
squeezing the Pu or U out the other side before the detonation completes :):).
Side Note -- I have heard (though I don't recall where) that C4 and such are actually too flexible to hold the precise lens
shapes required.
In any case, you need very accurately timed detonations right round the sphere. Also, you need to: a) shape the exposives
very carefully b) have explosives of a very uniform VoD and c) use different types of explosive with different velocities. This is
to make sure that the blast wave hits the material evenly to compress it into the right shape.
Consider also the task being performed-- you are collapsing a rather thick-walled hollow sphere made of a dense, tough
metal. Remember that uranium was used in tank armour. That isn't easy, and it's best accomplished not by brute force, such
as huge amounts of explosive, but by carefull use of shaped charges.
I don't know how much inaccuracy you can have and still have a partial detonation, as opposed to just a crappy nuclear reactor
that melts itself apart in an instant. I believe it's not much, but probablya good bit more than the powers that be like to
admit.
Criticality is something that people disregard. For some reason, people think that it's trivial to figure out when something will,
and will not, be of critical mass. I'm not well versed in the physics/engineering of the problem, but I'd say that while it may be
easy to figure out the critical mass of say, Pu-239, formed into a solid sphere, with no neutron reflectors. But, I'd say it's
somewhat harder to calculate when it's a hollow shere of a (possibly unknown) mix of Pu-239 and -240, under the influence of
a shockwave, surrounded by a neutron-reflecting tamper. It would suck, to say the least, to have miscalculated the critical
mass badly enough that it went critical before detonation. And considering the limited compression abilities of the implosion
system of a terrorist device, there isn't much room between a premature critical mass and a failure to generate a critical mass.
I've been very negative so far, but I'll balance all this with the fact that when the US intentionally mis-fired weapons, by only
detonating part of the implosion system as a safety check, they still got a fission yield, as I recall. As I stated in my earlier
post, ANY fission yield is enough to acheive the goals.
Oh yeah, and how about a terrorist [state] who buys a bunch of (non- or semi-enriched) uranium from whatever source and
builds a non-sheilded reactor in downtown New York? Wouldn't that do the trick for him?

shapes required.
admit.

shapes required.
admit.
mrcfitzgerald May 31st, 2005, 02:42 AM

arggg... No an implosion device would certainly be an extrodinarily complex undertaking. Can you imagine using differing
layers of explosive each with different VoDs to shape a spherical wave from a single point and bend it into inwards moving
parabolic wave. (easier said than done because the transitions between high VoD explosive and low VoD explosive are not
immediate and take some time.) Now imagine designing this lense system to cooperate with 96 indentical sets, Now imagine
engineering each one accuratly enough (within 1mm) and pouring the explosives with enough consistancy that each
imploading wave meshes with the next. Also, you would need to ensure that the detonators all go of at the same time -
literally within 100 nanoseconds. Normal detonators are not good enough, you would need to use at least a slapper type. To
say the least, ~1500 lbs of good explosive would be needed just for a nominal 20kt weapon. The list goes on and on... A
spherical implosion system is just way, way to advanced for anyone other than nations to design from scratch. A cylindrical and
planar implosion sysem, however, looks more "promising," in that 2 dimmensional and 1 dimmensional inward moving
shockwaves are far more stable than 3 dimmensional inward moving shockwaves.


Jome skanish May 31st, 2005, 10:54 AM

Using U-235 separated from natural uranium, would require either uranium ore and a LOT of equipment for purifying,
enrichment and so on. The chemical behaviour of the two main isotopes differ very little, so one would have to rely of a
cascade system of high-speed centrifuges, which would be exceedningly hard either to obtain or build. The same goes for the
uranium ore, digging that up requires a lot of resources, and is almost impossible to do without anyone noticing. Plutonium on
the other hand is a different element and therefore easier to separate chemically from the U-238 (once you have a breeder-
reactor...) But the prescence of higher Pu-isotopes would still require some isotope separation.
U-233 generated from Th-232 in a breeder would be easier to separate, it could be done chemically since U is a different
element. Perhaps chemically separated Uranium from the said type of reactor could be used directly in a nuclear weapon, but
that of course depends of what other U-isotopes are formed, their percentage and properties. One thing that points in the
direction of if being easier that separating Pu isotopes is that there are much fewer stable U-isotopes in the vicinity. U-232 is
unstable, only U-234 would be a bitch since 235 is also fissible.
But even though these thoughs on isotope separation are just stupid thoughts from a layman, one thing remains true:
Thorium ore should be much easier to aqurie than uranium. Less monitored, and ThO2 is one of the best refractories there is
(hence its use in gas mantles), ThO2 melts at 3390 degrees centigrade, and is probably quite chemically resistant. These
properies make for a legitimate use of the material, making it easier to aquire, "were only building a 3000 degree
centrigrade oven to burn things to hell".
However, thorium requries activation since its a lot less fissile and a lot less active than even U-238, so to be able to use Th-
232 in a breeder type reactor one would have to add lots and lots of neutrons until the U-233 ammount gets high enough for
the reactor to self-sustain. If these neutrons would come from radioactive elements, we're back on the first page of
"impossible to aquire". Buying fifty-million standard size alpha sources, fire alarms or buying all old Ra-glow clocks that has
ever been made would seem quite... odd.
Only thing I could think of to generate enough neutrons for the reactor to self sustain ("in a lifetime, please...") would be to
build a big ass neutron cannon, neutrons would have to be generated by other means than radioactive isotopes.
The old method of generating neutrons by shooting alpha-rays (AKA He-4 nucleus, from radioactive isotopes) into Beryllium
gives a yield of about thirty (30) neutrons per million of alpha particles. Now try to imagine how much energy it would require
to make a decent flux of neutrons, lacking that ammount of radioactive isotopes we'd have to make those alpha-particles
ourselves and accelerate them to a few MeV's. Impossible of course, but still an interesting calculation in its absurdity how
many milligrams a year of U-233 the whole energy consumption of the US would be able to make.
But, I've heard talks of a novel type of neutron generating device using high energy protons fired against a heavy-metal
target. This is supposed to split the nucleus and generate lots of neutrons, up to eighy a hit. This kind of device has already
been built, the ISIS neutron source in the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire is of this type. http://
www.isis.rl.ac.uk/ is it's homepage. Apparently you can "buy" time there doing experiments with the unmatched neutron flux.
"How much for 10 years of eeeh, radioing our.... heating mantles?" :D
This type of device should be vastly (millions of times, even) more efficent than the old typ of neutron cannons, it could
provide a large enough neutron flux to kick our Th-232 breeder into operation, this without us having to aquire kilograms of
(virtually inobtainable) radioactive isotopes. This skips most of the "inobtainable materials-problem", but of course one would
have to plow down tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into research, a breeder reactor is not exatly a lever, let alone a
linear accelerator. Separating large ammounts of highly radioactive materials chemically might be easier than building a
gargantic centrifuge system, but its certainly not like making soda water from citric acid and bicarb....
EDIT: Speling.

EDIT: Speling.

EDIT: Speling.
mrcfitzgerald May 31st, 2005, 03:14 PM

This always happens, I post something good -then wham Ive got to log in and my entire post is worthless. Arggg. Well, I dont
have to much time so Ill just sum up what I would have said. First, Proton Spallation is worthless, unless you have a 2 or
3kilometer long accelerator and a hoover dam to power the thing. Second, I believe a more realistic alternative to linear
acceletors would be the homogenous nuclear reactor. This would be usefull because of several important, inherent reactor
characteristics. Since a homogenous reactor utilizes liquid as the carrier for uranium sulfate, it brings the uranium atoms close
enough to a moderator to achieve criticality easily. More specifically, if one was to use ~1 ton of heavy water, one would not
need to go through the pains of enriching uranium -they could use ~300-600lbs of good old natural, unenriched uranium, This
isnt to say that the reactor is easily made, 1 ton of heavy water is nearly immpossible to extract, its just a little more possible
than a uranium diffusion plant. Also, since the reactor is completely liquid in nature, onsite extraction of plutonium is fully
possible. The catch, of course, is that the reactor is limmited to about 20 megatwatt day power production which means only
about 20 grams a day Pu-239 production. This is more than made up, however, by the fact that there is no need to handle
fission wastes, as these could be kept in the solution only.


Jome skanish May 31st, 2005, 05:14 PM

I disagree on that, a linear accelerator capable of producing a 1 Gev proton beam of reasonable "density" does not have to be
that huge.
http://www.hep.lu.se/atlas/thesis/egede/thesis-node5.html heres a proposed particle accelerator-collider capable of giving the

protons 7000 times the energy required for a reactor. The greatest techical problem is not the particle energy, the device does
not have to be kilometres long. The hard thing is to get the ammount of protons requried, most linac designs are just capable
of producing fewer protons with higher energies. It seems impossible to extract useful information about the ISIS device (how
big, how much energy, how many protons...). Stupid pop-sci page...
Homogenous reactors seems interesting, but would the fission products really stay in solution? One would think elements as
different as iodine and caesium would be hard to keep in one specific solution. The radioactive gasses (like xenon!) would be
a bitch to handle, but not impossible. Perhap isoluble crap forming from the fission products is not that big of a problem, only
if elements (fission products) with huge cross-section like Hf or so steals away too many neutrons there could be trouble.
Quite a bit of research would be required, but much less than "my" reactor would. To build a "secret" nuclear reactor using
natural uranium (or Th!) one would have to own a powerplant and build a (still secret) heavy-water factory. There is some H2S-
diffusion mumbo-jombo that make it's extraction easier than distilling 100 000 volumes of water (as in the old days), but it
would still not be like making coffee.
Btw,why dont you type your post in wordpad, and then copy and paste it in.

that huge.


that huge.


My reasoning for discounting the linear accelerator method is the immense amount of energy and effort required to drive the
thing in the first place: remember each proton must be accererated to one Gev in order to spallate a lead nucleus, each
nucleus yields 80 neutrons. Simple math indicates that each neutron then has ~1.25 Mev. Now, in order to make just one
gram of pu-239, one would need (1/239)*6.022E23 Neutrons, each with an energy of 1.25 Mev -this means that inorder to
make just one gram of usefull plutonium, and ideal system would require 504 Megajoules, or very roughly the equivalent of
250 lbs or TNT. No, suppose one wanted to make a reasonable amount of plutonium per day, say enough to build a weapon
in ~3.5 years, that would require four grams a day. The energy requirements of 2016 Megajoules every 24 hours is a
surprisingly low 0.023 megawatt hour per hour (a total of 0.56 megawatt hours per day), adding this up over every day of 3.5
years the energy requirements reach a grand total of 715.4 megawatts, and one gigantic electricity bill :) . The fact is, even in
the ideal system a great amount of energy is needed, it is nothing one could do in their back yard. Also, keep in mind that
the above equations (hopefully) indicate an ideal system -one where every neutron is absorbed by every uranium nucleus.
The non-ideal system is probably going to be at least 5 times less interms of performance. Finally, the building of the liniac is
no small issue, one needs a very very large linac inorder to accelerate protons to that kind of energy, the reason is simple:
the goal is not just to get protons moving at 1 Gev for spallation, the goal is to get enough of them moving at 1 Gev to cause
enough spallation to be remotely usefull. I believe the gov't is opening up a liniac like the one I described, it is three
kilometers long, supercooled, and needs quite a bit of energy -there hope is to make the 3 kilograms of tritium required for
our nuclear arsenal each year...
Now an interesting concept would make use of cyclotrons instead of liniacs; since the cyclotron's beam is circular in nature, it
takes up much less space than a liniac of equivalent power -they are also more complex, however. I believe there is one 1-
Gev cyclotron in service: http://www.triumf.info/public/about/background.php
but the four thousand ton magnets look pretty disparaging to the inexperienced builder....
Homogenous reactor designs are convieniently found on USPTO's website. They are not extrodinarily complex, they can vary in
size from a beach ball to that of a railroad car. Insoluable products do contaminate the reactor vessel, but they can be
removed to... if one desires. Radioactive Xenon is, of course, insoluable and may be vented outside the reactor system (I
suppose if your the ecologically minded type, you could just vent it to the outside enviroment -I imagine Homeland Security
wouldnt mind either ;) ) As for heavy water, well thats a difficult proposition -one would need to process at least several
hundred tons of normal water.... Heavy water is not strictly necessary: the reactor would go critical with only one kilogram of
highly enriched uranium and normal water... The reactor, if operated under certain conditions, can opperate as a fast breeder
(although it cant really be classified as such.) So it is possible to make more fissile material than is consumed by the reactor
in this case. A small gain of ~1.2 per unit burned.


xyz June 1st, 2005, 05:31 AM

Maybe I'm making a very basic and embarassing mathematical error, but...
0.023 megawatt hours per hour is 23 kilowatt hours per hour, which is just under 31 horsepower.
Even if it's far from ideal, there are diesel generators available that will put out 20 times that, cheaper than running off the
power grid too.
Keeping the generator fuelled for 3.5 years might get expensive though...
I was thinging that one of the mining companies around this country would be a perfect front for this kind of thing, as they run
massive amounts of heavy diesel machinery 24 hours a day, using totally mind boggling amounts of fuel.
Actually, now that I think about it, it would be much easier just to steal electricity from the power grid, avoiding the massive
bills. A leak of 23 kilowatt hours per hour isn't going to be noticed, as huge quantities of of power are lost as resistance in
transmission anyway...
xyz June 1st, 2005, 05:31 AM

power grid too.
xyz June 1st, 2005, 05:31 AM

power grid too.
akinrog June 1st, 2005, 06:06 AM
As far as I know Thorium reactor is not self-sustainable. You have to use it with a neutron source.
So you have to have a working nuclear reactor at hand to breed U-233 out of thorium (or alternatively, as stated above, a
huge accelerator producing massive flux of neutrons).
(Maybe this idea sucks but) What about having a really massive natural uranium reactor (or mass) to have neutrons needed?


mrcfitzgerald June 1st, 2005, 01:43 PM

It would actually be better to avoid the Thorium cycle and stick with good old Pu-239. This is because, U-233 has a greater
critical mass (around 16Kg, a good reflector could make this 10Kg). Thus, using thorium as the neutron acceptor would require
a little more than twice the time required for Pu-239. Also, I am afraid that my estimates are way, way to liberal. Recall, that
the liniac was assumed to be an ideal system. In a real liniac, one would have to factor in cooling, downtime for parts
replacement, and worst of all -the inefficiency of the liniac acceleration system. Remember, the idea system required 0.023
megawatts per hour -I assumed that every megatwatt put in was transfered 100% to the beam. This is not the case. Non-
supercooled linaics only have an efficiency ~1%. That is to say, for every 100 megawatts put in, the actual total energy of the
particle beam is 1 megawatt. This means, in our example, a liniac would, in practice, require not 0.023 Megawatts per hour for
3.5 years - but 2.3 Megawatts per hour for 3.5 years. The grand total is no longer the idealistic 715.4 Megawatts, but a
much,much larger 71.54 Gigawatts. The energy costs are no longer $85,000, but $8.5 million. As you can see, a linaic is very
difficult to use in conjunction with nuclear fuel.
The reason homogeneous reactors looked so usefull was because they were just so convienient in comparison to other -much
more technologically demanding systems. Homogenous reactor systems cannot melt down. They are self-limmiting in nature
(because waters moderating abilities decrease as temperature increases). They are about as simple as any reactor could ever
be. Infact small (~2 megawatt) reactors were built at Los Alamos by individuals (I believe Richard Feyman). The moderating
environment with the fuel interspersed is about as close to ideal as possible -and controlling the thing can be accomplished
with a single boron neutron absorber. (Here is a good, basic introduction: http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/hRE.html )
Also, the homogeneous reactor is the only complete reactor system I have ever seen in full detail at USPTO. Usually, the
patent office is filled with billions of subsystems, safe guards, ext... Homogeneous reactors are the only kind simple enough
to be fully described in Patent Literature. Even dimmensions of the system and enrichment are indicated...
As for natural uranium, it will work when used in conjunction with graphite or with heavy water. Graphite is most notable for its
use in the early reactor types. It is not good, however, in that it requires ~80 tons of natural uranium and ~250 tons of
graphite to go critical. (I believe Enrico Fermi's original patent is still available, and probably indicates the lower limmit of
graphite reactor design) With homogenous reactors, however, enrichment is not necessary with heavy water. If enrichment is
used, however, then only very small amounts of heu (1 kilogram) is required instead of the 80 tons for a solid reactor type.

akinrog June 1st, 2005, 10:02 PM

Any patent numbers or search criteria (keywords)? I searched it but failed to find them.



All the patents are before the 1976 cut-off so you cant search for them in the standard fashion, instead you must perform an
advance search for the term ccl/976/dig31 and ccl/376/421 and make sure to select patents before 1976. These two searches
should give you a list of almost all the homogenous reactor systems ever patented.


akinrog June 6th, 2005, 12:53 AM

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,
I don't make this post to challenge what you said but what you remarked in your previous posts caused me to investigate that
why, if homogeneous reactors are so safe and easy to control, they are not used extensively (i.e. out of research laboratories)
for power generation. And the very link you gave, answered my question marks.
I believe they have serious corrosion and precipitation problems which renders them to be prohibitive for use in a continuous
and prolonged manner. But some designs may overcome these problems.
Anyway, I would chose Thorium cycle for the following reasons :

1) E-x-traction of Pu from the fuel shall be a pain in the as* since the exact procedure is not known very well (the same those
skilled in the arts shit comes into action here :mad: ). I could not even find the patents for the e-x-traction process (though
this might be due to my poor patent searching skills :( ).
2) In addition to above mentioned design bottlenecks / challenges you referred to above, I believe an implosion type device
also need a good and powerful neutron generator which is again hard to design and synchronize with the detonation of
conventional explosives.
3) Since U-233 is very similar to U-235 and can easily be obtained from thorium in abundant quantities, I believe a gun type
device may be constructed without difficulty since it's simple and (I assume) does not require a neutron generator. (I assume
this since U-233 acts very similar to U-235 and its detonation behaviour must be the same).
And back to homogeneous reactors, the links you gave again proposes that one has to have at least LEU at hand to have this
setup to go critical. It also mentions about non-enriched uranium (with heavy water) but it does not give any quantities (other
than having a pound of fissile material needed in general for all fuel types) and if the quantities you have mentioned for
natural uranium graphite reactors are involved for this setup it's again a major drawback.
So in short this approach is again a dead end since you have to have enriched uranium at hand in order to have a working
reactor. For that reason I believe it's beyond an individual enthuisast's capabilities.




nbk2000 June 7th, 2005, 12:23 PM
U-233 is abundant, yes, but also a high-energy gamma emitter, making it's handling extremely dangerous compared to the
U-235 isotope.
So either you have an endless supply of expendable workers ('cause they'll die after a few hours exposure), or a very
expensive remote handling WALDO system.
nbk2000 June 7th, 2005, 12:23 PM

U-235 isotope.
So either you have an endless supply of expendable workers ('cause they'll die after a few hours exposure), or a very
expensive remote handling WALDO system.
akinrog June 7th, 2005, 02:40 PM

U-235 isotope.
Sir,
Actually it's not U-233 which emits intense gamma rays but its contaminants namely U-232, decendants of which Bismuth 212
and thalium 208 that irradiate gamma rays. The U-233 transformation cycle involves emitting of gamma radiation though.
(Source (http://www.francenuc.org/en_mat/uranium3_e.htm))
But again I was trying to emphasize this approach (that is to say homogeneous reactor approach) is somewhat dead end,
since unless you have some LEU you may not have this setup go critical.
The links Mr. Fitzgerald gave also mentions about natural uranium plus heavy water but no quantities are given. Even if we
assume the quantities given in the original text (i.e. a pound of fissile material) is valid, I don't know an efficient (more
importantly detailed) method to produce large quantities of heavy water in a cost effective manner.
Regarding the homogeneous reactors I found the following PDF (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/

annurev.ns.06.120156.001533) which gives some information about them.
P.S. Mr.Fitzgerald might be wrong about one thing, i.e. critical size of U-233. According to the source link I gave above, one kg
U-233 is enough for making a kiloton sized device.

U-235 isotope.
Sir,
Actually it's not U-233 which emits intense gamma rays but its contaminants namely U-232, decendants of which Bismuth 212
and thalium 208 that irradiate gamma rays. The U-233 transformation cycle involves emitting of gamma radiation though.
(Source (http://www.francenuc.org/en_mat/uranium3_e.htm))
But again I was trying to emphasize this approach (that is to say homogeneous reactor approach) is somewhat dead end,
since unless you have some LEU you may not have this setup go critical.
The links Mr. Fitzgerald gave also mentions about natural uranium plus heavy water but no quantities are given. Even if we
assume the quantities given in the original text (i.e. a pound of fissile material) is valid, I don't know an efficient (more
importantly detailed) method to produce large quantities of heavy water in a cost effective manner.
Regarding the homogeneous reactors I found the following PDF (http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/

annurev.ns.06.120156.001533) which gives some information about them.
P.S. Mr.Fitzgerald might be wrong about one thing, i.e. critical size of U-233. According to the source link I gave above, one kg
U-233 is enough for making a kiloton sized device.
mrcfitzgerald June 7th, 2005, 02:52 PM

Yes, the homogeneous reactors have corrosion issues and yes it is still very complex. The fact remains that they are the least
complex of the reactor designs. For all their complexity, they are vastly easier to construct compared to modern, or even early
solid-state reactors. Such a route, I feel, is less complex then something like a linac. (However impractical a home built
reactor may be, it is far less than particle acceleration systems.) Also, homogeneous reactors are not used for power
production because they are not sufficiently power-dense/power efficient. Generally, the higher the temperature in a reactor
system, the better it can produce energy. Since homogeneous reactors are water based, that is they use water as the
moderator, they can only run so hot before water ceases to be an effective moderator... Im not saying that its within any
single individual's reach, just that it is closer.
Also, it seems U-233 is not a harmfull gamma emitter in itself, what is dangerous is U-232 which is formed when Thorium-230
catches a neutron: http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html . So, if one were able to remove the trace thorium
230 contamination, one could also produce pure U-233 (given a neutron source)

Yes, the homogeneous reactors have corrosion issues and yes it is still very complex. The fact remains that they are the least
complex of the reactor designs. For all their complexity, they are vastly easier to construct compared to modern, or even early
solid-state reactors. Such a route, I feel, is less complex then something like a linac. (However impractical a home built
reactor may be, it is far less than particle acceleration systems.) Also, homogeneous reactors are not used for power
production because they are not sufficiently power-dense/power efficient. Generally, the higher the temperature in a reactor
system, the better it can produce energy. Since homogeneous reactors are water based, that is they use water as the
moderator, they can only run so hot before water ceases to be an effective moderator... Im not saying that its within any
single individual's reach, just that it is closer.
Also, it seems U-233 is not a harmfull gamma emitter in itself, what is dangerous is U-232 which is formed when Thorium-230
catches a neutron: http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html . So, if one were able to remove the trace thorium
230 contamination, one could also produce pure U-233 (given a neutron source)

Since I noticed my lack of knowledge in some aspects of nuclear devices, I searched the net about them (thanks to a few days
of free time).
First of all I must admit that I have exaggerated the Pu e-*traction from the spent fuel. Actually there are myriads of info on
the net regarding e-x*raction. And what I liked much is a site which states that in order to have Pu with low content of even
numbered isotopes, one has to cook the fuel at the lower temperatures, a feature which commercial reactors lack. The
commercial reactors work at elevated temperatures to be power efficient.
So Water Boiler Reactors might be ideal for this task, since they operate at relatively low temperatures provided that their
corrosion problems are solved.
Regarding the extra*tion the only method I found most exiting and promising is supercritical fluid *xtraction. This process
eliminates the need for massive amounts of nitric acid solutions to dissolve and extract Pu from the spent fuel.
In addition it only uses a supercritical fluid, which is actually liquid and compressed CO2 heated to (kept at) 35 degree celcius
and forming an adduct with tributyril phosphate, (in kerosene, hexane or dodecene) plus nitric acid. When you apply this
supercritical fluid complex to (thermally) pulverized spent fuel, the lantanides (sp?) are dissolved in the fluid and when you
remove the pressure from the reaction vessel, CO2 evaporates and you simply have a solution containing U and Pu. Very neat
and elegant and most importantly not bulky :). But I must confess that I could not understand how mixture of U and Pu is
separated by using redox :eek: .
Anyway here are some links, read yourself :

http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs46/pagesg/clefs46_10.html
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_5/5-1/purexch.html
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/purex-process.htm
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2003/08/21/stories/2003082100060200.htm (Supercritical fluid (i.e. CO2))
http://www.ricin.com/nuke/bg/lahague.html
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:SpuWouhIUkIJ:www.francenuc.org/en_chn/irr_fuel1_e.htm+PUREX+%2BUranium&hl=tr
http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/peakuranium.htm
http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/1999/TPE99Enokida.pdf (Supercritical fluid (i.e. CO2) detailed process)
But the major disappointment I had is Heavy Water processes. The one which looks most promising (i.e. Girdler Sulfide
process) (with respect to energy consumption) requires very high colums (more than 90 m high) with several sieves which are
hard to hide. Now I am looking for a simple process to have (say a few liters of) heavy water. Anybody know such a process?
Maybe process is over there but I somehow missed it.
The processes I found are as follows :
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm (Heavy Water)

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec05.pdf (Heavy Water)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/DOE/DOE-CHAPTER5.PDF (Heavy Water, some data about the sizes of Heavy Water
production (enrichment) facilities)
An interesting neutron generator link :
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/neutronGenerator.html
In addition there is an article which I cannot reach. Anybody with a university subscription may have it easily and free of
charge. This article is the very article where SCF (supercritical fluid) process is described. So college students (I know there are
many amongst us, and majority of them are technical university students I believe) may get this article for the benefit of the
forum.
Anyway here it is :
Reference article: O. Tomioka, Y. Enokida, I. Yamamoto, Solvent Extraction of Lanthanides from Their Oxides
with TBP in Supercritical CO2, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 35, 515 (1998).

Since I noticed my lack of knowledge in some aspects of nuclear devices, I searched the net about them (thanks to a few days
of free time).
First of all I must admit that I have exaggerated the Pu e-*traction from the spent fuel. Actually there are myriads of info on
the net regarding e-x*raction. And what I liked much is a site which states that in order to have Pu with low content of even
numbered isotopes, one has to cook the fuel at the lower temperatures, a feature which commercial reactors lack. The
commercial reactors work at elevated temperatures to be power efficient.
So Water Boiler Reactors might be ideal for this task, since they operate at relatively low temperatures provided that their
corrosion problems are solved.
Regarding the extra*tion the only method I found most exiting and promising is supercritical fluid *xtraction. This process
eliminates the need for massive amounts of nitric acid solutions to dissolve and extract Pu from the spent fuel.
In addition it only uses a supercritical fluid, which is actually liquid and compressed CO2 heated to (kept at) 35 degree celcius
and forming an adduct with tributyril phosphate, (in kerosene, hexane or dodecene) plus nitric acid. When you apply this
supercritical fluid complex to (thermally) pulverized spent fuel, the lantanides (sp?) are dissolved in the fluid and when you
remove the pressure from the reaction vessel, CO2 evaporates and you simply have a solution containing U and Pu. Very neat
and elegant and most importantly not bulky :). But I must confess that I could not understand how mixture of U and Pu is
separated by using redox :eek: .
Anyway here are some links, read yourself :
http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs46/pagesg/clefs46_10.html
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_5/5-1/purexch.html
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/purex-process.htm
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2003/08/21/stories/2003082100060200.htm (Supercritical fluid (i.e. CO2))
http://www.ricin.com/nuke/bg/lahague.html
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:SpuWouhIUkIJ:www.francenuc.org/en_chn/irr_fuel1_e.htm+PUREX+%2BUranium&hl=tr
http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/peakuranium.htm
http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/1999/TPE99Enokida.pdf (Supercritical fluid (i.e. CO2) detailed process)
But the major disappointment I had is Heavy Water processes. The one which looks most promising (i.e. Girdler Sulfide
process) (with respect to energy consumption) requires very high colums (more than 90 m high) with several sieves which are
hard to hide. Now I am looking for a simple process to have (say a few liters of) heavy water. Anybody know such a process?
Maybe process is over there but I somehow missed it.
The processes I found are as follows :
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm (Heavy Water)

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec05.pdf (Heavy Water)
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/DOE/DOE-CHAPTER5.PDF (Heavy Water, some data about the sizes of Heavy Water
production (enrichment) facilities)
An interesting neutron generator link :
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/neutronGenerator.html
In addition there is an article which I cannot reach. Anybody with a university subscription may have it easily and free of
charge. This article is the very article where SCF (supercritical fluid) process is described. So college students (I know there are
many amongst us, and majority of them are technical university students I believe) may get this article for the benefit of the
forum.
Anyway here it is :
Reference article: O. Tomioka, Y. Enokida, I. Yamamoto, Solvent Extraction of Lanthanides from Their Oxides
with TBP in Supercritical CO2, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 35, 515 (1998).

I have found a relatively promising process for U enrichment. The process is called Aerodynamic enrichment. But I must state
that some researchers / authors claim that its capability is exaggerated. This process has been used by South African
government to enrich natural Uranium for their breeder reactors.
The process uses either vortex formation in a tapering tube (which actually represents another form of centrifuging (sp?)) or
jet nozzles. In the vortex tube setup, vortex is created by injecting UF6 gas diluted with H2 very much at (I believe) an
tangential angle at supersonic speeds. (AFAI understand) while heavier isotopes goes down the tube during spinning lighter
isotopes leaves the tapering tube's upper (and smaller) hole. This is the setup which South Africans used. Various versions of
this setup is used by some developing countries (such as Brazil).
Anyway here are some patent numbers for the process :

3708964, 3989483, 4342727, 3362131, 2951554 (beware! The patents do not contain vortex tube design but expanding jet
principle.)
Regarding the Heavy Water processes, I found catalytic processes might be useful for small scale production (enrichment).
Here are some patents regarding catalytic deuterium separation. Catalytic process utilizes certain Group VIII elements
facilitate transfer of D in hydrogen gas to H2O in liquid (or vapor) phase. By using this method one may obtain small amounts
of Heavy Water in a cost efficient manner I believe.
Here are some patents describing various variants of the process :

6858190, 2690379, 4025560, 3681021. (However I cannot find any info on the latest breakthrough called "wetproofed"
catalyst, which is important since activity of the catalyst is based on its substrate's hydrophobic character.)
From now on my post is based on my hypotetical discourse. (So sorry if I utter some kewlish / foolish / idiotic / suicidal ideas.
This is only food for thought.)
Anyway what I deduced from the latest part of this thread regarding Water Boiler Reactors (hereinafter referred to as WBR(s))
is the difficulties of obtaining LEU (for light water version) or Heavy water (for Natural U) as well as corrosion / pecipitation
problems.
Here are some of my ideas regarding to solution of these problems:

Maybe one may use aerodynamic process to obtain LEU for WBRs. As you know LEU is any enriched U whose fissile U content
is above natural abundance. So even if improvised setup may attain very low enrichment, one may finally manage to obtain
LEU (but I am manifestly omitting here the toxic nature of UF6, explosive properties of H2 used for dilution in the process and
asuming that these are overcome/solved).
One of my ideas for solving corrosion problems in WBRs is to plate the inner surfaces of the core (and any other parts thereof
necessitating corrosion protection) with lead / teflon / gold / silver or some other substance which is resistant to both chemical
corrosion and radiation damage. Lead shall be my personal choice since it's relatively cheaper and easy to apply. An idea for
solving precipitation problem is to use cylindrical setup with cooling heat exchanger (aka coils) is placed around the core,
instead of which (i.e. inside the core) a special impeller installed at the center, vanes of such impeller are in shape of mirrored
Ls. Lower (and horizontal) part is attached to the impeller shaft (at the bottom) and upper (and vertical) part is in contact with
the side walls of the cylinder. Lower parts are in contact with the bottom of the cylindirical container (core).
The function of such impeller shall be both to agitate the solution and to (lightly) scrape walls and bottom of the cylindrical
core, thereby eliminating problem of
precipitation to a certain extent.
In addition What I believe the precipitation problem arise from is the radioactive decomposition of the sulfate ions, and
thereby inducing precipitation of U oxides in the core. So if we plate walls of the core with lead (which I believe resistant to
both radiation and SA) and add some SA from time to time, we may compansate the decomposed and consequently missing
sulfate ions and thereby prevent formation / precipitation of U oxides.
Regarding the moderator / fuel pair, if we avoid enriching and go through the Natural U course, then some ideas struck in my
mind while I was thinking.
First idea was (I believe) entirely kewlish (as you put it). I thought what if we add graphite powder to the light water in the core
(for natural U setup) to increase light water's moderating capabilities and circulate and /or agitate it as specified above, in
order to prevent settlement. I believe nobody tried this type of makeshift moderator. And most probably it shall not work.
The second idea came to my mind when I was reading an article related to (possible) critically incidents in preparation of MOX
fuels.
Here is the article : http://typhoon.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/activity/Criticality%20Safety%20Evaluation%20in%20MOX%20Fue

l%20Fabrication%20Process.pdf
According to the article, Zinc Stearate is used as a binder while preparing Mox fuel pellets. And if amount of this binder is too
much in the MOX fuel blender, it might act as a moderator and give rise to a criticaly incident. Some figures are given in the
article.
In addition, while I was reading about German efforts during WWII for a nuclear device, they tried to use Paraffin wax as
moderator for a breeder reactor but then they shifted to heavy water coming from a Norway plant.
So I thought if Zinc stearate may act as a moderator, what if we add some sort of soluble hyrocarbon to the ordinary water and
use this mixture as a moderator thereby eliminating need for heavy water. Consequently (please don't laugh at me) I thought
adding soap (sodium or potassium soap) to the light water, thereby increasing its moderating capabilities and eliminating
need for heavy water for WBRs.
A secondary thought is one may produce low enriched heavy water (with catalytic process) not bothering for pure heavy water
and add this (or another more suitable) organic substance to increase its moderating capabilities and placing large (boron
free) slabs of graphite around the reactor. Graphite is not only a good moderator but also a good neutron reflector.
But problem with this idea is MOX fuel contains a high percentage of fissile material, but natural U does not. Consequently
Zinc Stearate which may act as a moderator for MOX fuel may not do so well for Natural U. Anyway this is only food for thought.
After operating the WBR for three months continuously, you may shut down it with by means of a boron rod and e*tract Pu
from the fuel soup. I suggest operating for three months since I once read somewhere Israelis irradiate natural U blankets for
three months in order to have optimum Pu with minimum even numbered isotopes for their nuk*es.
What about these ideas? I hope they do not entirely suck :). Regards.

I have found a relatively promising process for U enrichment. The process is called Aerodynamic enrichment. But I must state
that some researchers / authors claim that its capability is exaggerated. This process has been used by South African
government to enrich natural Uranium for their breeder reactors.
The process uses either vortex formation in a tapering tube (which actually represents another form of centrifuging (sp?)) or
jet nozzles. In the vortex tube setup, vortex is created by injecting UF6 gas diluted with H2 very much at (I believe) an
tangential angle at supersonic speeds. (AFAI understand) while heavier isotopes goes down the tube during spinning lighter
isotopes leaves the tapering tube's upper (and smaller) hole. This is the setup which South Africans used. Various versions of
this setup is used by some developing countries (such as Brazil).
Anyway here are some patent numbers for the process :

3708964, 3989483, 4342727, 3362131, 2951554 (beware! The patents do not contain vortex tube design but expanding jet
principle.)
Regarding the Heavy Water processes, I found catalytic processes might be useful for small scale production (enrichment).
Here are some patents regarding catalytic deuterium separation. Catalytic process utilizes certain Group VIII elements
facilitate transfer of D in hydrogen gas to H2O in liquid (or vapor) phase. By using this method one may obtain small amounts
of Heavy Water in a cost efficient manner I believe.
Here are some patents describing various variants of the process :

6858190, 2690379, 4025560, 3681021. (However I cannot find any info on the latest breakthrough called "wetproofed"
catalyst, which is important since activity of the catalyst is based on its substrate's hydrophobic character.)
From now on my post is based on my hypotetical discourse. (So sorry if I utter some kewlish / foolish / idiotic / suicidal ideas.
This is only food for thought.)
Anyway what I deduced from the latest part of this thread regarding Water Boiler Reactors (hereinafter referred to as WBR(s))
is the difficulties of obtaining LEU (for light water version) or Heavy water (for Natural U) as well as corrosion / pecipitation
problems.
Here are some of my ideas regarding to solution of these problems:

Maybe one may use aerodynamic process to obtain LEU for WBRs. As you know LEU is any enriched U whose fissile U content
is above natural abundance. So even if improvised setup may attain very low enrichment, one may finally manage to obtain
LEU (but I am manifestly omitting here the toxic nature of UF6, explosive properties of H2 used for dilution in the process and
asuming that these are overcome/solved).
One of my ideas for solving corrosion problems in WBRs is to plate the inner surfaces of the core (and any other parts thereof
necessitating corrosion protection) with lead / teflon / gold / silver or some other substance which is resistant to both chemical
corrosion and radiation damage. Lead shall be my personal choice since it's relatively cheaper and easy to apply. An idea for
solving precipitation problem is to use cylindrical setup with cooling heat exchanger (aka coils) is placed around the core,
instead of which (i.e. inside the core) a special impeller installed at the center, vanes of such impeller are in shape of mirrored
Ls. Lower (and horizontal) part is attached to the impeller shaft (at the bottom) and upper (and vertical) part is in contact with
the side walls of the cylinder. Lower parts are in contact with the bottom of the cylindirical container (core).
The function of such impeller shall be both to agitate the solution and to (lightly) scrape walls and bottom of the cylindrical
core, thereby eliminating problem of
precipitation to a certain extent.
In addition What I believe the precipitation problem arise from is the radioactive decomposition of the sulfate ions, and
thereby inducing precipitation of U oxides in the core. So if we plate walls of the core with lead (which I believe resistant to
both radiation and SA) and add some SA from time to time, we may compansate the decomposed and consequently missing
sulfate ions and thereby prevent formation / precipitation of U oxides.
Regarding the moderator / fuel pair, if we avoid enriching and go through the Natural U course, then some ideas struck in my
mind while I was thinking.
First idea was (I believe) entirely kewlish (as you put it). I thought what if we add graphite powder to the light water in the core
(for natural U setup) to increase light water's moderating capabilities and circulate and /or agitate it as specified above, in
order to prevent settlement. I believe nobody tried this type of makeshift moderator. And most probably it shall not work.
The second idea came to my mind when I was reading an article related to (possible) critically incidents in preparation of MOX
fuels.
Here is the article : http://typhoon.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/activity/Criticality%20Safety%20Evaluation%20in%20MOX%20Fue

l%20Fabrication%20Process.pdf
According to the article, Zinc Stearate is used as a binder while preparing Mox fuel pellets. And if amount of this binder is too
much in the MOX fuel blender, it might act as a moderator and give rise to a criticaly incident. Some figures are given in the
article.
In addition, while I was reading about German efforts during WWII for a nuclear device, they tried to use Paraffin wax as
moderator for a breeder reactor but then they shifted to heavy water coming from a Norway plant.
So I thought if Zinc stearate may act as a moderator, what if we add some sort of soluble hyrocarbon to the ordinary water and
use this mixture as a moderator thereby eliminating need for heavy water. Consequently (please don't laugh at me) I thought
adding soap (sodium or potassium soap) to the light water, thereby increasing its moderating capabilities and eliminating
need for heavy water for WBRs.
A secondary thought is one may produce low enriched heavy water (with catalytic process) not bothering for pure heavy water
and add this (or another more suitable) organic substance to increase its moderating capabilities and placing large (boron
free) slabs of graphite around the reactor. Graphite is not only a good moderator but also a good neutron reflector.
But problem with this idea is MOX fuel contains a high percentage of fissile material, but natural U does not. Consequently
Zinc Stearate which may act as a moderator for MOX fuel may not do so well for Natural U. Anyway this is only food for thought.
After operating the WBR for three months continuously, you may shut down it with by means of a boron rod and e*tract Pu
from the fuel soup. I suggest operating for three months since I once read somewhere Israelis irradiate natural U blankets for
three months in order to have optimum Pu with minimum even numbered isotopes for their nuk*es.
What about these ideas? I hope they do not entirely suck :). Regards.
senom June 15th, 2005, 02:25 AM

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/4fun/bigbang.htm
a comical site on the same topic...

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/4fun/bigbang.htm
a comical site on the same topic...

Dear Friends,
During the last few days, I made some more research into the subject matter hereof, and developed some (I hope not
kewlish) ideas regarding this.
First of all, I would like to address the LEU problem. In addition to Aerodynamic enrichment processes, there is another
process called chemical exchange and ion exchange enrichment. These processes are based on the phenomenon that lighter
isotopes have a tendency to be present in higher oxidation states (higher valance values).
Another most important aspect of these processes is that they do not use toxic and corrosive gases (called HEX), and
complicated mechanic systems (like compressors, piping, fittings, centrifuges, etc.) The (both) processes are very similar to
P*UR*EX process, utilizing TBP and kerosene (hereinafter referred to extraction solvent - ES) and chloride salts of U. While ES
contains higher valance U chloride salts, the aqueous phase contains lower valance U chloride salts. Both phases are placed in
a pulse column and pulsed for ensuring intimate mixing. There occurs an isotope exchange between two phases : while ligher
isotopes (in aqueous phase) migrate to ES phase, the heavier isotopes in ES phase migrate to aqueous phase. During this
operation certain catalysts increase exchange rate in the order of 3000.
After this stage two different approaches are used for extracting the both fractions (one enriched fraction and one depleted
fraction). Either they are separated in Pu*R*EX process or they are forced through a (proprietary) ion exchange resin and
separated efficiently.
Since the ion exchange resin is proprietary (i.e. ambigious), I would personally chose the first approach. Since these processes
(except for ion exchange resin) are very similar to dairy churning process, I call them churning process. If one can use the first
process with the aid of catalysts, one may obtain LEU for WBRs referred to further above.
Both processes are described quite clearly in the link below :
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm
The most advantageous aspect of these processes is (IMHO) they are not energy extensive. They are performed at relatively
mild temperatures and pressures and do not need those complex centrifuges, pipings, fittings and most importantly highly
corrosive and toxic fluorides, etc. However, they have to be performed several thousand times to obtain a good enrichment (a
setup which applies not only to this process but to almost any any enrichment processes in form of cascades).
If the chemical enrichment process is used in combination with the vague catalysts referred to in Patent No 4049769 then it
might be possible to enrich U at least up to LEU level.
Here are patents for the above mentioned processes :

4049769 (this patent is related to Ion Exchange process whose exchange rate is increased by a factor of 3000 by means of
various (and vague) catalyst(s).)
4092398 (Isotope (ion) exchange process using a proprietary ion exchange resin)
4112045
4129481
BTW, I think our concerns over the Th cycle is a little bit unnecessary. The harsh gamma emmiter contaminants of irradiated
th (i.e. Bismuth 212 and Thalium 208) are very short lifed (in the order of minutes). Sources :
http://www.angelfire.com/yt/radiation/radon.html
http://wildlife1.usask.ca/ccwhc2003/short_course2000/tox-3.htm
The ancestor of above mentioned harsh gamma emitter contaminants, i.e. U-232 is an alpha emitter and (I believe) it can be
totally eliminated by using chemical and ion exchange processes. Of course such isotopic elimination processes must be
performed after the spent fuel is left to cool down (in order to allow for the gamma emitters to decompose /decay).
The most advantageous aspects of U-233 is its small critical mass which makes it ideal for artillery shells. While there are
artillery shells utilizing Pu, it's not a suitable thing since it's wasteful of the Pu used (with respect to amount of Pu used and
the very low yield obtained).
In addition, my ideas regarding use of organic materials for moderating reactors are not totally baseless. During the searches
over the net, I came across a new (but actually quite old) concept called organically moderated reactors, which use certain
polyphenols as moderator. However, since they are totally experimental I cannot find any references regarding its fuel
composition except for it's slightly enriched.
In addition, there is an article regarding OMRs (organically moderated reactors) which states the TBP-kerosen solvent pair as
moderator. However the fuel composition (I believe) is HEU.
Anyway here is the link :
http://www.csirc.net/docs/technical/12808/ref_077.pdf
The catalytic heavy water enrichment processes are quite promising. Here is a link describing a catalytic enrichment process
quite clearly. There is a better wet-proofed catalyst in the patents than those described in this paper.
Anyway here is the paper

http://nrd.pnpi.spb.ru/lriv/Marseille173.PDF.

Dear Friends,
During the last few days, I made some more research into the subject matter hereof, and developed some (I hope not
kewlish) ideas regarding this.
First of all, I would like to address the LEU problem. In addition to Aerodynamic enrichment processes, there is another
process called chemical exchange and ion exchange enrichment. These processes are based on the phenomenon that lighter
isotopes have a tendency to be present in higher oxidation states (higher valance values).
Another most important aspect of these processes is that they do not use toxic and corrosive gases (called HEX), and
complicated mechanic systems (like compressors, piping, fittings, centrifuges, etc.) The (both) processes are very similar to
P*UR*EX process, utilizing TBP and kerosene (hereinafter referred to extraction solvent - ES) and chloride salts of U. While ES
contains higher valance U chloride salts, the aqueous phase contains lower valance U chloride salts. Both phases are placed in
a pulse column and pulsed for ensuring intimate mixing. There occurs an isotope exchange between two phases : while ligher
isotopes (in aqueous phase) migrate to ES phase, the heavier isotopes in ES phase migrate to aqueous phase. During this
operation certain catalysts increase exchange rate in the order of 3000.
After this stage two different approaches are used for extracting the both fractions (one enriched fraction and one depleted
fraction). Either they are separated in Pu*R*EX process or they are forced through a (proprietary) ion exchange resin and
separated efficiently.
Since the ion exchange resin is proprietary (i.e. ambigious), I would personally chose the first approach. Since these processes
(except for ion exchange resin) are very similar to dairy churning process, I call them churning process. If one can use the first
process with the aid of catalysts, one may obtain LEU for WBRs referred to further above.
Both processes are described quite clearly in the link below :
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm
The most advantageous aspect of these processes is (IMHO) they are not energy extensive. They are performed at relatively
mild temperatures and pressures and do not need those complex centrifuges, pipings, fittings and most importantly highly
corrosive and toxic fluorides, etc. However, they have to be performed several thousand times to obtain a good enrichment (a
setup which applies not only to this process but to almost any any enrichment processes in form of cascades).
If the chemical enrichment process is used in combination with the vague catalysts referred to in Patent No 4049769 then it
might be possible to enrich U at least up to LEU level.
Here are patents for the above mentioned processes :

4049769 (this patent is related to Ion Exchange process whose exchange rate is increased by a factor of 3000 by means of
various (and vague) catalyst(s).)
4092398 (Isotope (ion) exchange process using a proprietary ion exchange resin)
4112045
4129481
BTW, I think our concerns over the Th cycle is a little bit unnecessary. The harsh gamma emmiter contaminants of irradiated
th (i.e. Bismuth 212 and Thalium 208) are very short lifed (in the order of minutes). Sources :
http://www.angelfire.com/yt/radiation/radon.html
http://wildlife1.usask.ca/ccwhc2003/short_course2000/tox-3.htm
The ancestor of above mentioned harsh gamma emitter contaminants, i.e. U-232 is an alpha emitter and (I believe) it can be
totally eliminated by using chemical and ion exchange processes. Of course such isotopic elimination processes must be
performed after the spent fuel is left to cool down (in order to allow for the gamma emitters to decompose /decay).
The most advantageous aspects of U-233 is its small critical mass which makes it ideal for artillery shells. While there are
artillery shells utilizing Pu, it's not a suitable thing since it's wasteful of the Pu used (with respect to amount of Pu used and
the very low yield obtained).
In addition, my ideas regarding use of organic materials for moderating reactors are not totally baseless. During the searches
over the net, I came across a new (but actually quite old) concept called organically moderated reactors, which use certain
polyphenols as moderator. However, since they are totally experimental I cannot find any references regarding its fuel
composition except for it's slightly enriched.
In addition, there is an article regarding OMRs (organically moderated reactors) which states the TBP-kerosen solvent pair as
moderator. However the fuel composition (I believe) is HEU.
Anyway here is the link :
http://www.csirc.net/docs/technical/12808/ref_077.pdf
The catalytic heavy water enrichment processes are quite promising. Here is a link describing a catalytic enrichment process
quite clearly. There is a better wet-proofed catalyst in the patents than those described in this paper.
Anyway here is the paper

http://nrd.pnpi.spb.ru/lriv/Marseille173.PDF.

Regarding the NRDC and their one kilogram - one kiloton prediction... it seems to me that it is fully possible to release the
energy equivalent of one kiloton from one kilogram of U-233 or Plutonium. Carry Sublette states this in his nuclear FAQ.
However, he also states that this yield could only be achieved through the use of advanced flying plate-levitated core nuclear
weapon designs. Sublette, in his nuclear FAQ, also makes mention of the use of D-T boosting in such low fissile material - low
yield devices. An efficient reflector material, such as Beryllium, is also a requirement... This, however, does not make my
original statment of 16Kg incorrect for U-233's bare sphere critical mass. Carry Sublette derived this figure on the basis of one
group calculations, which seem to be accurate given the fact that the calculations agree with Los-Alamos' published data.
(Which is, unfortunanly, removed from the public domain. Most of what is left is available on www.fas.org... Ill see if I can find
the link)

Regarding the NRDC and their one kilogram - one kiloton prediction... it seems to me that it is fully possible to release the
energy equivalent of one kiloton from one kilogram of U-233 or Plutonium. Carry Sublette states this in his nuclear FAQ.
However, he also states that this yield could only be achieved through the use of advanced flying plate-levitated core nuclear
weapon designs. Sublette, in his nuclear FAQ, also makes mention of the use of D-T boosting in such low fissile material - low
yield devices. An efficient reflector material, such as Beryllium, is also a requirement... This, however, does not make my
original statment of 16Kg incorrect for U-233's bare sphere critical mass. Carry Sublette derived this figure on the basis of one
group calculations, which seem to be accurate given the fact that the calculations agree with Los-Alamos' published data.
(Which is, unfortunanly, removed from the public domain. Most of what is left is available on www.fas.org... Ill see if I can find
the link)
akinrog July 18th, 2005, 03:37 AM

While surfing I came across these two goodies about WBRs.
:D
Here are the links :
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext/engineering/reactor/NEprop033050.html
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext/engineering/reactor/NEfurther010052.html
akinrog July 18th, 2005, 03:37 AM

While surfing I came across these two goodies about WBRs.
:D
Here are the links :
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext/engineering/reactor/NEprop033050.html
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext/engineering/reactor/NEfurther010052.html
nbk2000 November 10th, 2007, 12:42 AM

The collection of uranium from seawater has been developed by JAEA. A pilot scale experiment in the sea revealed that a
braided adsorbent was effective to achieve a reasonable cost for the uranium collection from seawater.
Aquaculture of Uranium in Seawater by a Fabric-Adsorbent Submerged System

Nuclear Technology, Volume 144, Number 2, November 2003, Pages 274-278
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278
Assessing High Function Metal Collectors for Seawater Uranium

http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/4_5.html
(attached)
megalomania November 10th, 2007, 04:52 AM

I read about that uranium collection scheme years ago in Popular Science. There is enough uranium in seawater to supply all
of the worlds electrical power needs for generations, but we would have to process a daily volume of water equal to the volume
of water the worlds rivers dump into the oceans. This is no easy, or cheap, feat.
Gold, silver, platinum, and other precious metals can also be extracted from seawater increasing the commercial value of such
an endeavor.

This material extracts the uranium from ocean water at a cost that is almost equal to commercially mined uranium from the
ground, when the filters lifespan is factored in.
Even at 10x the cost, it'd be worth it to a country with no natural uranium deposits, because they wouldn't have to risk
importing any, thus exposing their interest in such.
The neat thing about this is that uranium is universally present in seawater, regardless of geography, making impossible any
attempt at preventing access to fissionable materials to countries that have access to the sea. :p
Thermiteisfun November 10th, 2007, 11:46 AM

I may get banned for this but I believe even the most morose of people with a chem clue would find it hilarious. I found it on
a google search for improvised atomic weapons.
It says you can use a bicycle pump for pressure needed to enrich the U.
http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/ka_fucking_boom/hbomb.html
(NBK, it has NO paragraph breaks so you might pull your hair out reading it)
Charles Owlen Picket November 11th, 2007, 10:33 AM

[I have come to note that] posting issues explored in "totse" are greeted with the same disdain by the proprietor as referring
to Martin Luther King as a "Alabama Silverback" in an NAACP collective. {au lait faux paux?}

It's always fun to see what's happening on the other side of the tracks...deep in the inbred woods. ;)
W4RGASM November 12th, 2007, 09:34 AM

Hey, that hurts.
Don't lump the forums in with the textfiles.
megalomania November 13th, 2007, 06:34 AM

TOTSE has some very good information, they have all the explosives stuff they ripped from my website :) Beyond that...
inbred does not even begin to describe it. They make the Africans who rape toddlers as a cure for AIDS sound enlightened.
Thermiteisfun November 13th, 2007, 10:51 AM

You really need to bring back the Watercooler... I could see this thread go on a tangent for weeks.
4Q4E3A December 4th, 2007, 02:47 PM

You don"t need 100% pure u-235 but just enough to sustain a reaction.
A gun-type could be more of a challenge because you need to work out how much high explosives you need to force the
projectil hard and fast enough to 'weld' the two together. How ever the implosion method just requieres exact timeing of all of
the explosives and all of the explosives must be the exact same. Also the implosion method requires two more radioactive
materials (for national security they will not be named).
It is possable for terrorists to get such materials at places like Chernobyl.

How ever there could be a easier way to make such a weapon ( if anyone is interested to find out reaspond to this message).
In gerneral it is hard to make a homemade nuke let alone get it to work properly.
akinrog December 5th, 2007, 03:51 PM

How ever the implosion method just requieres exact timeing of all of the explosives and all of the explosives must be the
exact same.
Not that simple, implosion method also requires precision shaping of the shockwave fronts so each shockwave from each
explosive lenses converge in the center of the sphere, which makes it a pain in the heinie to design explosive lenses.
In addition, explosive lenses require precision manufacturing techniques which precludes presence of any bubbles, flaws or
failures in the texture of the explosive mass(es) used in the lens.
Also the implosion method requires two more radioactive materials (for national security they will not be named).
I doubt it. Maybe you are referring to neutron sources (i.e. polonium and berrylium) used in the beginning of the technology.
However nowadays, electronic neutron sources are used. Regards.
4Q4E3A December 9th, 2007, 11:57 AM

There is a web site that you can download nuclear bomb plans: www.linkbase.org.
DiablerieBane February 18th, 2008, 01:59 AM

A nuclear bomb does not require tons of nuclear material. A nuclear bomb requires a very small amount of nuclear material
compared to the amount of High Explosives it requires. It takes vast amount of energy to convert elements from one to
another(unless you're a plant) so the idea of a 15 year old kid doing so is, in my mind, infeasible. A nuclear bomb to my
knowledge however limited it may be, consists of a core of nuclear material, surrounded by thousands of pounds of high
explosives. The outer layer detonates, compressing the nuclear material to critical mass. Sort of like the death of a star. An
implosion, THEN the explosion. The forces exerted must be I-fucking-dentical, for the fission to take place, so all the high
explosives must detonate precisely the same instant. Which is where the hard part comes in. But dont quote me on it.
Asriel May 5th, 2008, 11:57 PM

If one had the Plutonium or Uranium how hard would it be to construst a nuclear device? From what I have read it really
doesn't sound that difficult, especially a gun type. I think the implosion type device would be more of a challenge.
I have no interest in building such a thing but I was thinking if a terrorist group was to obtain the fissionable material it might
not be too difficult for them to do it.
What do you guys think?
1. Anyone with a fair amount of resources, access to the internet, and masters or possibly even a bachelors degree in physics
could make the crude gun barrel type nuke if they had the money (it would still cost thousands) and the uranium
2. The above point is almost completely moot as obtaining weapons grade (95% pure) U-235 (the material used in said
simple nuke) is one of the most difficult tasks in the world, as it is one of the most sought after and dangerous substances in
the world. Refining non-weapons grade U-238 such as is contained in power plants (roughly 2-3% U-235) requires an
extrordinarily tedious and monumentously expensive (in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars) to make, so any ideas of
simply getting nuclear material from chernobyl are at best the realm of a bad techno-thriller novel. The only other way to
obtain weapons grade U-235 is by attempting to steal it from a nuclear nation, an idea so ludicrous, it can reasonably be
classified as a suicide attempt.
3. While it is possible to use much easier to get plutonium to make a nuclear bomb, the bomb making is much more difficult,
requires lots of precision engineering, millions of dollars, and a large industrial complex as the specifications for the device
(an "implosion" type) have to have ludicrously high tolerances, completely unachievable by any one person or even a small
group.
4. So inconclusion, the only type that is easy to make requires a fair bit of weapons grade U-235, which is nearly impossible to
obtain, if by some miracle you managed to get enough for a bomb, then yes, in theory, you could make a crude nuclear
device.
Necrophagist May 6th, 2008, 10:03 PM

I'm not 100%, but I'm fairly certain that you could make a gun type nuclear bomb out of Plutonium, it doesn't have to be
Uranium.
The_Duke May 7th, 2008, 02:13 AM

You are correct, Necrophagist. Plutonium can be used in a gun type device.
Hirudinea May 10th, 2008, 08:36 PM

I'm fairly certain that you could make a gun type nuclear bomb out of Plutonium
You are correct, Necrophagist. Plutonium can be used in a gun type device.
I was under the impression that Plutonium had to high a fissile rate to used in a gun-type bomb?
mrcfitzgerald May 11th, 2008, 03:32 AM

A gun type bomb must be made from uranium-235. Plutonium cannot work at the usual velocities due to Plutonium-240
spontaneous fission. Now, theoretically a gun type device using plutonium is possible, but the velocities necessary are
ludicrous (being perhaps on the order of 2km/s or so). In such cases, I feel a true linear implosion would constitute the
simplest Plutonium system since it can achieve the necessary velocities for insertion without the prohibitively large/heavy gun
barrel. Such a system would be similar, in some respects, to the Explosively formed projectors currently in use ... except they
would have to make use of a relatively accurate planar explosive lens in order to accelerate the (I imagine disk-like)
plutonium projectile into the Pu-239 "target".
pangois60 October 19th, 2008, 10:39 AM

Please follow this attachment word for word.:D:rolleyes::cool: Also youll need some sunblock for these ones:D

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Military Napalm
Log in
View Full Version : Military Napalm
ossassin March 2nd, 2003, 03:35 PM

I am looking for a good type of fuel for a flamethrower similar to this design. <a href="http://people.howstuffworks.com/flamethrower2.htm" target="_blank">web page</
a> (see the flash diagram about half-way down the page)
I am pretty sure that diesel fuel was used in WWII, but this model appears to be a vietnam model, which would have used napalm. I have seen many different posts on the
forums about different ways to make napalm, but I don't think that anyone is thinking about the fact that different types of napalm have different uses. Does anyone know the
chemical composition of military napalm meant to be used in flamethrowers? It must be thinner than the the gasoline/polystyrene mixture, which has the consistency of honey.
I also doubt that the military used soap in their napalm. It doesn't seem complicated enough <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
Thanks for helping me out, and please don't ban me for starting a new thread on my first post. I didn't see any posts that were closely related to this, except maybe the
flamethrower one...and that focused more on flamethrower designs that used gasoline and kerosene.
kingspaz March 2nd, 2003, 05:19 PM

i won't lock this despite you breaking a VERY important rule just don't do it again. this topic seems credible and thought out so you're let off.
as i replied in the flame thrower topic i'd guess a 50/50 mix of petrol and engine oil should make a decent fuel. reasonably long burning, hot burning, and pumpable.
jelly March 2nd, 2003, 08:56 PM

The "Flammoel" (flame oil) the germans used in their flame-throwers during the WW2
was also a mix of 50% gasoline and 50% motor oil.
carbonated March 3rd, 2003, 11:59 PM

I bet a liquid fuel rather than a gelled one will be easier to work with in improvised flamethrowers. I'm thinking specifically in the nozzle/speed-of-ejection area which correlates
to range.
NightStalker March 4th, 2003, 02:10 AM

The honey like military napalm thins under the shear strain of being forced through the constriction of a nozzle, so it becomes much easier to spray, though it instantly
rethickens once it's out of the nozzle.
Read the SIPRI IW PDF.
Skean Dhu March 4th, 2003, 07:25 PM

has anybody seen those fuel gel refills for chaffing dishes and sterno type heateing canisters. i wonder how well this would suit your purposes. also on a similar note does
anybody know what was in greek fire?
metafractal March 5th, 2003, 02:59 AM

To bring this back to the topic, military napalm is a mixture of petrol (pure octane I would guess, but not shure), napthalic acid, and polystyrene. I italicise polystyrene because
there is much confusion about this. Polystyrene and styrofoam are two different substances. However, what most people call styrofoam (or at least what people call styrofoam
in america), is actually polystyrene. Styrofoam was a substance manafactured by some chemical company a while ago that never took off and found no commercial use. So
the K3wLzzz arent all that far off when they make 'napalm' by shoving a block of polystyrene in some petrol. Does anyone know what napthalic acid is, chemically? If its a
Lowry-Bronstein acid, then its probably just two fused benzene rings with an H+ coming off 'em. If its a Lewis acid, though, it could be something more complicated.
I agree with what has been said, napalm is much too thick for anything bar a professional/military flamethrower. For the crudeley improvised ones, just use motor oil/octane
50/50. I have a contraption bareley worth the title of a flamethrower that I built for clearing land of small shrubs/grass out of a fertilizer sprayer. It would have no value as a
weapon in combat, but works wonders against weeds!
[ March 05, 2003, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: metafractal ]
BoB- March 5th, 2003, 03:36 AM

Rjche (I think, it could have been BadSeeD) once said that military napalm is 50% polystyrene, 25% Benzene, and 25% gasoline. I've also read this in a few other places.
Experimentation is the key to what your looking for, nozzle size, psi, and flowrates all effect the distance of the napalm. Of course its alot simpler to just keep playing around
with different formulas, instead of adjusting the gun. There is a massive list of thickening agents in the 'Improvised Munitions Manual', which can be found in the Poor Mans
James Bond #1.
There is also a book by Ragnar Benson that might help you, 'Dragons Breath' its either on the FTP or online.
xyz March 5th, 2003, 06:26 AM

I have read something about military napalm containing white phosphorous to make it burn hotter and be extemely dificult to put out.
[ March 05, 2003, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: xyz ]
Al Nobel March 5th, 2003, 11:43 AM

"They found that mixing an aluminum soap powder of naphthene and palmitate (hence na-palm), also known as napthenic and palmitic acids, with gasoline produced a
brownish sticky syrup that burned more slowly than raw gasoline, and hence was much more effective at igniting one's target. The napalm was mixed in varying concentrations
of 6% (for flame throwers) and 12-15% for bombs mixed on site (for use in perimeter defense)."
I found this about american WW2 napalm.Does anyone know the exact recipe?

So does that mean that WWII napalm is different from the more modern, Vietnam-age napalm? If so, what is the difference?
ElectricJesus March 7th, 2003, 02:07 AM

Well, as far as flamethrower fuels go, I'd say that good ol' 50/50 mix of Gasoline and Diesel (or kerosene) works quite well. The gasoline ensures that it ignites immediately,
whilst the kerosene or diesel allows it to burn for a much longer time when it hits the target.
As soon as it gets warm enough to be outside, I'm gonna be testing a large number of different flamethrower fuels and keep you all updated.
Skean Dhu May 31st, 2003, 12:41 PM

i recently experimented with some napalm. i used polystyrene, gasoline(87octane), acetone, and a bit of kerosene. depending on how much acetone you add to the mix you
get varying thicknesses of napalm. mine was similar to liquid soap/watered down syrup. it poured very easily and stuck to everything. also when i filled my supersoaker up it
had a range of~20 feet. it was ignited with an 'aim and flame' lighter. this particular mix burns on water.
i plan on eventually making a proper flamthrower since the plastic will eventually melt/soften from teh acetone/benzene
i thought that vietnam era napalm was 46% polystyrene, 33%gas and 21%benzene. (i might have gas/benzen mixed up)
ancalagon May 31st, 2003, 01:28 PM

I believe that orignal napalm was a powder, consisting of "a coprecipitated aluminum soap from naphthenic acids and the fatty acids of coconut oil developed early in 1942 for
the preparation of gasoline advertisement." This powder was then mixed with fuel to form a sticky thick highly inflammable liquid. I also remember reading some where that
napalm bombs would suck the oxygen out of the air, increasing the amount of CO to lethal amounts (around 20%).
-Ancalagon
for incendiary munitions."
Skean Dhu May 31st, 2003, 10:20 PM

that is quite possible but note that i said "I thought that vietnam era napalm.........."
has anybody in the forum made a flamethrower worth bragging about and is willing to share the plans?
McGuyver June 1st, 2003, 12:09 AM

I think the best flamethrower design is one that uses a fertilizer sprayer, they are made to handle fuels and such and the nozzle is adjustable. Mine shot like 15-20 feet with
straight gasoline. I didn't really have an ignition system though, I just had a burning rag attached to the nozzle assembly with a copper wire. I think the best ignition system
would be one of those little butane torches mounted somewhere on the handle and then the part where the flame comes out, take that off and mount it on the nozzle in an
appropriate place to light the mixture. Then, get a long fuel line, hook that up, then do the same with the spark igniter, and presto you have an adjustable flame thrower that
can be turned on and off right at your hand. Oh and both the mixture lighter and the mixture are easily refillable.
stickfigure June 1st, 2003, 02:44 AM

As per Ragnar Benson's "Breath of the Dragon" military Napalm was gas, diesel and M-2 or M-4 alumagel that was a cream colored powder. Their use was dictated by the
weather and humidity and depending on tempature ranges with in those two main ranges M-2 warmer, M-4 colder. He gives no specific chemical formula but most of the folks
here in the forum are more chemical savvy than I and might have a better idea of it's nature. He go's on to explain, that he finds a 50/50 or 40/60 diesel and gas mix are
desirable fuel mixtures in conjunction with the alumagel. Mr. Benson also suggests using a product called Sure-Fire made by Simplex Manufacturing Co. out of Portland Oregon.
Again no chemical specifics just info of what and where to get it.
As in the Flamethrower thread I've been looking for info and I found a copy of "The Breath of the Dragon" is cost me an arm and a leg but it was worth it, also I found a guy
who had all US flamer manuals on CD and I just got it in the mail the other day.
Flamethrowers are still legal in most areas although that might be changing with the fallout of Sep. 11th. I've heard of complete flamers going between 12-15k
I've been gathering parts based on this knowledge and pretty much have a rough idea of how it will work. I just found a gas tank and need to test it for it's pressure threshold,
although the mechanics of the wand will take the most work and planning. I've got a couple of issues of American Survival Mag. that have articles about Flamers and their
legallity. "Mail Call" on the history channel also had a flamethrower on it the other day and I'm going to buy the Episode just for added info, and because it was really cool
showing it actually working. If all go's well I'll post some pictures here in the next year on my progress.
ancalagon June 4th, 2003, 02:01 PM

I remember reading somewhere that some of the military flame-throwers could shoot in excess of 80 feet. I wonder if anybody knows something of this. Also, is there a
procedure to extract palmitic acids from coconuts, or would simple de-juicing work?
-Ancalagon
Agent Blak June 4th, 2003, 04:51 PM

Is it really necessary to use what they used in Vietnam or WW2... Come on. All you need is a a way to thicken already flamable liquids. Your best bet would be oil; cheap and
readily available.
Remember the KISS rule. No need to make things more complicated than they need to be.
nbk2000 June 4th, 2003, 06:27 PM

Acetone and styrofoam...how hard is that? And that's pretty much what the military uses now too, so you don't want to fuck around with the old palmetic acid crap, which gave
an applesauce-textered goo.
Just keep adding styrofoam to the gas till it's thick enough to spray, and you're all set. :)
Mr-Eckted June 8th, 2003, 04:12 AM

i Have a flamethrower that uses MEK as a fuel. It's the perfect consistancy for spraying, and you can buy it in stores as fondue fuel. It's blue, and very flammable. The cool
thing is, the flame is almost invisible! They wont know what hit em!

I know there are much simpler ways to make napalm than with the ol' coconut oil methods, but I am interested in the process that was used before. After all, people still by
crossbows, swords, and blackpowder guns, all of which are rather outdated in accomplishing what they were designed to do.
-Ancalagon
ossassin June 28th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Skean, what was your kerosene/gasoline ratio? Did the kerosene make a big difference?
By the way, were you in the military at one time, nbk? You seem to know alot about what the military uses. I was just curious.
ALENGOSVIG1 June 28th, 2003, 03:47 AM

i find that acetone/xylene or acetone/gasoline in a 50/50 mix with styro added gives a nice thin, sticky napalm.
Stir in some KNO3/Sugar and your set. ;)

I'm in the proccess of building a mini-flamethrower (possibly more details to come in improvied weapons), and I'm giving a lot of thought to what mixture I want to use for the
napalm. Typically, I go for a gasoline/acetone/polystyrene mix, but I was thinking of using jellied petroleum instead of the polystyrene and also adding naptha. The problem,
however, is that it is not very sticky, so I was wondering what I could add that would keep the mixture thin, but add to its, um, sticking power. I am considering using rubber
cement.
-Ancalagon
Machinas May 23rd, 2007, 01:51 AM

I thought that vietnam era napalm was 46% polystyrene, 33%gas and 21%benzene. (i might have gas/benzen mixed up)
I remembering reading that in several places as well. I've made napalm a few types and have noticed that the viscosity changes with the grade of polystyrene you use. I used
this generic white rough polystyrene once and it game out really thick, almost like a tough glue. Another time I used this blue, smooth insulation foam, which seemed the
perfect consistency for spraying. It was thick but still liquidy enough to spray with. Ill try to find out what it was.
Mauser June 14th, 2007, 06:40 AM

Does the acetone help the polystyrene to dissolve better in the petrol? It's just that when I tried mixing polystyrene and petrol, the polystyrene formed a very thick gel at the
bottom of the petrol, but didn't properly mix.
In the end, I just used straight petrol with my weed burner, and consequently the range suffered as the stream of fuel dispersed. Plus, the pressure was under 12 Bar due to a
leaky pressurization valve (the valve seals were not petrol resistant :( ).
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/496/pilotlightnt4.th.jpg (http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pilotlightnt4.jpg) http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8412/

89424591bj0.th.jpg (http://img180.imageshack.us/my.php?image=89424591bj0.jpg) http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8775/39237561yv7.th.jpg (http://
img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=39237561yv7.jpg) http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3669/36904047vl1.th.jpg (http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=36904047vl1.jpg)
I will probably unearth it during August/September to rebuild the valve with fuel resistant seals and try some thicker fuels.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > anyone made explosive rat/mouse
traps? - Archive file
Log in
View Full Version : anyone made explosive rat/mouse traps? - Archive file
megalomania March 4th, 2003, 01:46 AM

kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 348
From: UK
Registered: SEP 2000
posted February 03, 2001 05:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i was thinking of making one for an annoying mouse in my shed. i thought of an ordinary mouse trap with a blasting cap
placed in such a way that when the trap is triggered the arm strikes the blasting cap setting it off and destroying the mouse.
the only thing is i want a trap which soley uses explosives so thats the only thing to kill the mouse.
if this sounds like crap i'm sorry but its late
any replies will be appreciated

thanx
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landmine! Electrically ingnited charge with a microswitch to complete the circuit, put a plate on top of the microswitch and some
cheese on the plate.
Or, smear some nitrogen triodide on the floor and put some cheese in the middle of it before it dries.
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
From: Vancouver, Canada
Registered: NOV 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nitrogen triiodide is very weak. You'll probally blow its leg off, then youll have a mouse with blodd pouring out if its let running
all over the shed. oh yeah, the fact that mice like cheese is BS! they like salami and ham better.
------------------
Explosives Archive
[This message has been edited by ALENGOSVIG1 (edited February 03, 2001).]
M-1000
A new voice
Posts: 9
From:
Registered: FEB 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a peice of steel plate.Then take an old electric cord split it down so that you can hook one end of it to one side of the
plate and the other end to the other side of the plate.Then put a pile of peanut butter in the center of it.Anybody know if this
will trip the circut breaker?Would it work if you grounded the plate?Anyway I think this would be cleaner than exploding them.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
From: somewhere in florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT TRY THAT! that will absolutely blow the breaker, or even worse catch the wiring in the walls on fire! to electrocute
something you need a conductive path through it and nothing else! also you probably would want a higher voltage to break
through the insulation if the rats feet to ensure conductivity
J
Moderator
Posts: 605
From: United Kingdom
posted February 04, 2001 07:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's wrong with a good old fashioned mousetrap? ;-)
The burnt mouse pieces from an explosion would more than likely attract other vermin, and stink out the shed.
A high voltage blast from a car ignition coil might do the trick, like a giant bug zapper. Mind you, I would not like to forget
about the trap and then be reminded when I tread on it in a couple of months!
J
------------------
"If the aquarium water has to be drunk don't waste the fish. In fact they'll probably be the easiest to eat even if you don't
need the water. The cat is next in the pot." - John 'Lofty' Wiseman
Bandit
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: U.K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a topic on this ages ago by Badseed i think. As said before a vapourised rat isnt the most safe thing to be
decorating your shed. What about a estes rocket motor?
Bandit
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 392
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First peanut butter is the best mouse bait.
Second in the PMJB Kurt has an idea to used blobs of NI3 to scare the mice away, I think it would work.
Donutty
Frequent Poster
Posts: 223
From: UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a similar 'landmine' solution to my rat problem. There is a good LOS to where the rats eat, so I figured simply placing
about 250g of electrically ignited AP under there would do the trick. Although, er, it may blow my windows out.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rats in my barn kept chewing through the drywall, so I took some old steak& fillet knives and put them in slots in a piece
of plywood, epoxyed them in place and held it above the corner of the room with macromay string and put that in front of their
hole and one actually chewed through the cord and got impailed by the knives! I had to use a stick to get it off the knives, but
now they dont fall for this trap anymore!
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
Registered: DEC 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bad thing about making landmines for mice, is that you will get mouse guts all over the place. The whole place will stink
to high heaven, also it will attract cockaroaches, etc.
You could put some poison on the cheese, but then again, that's just like rat poison.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claymores!
Ok, so blowing them up - stinks, frying them with electricity - stinks, poison - don't work, falling knives - only works once
The best option would be to lay some bait and sit there with your air rifle waiting for it.
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to shoot 'em with .22 birdshot in my parent's barn;if you sit still long enough, they'll walk right buy you.If you do opt to
blast them,you could use two thin metal discs with AP/ground glass in between them,set where the arm will hit when it's
released.As long as the mouse's head didn't get in the way it would work great.Although,it'd be dangerous as hell setting the
trap!.
[This message has been edited by MacCleod (edited February 04, 2001).]
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey how about makng a deadfall with like sulfurc acid at the bottom? just pour out the mess in the woods.
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol
I'm suprised anyone remembered that topic..lol
And your right.. mice don't like cheese.. cats actually do. Mice like peanut butter, rats like dog food, and dogs like cat food.
Go figure.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Knowledge is the true power, ignorrance will bring your demise.
ST
Frequent Poster
Posts: 100
From: 000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A "deadfall" by definition is a trap that uses a heavy weight to fall on target, "pitfall" is what your after.
Someone i used to know used to have fun by chucking mice in sulphuric acid... they swim around and bubble and stuff, He
also used to catch birds and cut their legs off with pliers then let them go.. sick in the head.
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had a friend like that,I'd take him target shooting."Here,Mike,hold this target for me".
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dead fall is also a pit that has something in the bottom to kill whatever falls in it, a pitfall kills by the creature falling. in an
example when I wnt to canada I had to watchout for deadfalls trappers used to kill bears, they were pits coverd in nets, and
leaves that looked like the ground and they had bamboo (not sure, but I think it was) stalks that were cut at the tip to look
sorta like injection needles and I almost fell in one.
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 348
From: UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanx guys.
does anyone have any ideas about a trap that doesn't use electronic ignition?
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 606
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you will not be able to use the weight of a mouse to set off a primer or anything, they don't weigh enough to do that. you
could however make it so when the trap goes off, the thing that is going to decapatate the mouse crashed into a bb which is
attached to a primer... that might work.
------------------
...
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing what some people can do to innocent animals for fun, it's even more amazing to think that people can also do
that kind of thing to humans for fun.
Pyro500 - surely traps like the one you nearly fell in are illegal???
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume so, but they are everywhere in the canadian wilderness, esp near peoples cabins, I guess to protect from bears but I
dont really know if you have ever seen the crappy movie the beach the thing he makes is sorta like a dead fall except they
are like 6 foot deep minimum and have BIG spikes at the bottom
hodehum
A new voice
Posts: 21
From: New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a nail or tack and attach it to the corner of the lever that would usally hit the mouse, next take a 12g shotgun shell
remove the shot, wad, and then very carfuly remove the nylon outer casing by sawing it off or by whatever means you think is
safe, so all you have is the metal charge part, then place the 12g charge on the corner of the wooden board where the nail
would strike and carfully align the nail wtih the 12g primer, so that when the trap is set off the nail will strike the primer.
this mave not have enough power to blow mouse entrails all over your shed by its self but you could always put another HE
charge near/under the 12g primer
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oops, I dont want to post that, please delete.
[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited February 10, 2001).]
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been wondering if rats/mice would shy away from the scent of AP(?).If not,you could mold some AP putty around the
entire outer edge of the trap,then rig the arm(?-whatever you call the part that squashes the mouse!)with a striker or B-B/
primer assembly that would ignite the putty when tripped.
cdg3851
A new voice
Posts: 3
From: cuntzvill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just wondering, why blow up the mouse when you can slowly toture it to a painful death. make a trap that will catch it alive, and
then have fun....i know i know...i do need to see a phychologist...i need help
------------------
---I am bored! If i am being lame, please tell me to shut up---James---
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you think that is fun you are fucked in the head and what is with your name? this isnt irc
Crux
Frequent Poster
Posts: 71
From: australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what we use to trap mice in our grain shead is get a large garbage bin attach a piece off wood across the top and tyr a bit of
roap so it dangels into the bin about 1/2 way tie the food/bait to the end of the roap then coat about half the roap with
grease/oil and fill the bin up with water.
what happends is the mice smell the food, climb down the rope to get it, slip on the oil, fall into water and drown.
if you want the mice dont add water we did this with a steal bin with no water to catch the mice we had 1/2 the bin full of mice/
rats and took them to school on muck up day and let them go in the hall after blocking all the doors so thay cant get out so
when some one went in there were mice eveywhere.
smokey March 5th, 2003, 03:37 AM

if your going to use ap put some crushed peanuts in it and they wont give a shit

I once considered a mouse trap that had a large capacitor bank with one terminal connected to a sheet of aluminium foil and
the other terminal connected to a nail (smeared with peanut butter) that was suspended about 5cm above the foil.
The mouse has to stand on the foil to reach the peanut butter and when it touches the nail...ZzZAP!
zeocrash March 5th, 2003, 03:19 PM

how about a pitfall of pirahna fluid (conc H2SO4 and Conc H2O2, iirc)
or a more humane way, how about a mouse sized gas chamber, using something like HCN. this could be done by using one of
the cage traps, and setting up the door so that closing the door will knock some NaCN into some acid and produce HCN.
(if you really loved mice you could replace this with something like chloroform or N2O, to anesthetise the mouse
to be released far away or kept in a jar for fun)
finaly there is the biological option of introducing a predator to the enviroment, the predator eats the mouse, the mouse is
gone, the predator has no food, it dies and all animals are gone from your shed. (its hard to create an equilibrium between
predators and prey, when you have only one of each)
blazter March 5th, 2003, 07:25 PM

This thread reminds me of a story I heard about where someone built a "mouse trap" using a furnace transformer and some
wiring. They told me that they they had two plates set up which were just further apart than the arc length was. Apparently, it
was very effective because when checked the next day all that was left of the mouse was a tail and a really bad smell!
simply RED March 6th, 2003, 06:14 AM

I've made cat "traps" with explosives for fun. 200 grams amonal is placed near a piece of meat. The cat comes to eat the
meat and you push the switch setting off the explosive from 50 meters. The bad thing is that pieces from the cat can fly up to
30-40 meters. I even found one piece about 50 meters from the "site". It was splashed on the window of my vila...
[ March 06, 2003, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: simply RED ]
john_smith March 6th, 2003, 10:16 AM

The best switch for explosive mouse traps I've found so far is two pieces of tinfoil (for contacts) separated by tiny rocks or
whatever small non-conductive objects you happen to have handy. Bait is placed on the upper sheet directly over an insulator,
or somewhere the rat can only reach it by going over the switch. Has always worked fine, yet, as I generally used crap like big
firecrackers, the little fuckers often survived the blast or made it to their holes before going belly up. Talk about stink...
[ March 06, 2003, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: john_smith ]
VX March 6th, 2003, 01:26 PM

I was thinking of doing something like this this coming summer but with pigeons (disgusting, useless, flying rats.) I was
thinking of making several moderately sized charges of something cheap like ANAP. Wiring them up for electrical ignition,
pouring on some crisps/ old bread/ sandwiches etc, and sitting back detonating them as and when the birds start eating. Im
thinking of having about 5-10 active charges at anyone time, about 5 meters apart.
They are so stupid and there is so many of them that we could have weeks of fun doing this! Im still thinking of actually
making an automated system (using a very basic motion detector, not sure yet) if I have the time I will. Im sure that I have
the bits needed lying around anyway, so money isn't an issue. However the problem would be that you can't choose which
animals you blow up with an automatic system. And people would moan if I blew their pet/ child/ grandfather up :D

I've never made exploding mousetraps, but I've made mousetraps that act as triggers for a detonator. Just wrap the wood
part in aluminum foil, and attach wires to this and the metal bar. This only worked, because the mouse kept setting it off, but
never actually got caught in it. :mad: I'm sure that you could rig something very similar that would work if the mouse actually
got caught, though.
(Is my signature too long? If it is, I'll change it. Different people are using different resolutions, which makes it hard to tell.)
[ March 06, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: ossassin ]
xyz March 7th, 2003, 06:54 PM

VX, I would use a small claymore type device (or several) to kill the pigeons. Just put some bread on the ground and set
some little claymores up so that they are all facing the bread. Then detonate them electrically when there are pigeons there.
You can make a nice little claymore device from a matchbox filled with AP, taped onto a second matchbox filled with lead shot
or other shrapnel. That should ventilate a few pigeons :) .
Ossassin, Your sig looks fine to me and I use 1024x768 resolution, the same as most people.
HMnO4 March 8th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Along the lines of .22 birdshot - I uploaded a diagram to my server I made of an effective 'trap'. You just might get a kick out
of it... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<a href="http://www.radi0activ.com/rbg.html" target="_blank">Rodent B Gone</a> :D
Another possible and even more interesting variation would be to have the bullet underneath the rodent upon firing...
Think about it!

An even more "interesting" one would be to replace that .22 with a 12ga shotshell...
Hmmm... What about one that fires the rodent?

The mouse/rat goes down a carboard/pvc tube because it can smell peanut butter at the other end. It then it triggers either a
solenoid valve to release pressurized air, or a small charge of BP, Flash, or NC.
The tube is aimed toward an open window that faces the neighbors house :D .
[ March 08, 2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: xyz ]
VX March 8th, 2003, 10:19 AM

Ah... now that I have been thinking about (when we were going to do it with rats instead of pigeons). Obviously the small
charge would have to be a large one, as going overkill is always more funny as long as it is 'safe' to do so. We were going to
use a length of scaffolding bar (about 50cm long) buried under the ground at an angle, the charge was then going to launce
the rat at a wall.
I may still try this, but the pigeon idea definitely gets priority... mainly because Ive never seen a rat around the area that we
are going to do it so we could be waiting for a long time to blow a rat up. Shame we can't just do it in the town center :D .
Plenty of both rats and pigeons there.
HMnO4 March 8th, 2003, 11:59 AM

I think a 12 guage shell will destroy the apparatus because of the amount of recoil. I originally planned this to work for mice,
but now that I think more, you could use this as a tripwire boobytrap.
Staying on topic now, you could drill simular holes "side by each" and add more solder balls to the "snapper", just to make
sure the rodent B gone...
:cool:

VX, You could set up a target on the wall that they were to be fired at, or you could use a board that had lots of spikes on it.

well , why not build a micro-nuke then get a rc minature car then you could equip it with a minature tv camera and get into the
rats warren and do a hiroshima on them!!! gentlemen \! i think that this thread is going to shit.
it is a non scientific fact that the best thing to catch a rat is in fact a rat trap there is a world of diference between a bit of fun
and warped sadism :confused:
And who the hell asked you for your opinion of the value of this thread? Especially when it is clear that you are immature, ill-
informed and full of shit.
[ March 10, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Anthony ]
HMnO4 March 8th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Haha... I like that idea of shooting a mouse at a board of (rusty) nails.
Does everything always have to be completely serious? I think this topic is great, and it could open up minds to bigger ideas.

I agree with HMnO4, this topic does make people come up with some "interesting" ideas. Not that anyone would do any of the
things that we've discussed, would they :confused: ...

It does amaze me the extent people will go to deal with a simple mouse problem :D
The mouse-canon is an excellent idea! If automatically reloading (CO2 bottle/small compressor) it woul be a credible rodent
control device. If used outdoors, or fired through and open window then it'd be less than lethal. I.e. technically less violent/
objectionable than a conventional trap.
Obviously it'd be far more expensive and impractical than a regular trap, but I'm sure many people with an odd sense of
humour would pay out for a commercial version :)

xyz, i did actually consider making the trap and would have made it if i'd been capable of a decent design. i wasn;t too good
with engineering things our of nothing back then...a whole 2 years ago!
static_firefly March 13th, 2003, 03:08 AM

I though of something simmler but i had the idea of a catapult and maybe even a bulls eye in the wall. A razor blade on the
arm maybe?
Mice are so smart, i had a mouse problem for a while and after about 4 mice they dont cath anymore the mice get right past
em. I used pumpkin seeds because you can really stick them on and they wont come off.

bread seems to work quite well. a nice crusty piece that'll fit on the trap well.

A blob of peanut butter is the best bait in my opinion. Bacon, apple, bread, seeds, and nuts all work well. Mice do like cheese
to some extent but it is generally better to use one of the above baits.
Flake2m March 14th, 2003, 08:11 AM

The best mouse catcher is a predetor such as a cat.
But I ain't giving you my cat to fix a mouse problem.
I had an idea on electrocuting a mouse.

get a panel of wood about 15cm x 15 cm. Then hammer in a nail for every square cm of the board, but only allow the nails to
just poke through the surface of the wood. Also leave a small area in the middle of the board for the bait.
You then have to wire up the board. Just have the wires arranged so one row is positive and the other is negetive. You could
then wire this to a transformer or some capacitors.
The theroy is, the mouse walks over the board wanting food and is electrocuted. You could also use the board for absolutly
shocking pranks too.

I have alrady posted a design for a shocker trap which would probably work better. However, my idea might be more
"suspicious" to the mouse and the nails one seem to be a good idea if you are facing a particularly clever and persistent
mouse.
WogBoy May 7th, 2003, 02:17 AM

I am doing Systems and Technology at school (the Aus version of ?college? shop)
i have built a mouse "buzzer", basically it is an electronics 'breadboard', with wires going across the thing
- Negative wire
+ Positive wire
+ve battery terminal (or wall adapter to ~12 volts)

+
+ ------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++ -
+ ------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++ -
+ ------------------------------
-
| fuse/light bulb (something to take the current when the mouse trigger the thing
-ve battery terminal/wall adapter
the mouse steps on two opposite currents, and bzzzzz

bye bye mouse, or the cat gets a hot meal
WogBoy May 7th, 2003, 02:18 AM

ok, so the diagram looks crap, but it looked different before
xyz May 7th, 2003, 07:12 AM

Use the edit button instead of double posting please. Only double post if it is something very important that might be missed
by others if you just edited your post.
Anthony May 7th, 2003, 04:24 PM
Err, 12v...?
McGuyver May 7th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Yes, the mouse will get a free dinner using only 12 volts. Car batteries are not dangerous!!!! You can go out to your car right
now, put one finger on one terminal and another finger on the other terminal and you won't even feel a tingle. Your skin has
too much resistance. Now, if you could get your tongue across the terminals that would be a different story. If I wanted to get
rid of mice electrically, I would use a 10,000 volt oil burner transformer. They make a spark about 1 inch long and will easily
kill a mouse. Also, be careful because they can also be lethal to humans if you are grounded properly. Now, it is much more
dangerous but if you want to fry the shit out of the mice get a microwave transformer. The output for them is 1,000 volts at 1
amp. They produce a very hot spark and the mouse will most likely catch on fire. This transformer also makes a spark about
an inch long. The oil burner transformers can be found at air conditioner repair shops usually for free and even they will
probably light the poor mouse. The microwave transformer could easily kill 10 humans at the same time properly grounded or
not, so use caution.
xyz May 9th, 2003, 06:28 AM

You could also just use a capacitor bank (a Large bank of pulse caps if you're really nasty :) ) as this can provide massive
voltages/currents but It only lasts for a short time so there is no risk of fires, electrical shorts, etc.
I would wire your caps in series to get at least 1000v (they already have an OK current output)/
bubbling_beaker May 19th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Hey,
a small tesla coil could be built near whatever you dont want the rodents to be near ....
but this wouldnt be a very efficient method but it will be fun to watch..try putting a cam
or somthing

Sorry to lay it on you man, but tesla coil operation, even a small one, makes quite a bit of noise. You know the large
discharge in the air. Mice probably wouldn't be too fond of minature lightning.:rolleyes:
Nevermore June 7th, 2003, 09:26 AM

My granpa gave me an idea about pigeon contro..
He used to soak some dry corn seeds, wheat seeds and rice in vodka or alcohol..
then mix with a small amount of other seeds and put on the street..
the pigeon goes to eat, then since his metabolism is far faster than human gets drunk fast and can't fly..
then you crush him with a baseball bat..
easy, cheap, fast...
Bryan June 13th, 2003, 04:23 AM

I put NI3 in bird seed, but this is getting a little off topic...
bryan
Thomas[NL] July 1st, 2003, 05:50 PM

A baseballbat huh?
Eeeeeww blood and guts and feather all over your bat. And on the ground of course, yuk!
How about capturing them with a net on a stick and then dumping them in a barrel with a lid on top. Once you've got enough
you can just stick a waterhose under the lid and drown m all. Works fine here.
You've got the added advantage of being able to torture them or test stuff on them (in case you're one of those weirdos)
yt2095 July 2nd, 2003, 06:12 AM

Imagine a swing top trash can with food as bait on the lid and a plank of wood leading up to the lid, the rat steps on to get
the food and falls in.
Rats by nature won`t need the bait after one of them is trapped, they`ll all try and go to the "rescue" and fall in as well.
it`s up to you what you do with your can of rats after YUCK!
EDIT: maybe you could sell them to Snake owners?
kingspaz July 2nd, 2003, 08:06 PM

'it`s up to you what you do with your can of rats after YUCK'
its like shooting fish in a barrel :D ;)
warren August 12th, 2003, 01:08 PM

Anyways back to the topic, my mouse trap wan't exploding but it went bang to tell us when we got a mouse I tied one of those
pull string fireworks to it I had to cut the string to just the right length, so when the arm that smacked the mouse went down it
would go bang as well (no point in it really but I was bored so I decided to put some pull stirng on mouse traps).
Kid Orgo August 12th, 2003, 01:56 PM

As long as warren went through the trouble of digging up this old topic,
I'd like to say that ferrets make better ratters than cats do in some situations. They can fit into all kinds of nooks and
crannies a cat can't, plus ferrets are much more fun as pets.
No explosives neccesary, and you save on ferret food.
Blackhawk August 18th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Hah, I'd much preffer the non-violent options myself, I dont see anything particularly bad about mice (as long as they stay
well away from anything I want), Now people, they're another matter entirely. It would be funny launching the mice into
someone elses window :D
Cyclonite August 19th, 2003, 10:16 AM

Hmm you could buy a cheap stungun and modify the trigger for contact. Take a couple nails and nail them a little over the
width of the rodents head place bait in the slightly in front of it so the rodents head will be between the nails when the bait is
grabbed. Place by the bait a small nail with a loose spring around it and attach the switch. Place the bait so if it moves the
sligtest bit the spring will knock against the small nail providing a complete circuit. The rodents head will have a nice zap of
voltage. It may kill it, iv killed small lizards and very large bugs with a 600,000 volt stun gun, if not it will knock it out
neo-crossbow June 20th, 2006, 05:47 AM

Closest I have come to this is using a mouse trap as a switch. Reminds me of that movie with the 2 brothers, the string
factory and the mouse in the house.
Mouse hunt?
Cyclonite June 22nd, 2006, 12:57 AM

I have another idea as well. Take an ABS pipe about 1ft+ long and the diameter of the offending rodent. Close of one end
and bait it after installing a hanging switch that will activate when the rodent crawls down the tube. Put a small powder charge
in the bottom and have it aimed at a board with some nails pounded through it. This can be enclosed for sanitary reasons.
There are many variations possible.
drfish June 23rd, 2006, 04:22 AM

For bait, what we used when keeping an area mouse free was part of my job description was chunks of apple dipped in peanut
butter. They love the peanut butter, but if you just put it on the trap the little guys will just lick it off without triggering it. Give
them a chunk of something to get their teeth into an yank at.
Jacks Complete June 24th, 2006, 11:23 AM

^-- Another use for a mousetrap. From an old Popular Mechanics.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Strength of Aluminum (armor) - Archive
file
Log in
View Full Version : Strength of Aluminum (armor) - Archive file

Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
Registered: JAN 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently made a chest plate piece of light duty armor out of an old music stand, which I am almost positive is aluminum, or
some tough mix with aluminum that is 1/16 inch thick. I cut it to an octagonal shape that is taller than wide. I cut off corners
so when hit they would not dig into the shoulders. I also bent it to fit my shape somewhat. What I did to test it was fold a
small rag up so it was about 4"X4" and less than half inch thick, put that towards top. Then i taped it one, and put it over my
thin shirt. I then took a steel rod that was 3 feet long and hit self as hard as I could while holding it in middle. Didnt feel a
thing. Then took a hammer, and hit self quite hard, but not on hammer tip, but layed flat. What I am wondering is what would
puncture it? It seems to be quite durable, and most definatly cut proof. I am also pretty sure that I am not gonna have to
ever use it, but hey, its fun. Another thing, is there ever a use for this? Since it is only 1/16" thick, and somewhat tall, if you
were running and fell over just right, it might cut your neck, but not if you kept the top low. But once again, i am wondering is
it worth it? It weighs basically nothing. I dont exactly want to try it myself, because my knives are not worth messign up, even
the crap ones.
Spud
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you could use it for paintball if it fits comfortably to your body beacuse paintballs just fuckin hurt when they hit your stomach
2nd is your fingers, this would probably stop a bb or pellet but I wouldnt use it for much else cept if you were to provoke a
fight and hide this under your shirt so he breaks his hand!
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hehe, that would be funny if the person broke their hand. I think i might use it for paintball, but it is a little large. Last time I
went, I only got hit in the mask and gun. I am not sure this thing would be small enough for paintball, would be hard to bend
over or be flexible, but then again most of the time, you are crouched, not bent over (if you are bent over, dont want to know
what you are doing). What i was wondering more was how you all think it would perform against maybe a knife or anything
else. I know its still gonna hurt like nothing else in the world if you say, got hit by a bat. But I am thinking it might prevent a
broken rib or something.
Spud
phyrelord
Frequent Poster
Posts: 135
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it depends on how your hit if it is a thrust it may go through especially if the guy doing it is big or the blade is a tanto point.
now if it's a cut or slashing motion i doubt it will penetrate it. what ever you do don't shoot arrows at it they will penetrate more
than you think, especially kevlar believe it or not my uncle shot an arrow through kevlar, but i think it was only first generation
so that might explain it.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well what about hinging it? just put some rivets in it and use small hinges to make it flexable so you have several plates
instead of one, if you could get more stands you could attach them together by wire of something and make a vest you must
be able to cut them well to do something like this and be able to get the pannels really close.
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol umm get tramua plates for it, don't shoot anything at it othre than a BB gun, paintball gun or airrifle and you should be
fine
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't understimate the power of a bb gun. A .177 bb travelling at 1000 fps, which many pellet rifles do, could possibley
penetrate 1/16 inchg steel. All i know is that in 6th grade my friend shot a bb through 6 slabs of ice and right through a steel
above ground pool, we tried to plug it up, but the structurual integrity gave and the whole side of the pool collapsed in an hour
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you see, bb's ricochet when fired directly at a metal surface and pellets flatten out, I have seen the music stands he is talking
about and they wil stop a pellet beacuse they dont have a very good sectional density, now 22 pellets, well that's another story
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BB's ricochet when fired at a metal surface, i disagree, possibley because the bb's i use(copperhead,are copper-coated lead,i
know they don't ricochet at 1000 fps. Unless there is a lot (1/5 of an ich) of backing, a high quality rifle will penetrate
ST
Frequent Poster
Posts: 100
From: 000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead air rifle slugs have higher sectional density than, and will deliver more energy and penetrate better than steel bb's,
though i dont think .22 cal slugs would have (much) more sectional density than .177, due to the greater surface area.
(i think lead slugs weigh around 8 grains, compaired to 5 for steel bb's).
If you fire steel bb's at steel plate, she'll come back at you hard and fast , but it wont be a problem with sheat metal.
[This message has been edited by ST (edited February 07, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think 1000fps is a little over-rated for a BB gun, since a few more fps and it'd go supersonic, something which air rifles don't
tend to do for stability reasons.
If you want to make holes in things with an air rifle, use Prometheus pellets, a steel spear in a nylon sabot/jacket, sails
straight through 1mm steel.
Incidentally, I tried shooting a 1.5mm transparent(ish) fibreglass PCB, it stopped a .177 lead pellet with ease at 12fpe.
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My air gun which i purchased reasoably for 250.00 goes 1250 fps, it suprisingly doesnt lose muchaccuracy before 40 yards, and
it's actual velocity is 1126, i chronied it, if u are interested in it i will send a link to a website with it...i could if you'd like, but i
was not speaking theoretically, what i know is that this gun shoots high 1000's and puts my coppercoated bb's through
decently thick sheet metal from a old abandoned trailer home
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the gun intended for solely firing BB's? Becuase a high powered air rifle may well be sub sonic but stick a BB in it and it
could easily go super sonic. I said that about most air rifles being sub-sonic beacause pellets work best upto (IIRC) 950fps,
higher and they become unstable. Also the shockwave created at Mach 1 tends to make pellets tumble, plus if they then drop
below Mach 1 downrange then accuracy gets even worse.
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pellet rifle was intended for pellets but i use bb's they don't slide out of the barrel unless you really hold it upside down
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, i tested out the armor with the crappy pellet gun i have. I used 15 grain pointed crossman (I think) pellets. The gun is
.22, and supposed to get 850 fps, but when I tested it out with the crappy pellets that came with it, it got 550 or maybe 450. I
imagine it goes faster with these good pellets. Anyway, it just dented the metal at point blank range. Pellet expanded to
about .30 or so, and had 100% or so weight retention. The only lead lost was a little mark like you had drawn a circle. I saw
that one post on increasing velocities, so if/when I find some brass, I want to try that.
Spud
Sgt_Starr
Frequent Poster
Posts: 119
From: Petersburg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My pellet gun is supposidly supposed to get 495fps thats what is said on the box(got it at wal-mart for 34 bucks) I dented a
slimfast can wich is pretty thick 15-20 yards and it knocked the can 5 ft away from the stand I had it on I tried shooting the
can with the muzzle of the gun dirrectly against the metal so that it wouldnt riccochete and hit me(had that happen from at 15
ft away and it almost punctured the skin) It did pierce the can put didnt enter it just split the dent. I also tried shooting a
quater from about 10 ft away and I hit the edge of the quater splitting the pellet down to about 3 cm from the end. Is this
good for 400's fps?
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that does not sound bad for that speed, or that price. I paid $35 for this chinese gun. That is still not bad for .22 at 500
fps, although my potato gun goes faster than that. I made an armor piercing pellet today and tested that. I had an old track
spike, 1/4" i think needle. I thought "hmm, that looks about the right size for my pellet gun". Well, i did have to grind down
part of it. Then, my pointed pellets have a little groove where the skirt meets the head. I took an exacto and cut that very
easily. Then I sanded it approximatly 90 degrees so it stood up straight. Then, I put a ring of CA (super/crazy glue) on the
skirt, which had a hole in the middle. I held on the track spike and it bonded VERY well. The normal pellets weighed 15 grains,
but this AP one weighed 24 grains exactly. The pellet ended up being .655 inches long compared to about .35 for normal
pellet. It turned out very straight and fit into gun well. It pierced the metal but bounced back off after it got to a part that was
squar to the point. I am going to test the next one I made just now. What I just did was grind off the square part so now it is
a long point, instead of a short one with a square spot. It is 22.4 grains now. Ok, I just tested it. The hole is somewhat bigger,
but not much. This shot the skirt seperated and flew off and hit a couple walls in my room unlike last time, where the skirt was
only bent some. The larger of the 2 holes is about .084 or .083 inches. Not real big, but this is against metal. These would be
vicious against flesh I bet. I cannot verify accuracy, as I cant test these in the city limits with a cop living behind me . The gun
is an inaccurate piece anyway. But I bet these pellets would stabilize decently since they are only 50% heavier. I know they
make 28 or 30 grain pellets, so I bet these would do decently. Since the track spikes I use cost like 15 cents each, I might
have to try other stuff. But I sure do like these long pellets, they look cool.
Spud
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should definately try Prometheus pellets, so much easier and cheaper than making them!
Also any got any idea of the maximum range from a 12fpe air rifle? The warning that came with my springer said "may be
dangerous upto 300yds". Execept I was talking to a guy in the gun shop today about getting a PCP, we got talking about
efective range and he said he'd taken a starling off a fence post (clean kill) at 100yds. He also claimed to have taken pot
shots at a flock of ducks 700yds away and could see the pellets hitting the water they were in! This guy's got more PCP's than
I've got fingers, is he talking crap or just very bad at paceing distances?
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 403
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think he's bullshitting a little bit, a starling at 100 yards? Aren't they a little small? Anyway, i think the effective range for a
.22LR rifle is 150 odd yards, so i don't think that he could have done it, unless he was using an FAC rifle, like a custom stalker
rifle, uprated to like 300 ft/lbs
------------------
Handguns don't kill people... Half as well as full-auto
Visit me at <a href="http://www.surf.to/eliteforum" target="_blank">www.surf.to/eliteforum</a>
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He may not be kidding. There are pellet rifles that will shoot those 30 grain pellets a bit over 1000 fps. Sure, they are
precharged 3000 psi scuba stuff, but maybe he has one of those? Those are made for shooting stuff, so if he had a scope, it
could be possible. Plus, nobody ever mentioned how many shots he took did they? Those precharged ones can shoot like 15
times. And at 100 yards, it would not make a real loud noise either.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No way! A .22LR goes much further than 150yds! An average modern air rifle can hit a drawing pin at 50yds so a starling at
100yds doesn't sound too unfeasible, I definately remember him saying the starling shot was with a 12fpe rifle. I'm not sure
but the 700yd story might have been with the 20fpe rifle he dropped into the conversation.
I basically want to know what the maximum range is (ie before the pellet drops to the ground) not the effective range.
BTW the stalkers can be tuned upto 340fpe! Shame I haven't got 3300 to spare
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 403
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, i know .22's go for way more than 150 yards, but i was meaning effective range or something like that. People who
shoot 12ft/lb air rifles shoot up to 50 yards, thats for kills on birds etc. Thats not to say that the pellet doesn't go further, but
the curve it like too great, and its just damn hard!
What i meant with the .22LR thing, is that although the bullet may be able to travel way further than 150 yards, a magazine
said this is the maximum limit people usually shoot out to. This is different because of the less pronounced curve etc. Hope
this has cleared up what i said!
------------------
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry bout last post, forgot we were talking about 12 foot pound air guns. BTW, how many ft lbs would one of those 30 grain
pellets at 1000 fps have?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66.63113006396588fpe
Got you about the effective range, but I still reckon you could hit accurately over 150yds with a .22LR, you might have to hold
over a bit, or zero your scope accordingly.
Spudgunner, nearlyu all PCP's are charged to 3000psi.
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, 66 is not bad. I was not sure what a PCP was, so I ignored that part of it. Effective range for a .22lr can be well over 200
yards, depending on ammo. I think I read that Aguila (?) SSS 60grain bullets are good to over 200 yards. And if you had your
scope ready, you could easily hit something with that. But with regular .22, if there was any wind, it would be VERY hard to hit
anything. However, I am sure it can be done with a little practice.

I bet that armor made out of things lying around the house won't be too good. :rolleyes: Does anyone know how to make
something similar to a military flak jacket? You might need one if the North Koreans invade. <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> (a flak jacket is NOT a bullet proof vest)
BoB- March 7th, 2003, 08:09 AM

It shouldnt be too hard, you could simply sew galvanised steel plating into a heavy canvas, or leather jacket. Of course in an
urban enviroment you have about a 0.001% chance of being hit by anything but a bullet. It could prove useful while testing
shrapnel dispensing devices though.
dave March 8th, 2003, 09:06 PM

I found some pretty good stuff for body armour. I sort of works like kevlar jacket, but insted of kevlar its saran wrap. I work in
a resturant so they have these huge tubes of it. The tube is about 2.5 inches across with 2000 feet of saran all around it. I
took one of these home half used and cut the wrap off, it was about .25 inches thick stuck together very tightly. Well i was
using the tube as maybe being a mortor and i noticed how stong the wrap was. It can stop .177 caliber lead pellets at 600fps
.5 inches away, flatting them out. BBs at 600fps will just bounce off. I i think of taking a new tube home with wrap that will
make a vest .375-.4 inches thick.

Considering the huge number of layers, it probably is quite good at stopping projectiles for what it is. But don't be too
confident in its capabilities. For example 1/4" of compressed cotton wool will stop a .177 pellet at approx 850fps, as will 1/16"
fibreglass PCB.
Bitter March 15th, 2003, 04:22 PM

A while ago, I started making this protective suit. I haven't finished it yet, as I've been busy since then, but I'll post some
pictures of it when it's done.

I'm a whitewater canoeing instructor during the summer, but I also do a lot of boat maintenance and repair. What I noticed
lying around my work place last year was a huge role of Kevlar for boat skid-plate repair. When I start working again this year
I may help my self to a raise in the form of Kevlar and see what I can create with it.
stickfigure March 19th, 2003, 12:16 PM

It's a lot cheaper to buy flak jackets than to make them. I have about 11 of them. The most expensive was $600, the
cheapest were free, I got one out of the trash, an almost new PAGST. I paid $10 for the M-1969. I've seen PASGT level II and
M-1969's go for under $15 and they will stop a .45 or other heavy pistol slug. The PASGT will stop about anything under 1,200
fps even 9mm and .44 mag.
3 PASGT's
2 AirCrewman Gunner's Vest's
1 Variable Armor
1 Molle Interceptor
1 M 1969
1 M 1955
1 German Flecktarn.
1 CVC Vest
1 Set of Diapers
2 Kevlar Helmets
1 Russian Titanium Helmet
Some of them have Ceramic Plates that with stop .30-06 Black Tip AP and are Molle compatible. The interceptor is level IIIA
with SAPI Gamma plates which will take multiple 7.62 M-80 hits, it may not be a "Bullet Proof Vest" by definition but it's better
than what the average cop wears, hell it's better than what the SWAT wear. I'm a big armor guy, I've also got some pieces of
chain mail and homemade tire armor like out of Demolition Man. That stuff is pretty tough it could probably stop .22 LR or #8
Bird Shot if you had a good tread and depending on what kind of tire one used. I've also heard of some people who cut up
stolen road signs and get out the duct-tape and pop rivet guns, for backyard gladiator games. I'm currently in a few projects
one of which is a light armored suit, I bought a SF jump suit that is used for jumping into heavily wooded areas and has
pockets inside for padding like what smoke-jumpers wear. It's woodland camo and really tough, kind of like an M-65 field
jacket, but I'm finding the total wieght of all the Kevlar will make it like an EOD suit. So I'm looking into other materials, to
save wieght. We'll see what happens.

stickfigure, are you sure those vests you have are flak (frag) vests and not actual bullet resistant vests? From what I've heard,
frag vests are usually stuffed with loose kevlar and glass fibres. The only thing I've heard cermaic plates used in is high level
bullet vests.
Arkangel March 19th, 2003, 07:55 PM

The vests used in NI are normal kevlar vests with a ceramic iniba/eneba plate fitted into a pocket on the front and rear of the
vest in the area over your heart. I don't know if that's the sort of thing he has in mind?
stickfigure March 19th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Most of them are considered Flak Vests. The PASGT are actually bullet resistant and are the lower end of the scale. The M-
1969 and M-1955 are Ballistic Nylon and the M-1955 is lined with Fiber Glass plates sewn in to pockets. The Variable armor has
Nylon felt in the in main vest with Ceramic Plates in pockets on the outside. The Gunner's vests are only padded with thick
plates rated to .30-06 AP stand alone. The plates are full chest and back molded to fit the contures of ones torso. Now the
Interceptor is the top of the line made by point blank is a level IIIA+ with chest and back Gamma plates that are level III+
stand alone. The Gamma plates stats are listed as:
Multi-hit capability for:

Defeats 7.62x54Rmm LPS 148 gr. at 2,400+ fps
Defeats 5.56x45mm M855 Ball 62 gr. at 3,300+ fps
Defeats 7.62x51mm M80 at 2925+ fps
Defeats 7.62mm NATO 148 gr. at 2780 fps
With no additional ballistic support.
These plates are 10x12 and weigh about 5.2lb each, the vest has a collar, throat protector and a cod piece which I bolstered
by stuffing a small titanium chest plate into...got to protect a man's most important assests. <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> As to your questions Anthony I've inspected these vests and others and I haven't seen any that
have loose materials. The CVC vest has seperate layers and one can add more or less as one sees fit, it's is the most
concellable vest I have. They all sewn in specific layers and usually have a carrier for the insert. The German Vest has been
tested by a guy at:
<a href="http://www.savvysurvivor.com/body_armor_ballistic_tests.htm" target="_blank">http://www.savvysurvivor.com/

body_armor_ballistic_tests.htm</a>
The PASGT's were tested in an issue of American Survival Mag wear they put it to the test with a .44 mag. I don't have the
issue anymore, but it stopped the Magnum.
My friend's brother works at Point Blank in the test and design division she said that they do live tests on their vests and they
all stand up to their claims. Enough that some of the guys actually put the vests on and get shot. I'm not sure that they do it
with the rifle rounds but the smaller stuff I'm sure they would. I'm moving to Florida here in a couple of months, I will be
visiting him at Point Blank to check it out personally. I'll add more to this later.
Tuatara March 20th, 2003, 01:04 AM

One of the guys at the local fishing shop has a sideline business dealing in body armour. He's just got a government contract
to check the ceramic plates in their armour for hairline fractures. Apparently, they wont stop armour piercing rounds if they are
cracked. These things have to be handled with kid gloves if they are to last, but most of the guys who use them don't know/
care so they get dumped in the backed of the ute with half a tonne of crap dumped on top. I suggested he use fluoracine (sp?
) dye to highlight any fractures (he was going to X-ray the buggers) - anybody else got any bright ideas?
Anyway - might be a good idea to check your found/cheap gear before you trust it with your life!
stickfigure March 20th, 2003, 08:13 AM

Your advice is noted but, these aren't ceramic plates like a piece of floor tile or fine china. These vests are layered and they
are sealed in epoxy resin and in the case of the Variable Vest have a layer of ballistic nylon glued to the Front for spall
entrapment. The SAPI Plates are composite and have several differant layers including what appears to be textured wire
mesh. These plates are encased in a rubber PVC type material that resembles the material on plyers handles, for spall.
Fluoroscopic examination on the ceramic itself would be impossible, I have the facilities down at NDI to do it, but it's pointless.
Most of the vests I have are new and in the case of the plated vests none of them have been issued. The Intercepetor came
new from Point Blank, as for used kevlar it degrades when exposed to the elements especially sunlight over time. The only
way to test it is shooting it, therefore destroying it. I feel confident with the plated vests especially the Interceptor, it gets
heavy but after sitting around in it all week on an exercise you get used to it. Not because it's comfortable but because you
have to.
BoB- March 24th, 2003, 06:29 AM

This may sound like a flame, but why would anyone have 11 protective vests? Are you intending to make full body armor from
the extras like the North Hollywood bank robbers? I think full body armor is mostly overlooked, but when the pigs realize your
wearing a BPV they'll aim for your head and your legs next.
Designing your own also offers the benefit of being able to layer areas of the vest that are too thin. Either through
manufacturing defect (shit happens) or lower specifications some vests will not stop medium velocity rounds.
DaRkDwArF March 24th, 2003, 10:36 AM

Wouldn't take much to make a full body suit, but I think you'd be better off keeping them for mobility, keep a helmet and
vest at home, a helmet and vest in your stash and sell/give the others to people you really care about for a discount rate.
Then again I suppose it all depends on what the grand plan is for those things :)
Jacks Complete March 12th, 2004, 11:35 AM

A test of some PASGT body armour:
Surprise Tech Time 

John Boch - Combat Body Armor Ballistic Tests 
John Boch brought samples of combat body armor, or as they are more commonly known, frag vests or flak jackets. He
described for the audience his interests in determining if the vests, made of ballistic nylon (Kevlar), offered any ballistic
protection against small arms fire. The first vest he showed the audience was a British frag vest that is currently issued to
British troops. Boch said he purchased the vest five or six years ago for about $35 from Sportsmen's Guide. Boch
said he decided to test the vest by placing it around a large "person size" log to simulate a wearer. The hard log would, he
believed, increase the stress on the vest. Because the wood would not "give" behind the point of impact, it would increase the
shear stress on the fibers, increasing the likelihood that the slug would defeat the vest. 
Standing about twelve feet away with a 4" S&W revolver loaded with Winchester "white box" .357 Magnum 110gr. JHP ammo,
he fired a shot into the lower part of the rear panel. Upon investigating the point of impact, it was clear that the slug did not
penetrate the vest. It was found about two-thirds of the way through the ballistic panel. The inside face of the panel was
cracked and the fabric shell around the vest was damaged from the back-face deformation caused by the slug, which crushed
the fabric against the wood. 
Boch said that the wearer would almost certainly have been injured to some degree by bruising or worse from the backside
deformation. The other vest Boch brought was a vest just like those currently in service with the U.S. Armed Forces, the
Personal Armor System, Ground Troops (PASGT). The PASGT armor is being gradually replaced by the new Interceptor body
armor system that is superior in both weight and ballistic protection for the wearer. PASGT armor is composed of 13 layers of
Kevlar 29 material. It was introduced in the early to mid-1980's and has saved many lives. Without the heavy ceramic ballistic
panels, the PASGT vest is supposed to protect against only shrapnel threats - not firearm projectiles. Boch bought his copies of
PASGT vests for about $45 also from Sportsmen's Guide. He expects that many more surplus PASGT vests will find their way
onto the market in the near future as the Interceptor vests replace them. 
Boch said he will do some ballistic testing on the American body armor and determine just how well it will stop projectiles.
"We'll start out with a .22, work our way up to a .357 Magnum and if it's doing well, if someone will loan me a .44 Magnum
we'll hit it with that and see what happens." Look for the results at August's meeting. 
U.S. PASGT vest torture test Mayview, IL (GSL.com) - The U.S. Personal Armor Sytem, Ground Troops protective vest was
introduced to American troops in the early 1980's. Constructed of Kevlar-29 fabric, it was designed and built to protect soldiers
from fragmentation injuries. Today, these vests are being phased out with the adoption of the new and vastly superior
Interceptor Body Armor system. The U.S. PASGT vest. 
In all the available literature, these PASGT vests are reported to be ineffective against small arms fire. However, as the
ballistic component was made of the famous, bullet-snaring Kevlar, we wanted to know if these vests, now available at surplus
stores and by mail order for less than $50 apiece, would serve as poor-man's body armor against pistol rounds. 
We set up the test by placing the vest over two 30 pound bags of Yesterday's News litter. We fired from about ten feet away
and inspected the vest after each shot. 
We began shooting the vests with rounds from 9mm caliber and worked our way up to .44 Magnum. The only round the vest
was unable to defeat was a 9mm Federal 115gr. FMJ round. While it passed through the vest, it had very little remaining
energy and didn't even pass through the first bag of litter. When we backed up to 15 yards, the vest stopped the 9mm FMJ
round. To summarize, the vest stopped the hollowpoint bullets cold, even the venerable .44 Magnum. Round-nosed slugs
presented more difficulty, but the vest caught these rounds as well (except the short-range 9mm FMJ). 
The wearer of this vest will quite possibly face blunt force injuries on the back side of a bullet impact, particularly in larger
calibers. However, the risk of possible serious injury is vastly superior to certain injury from a bullet wound. 
We won't warrant any of these vests. However, all things being equal, if you can't afford modern body armor, these PASGT
vests are certainly better than nothing against most handgun threats. Just don't let the bad guys get too close!
Here are our results and notes.

<table border="1"><tr><td>From ten feet:</td><td>Notes</td></tr>
<tr><td>9mm Federal 115gr. FMJ</td><td>Complete penetration with
very little remaining energy</td></tr>
<tr><td>9mm +P+ Corbon 115gr. JHP</td><td>Stopped</td></tr>
<tr><td>.357 Mag. Federal 125gr. JHP</td><td>Stopped</td></tr>
<tr><td>.357 Mag. S&W 158gr. JSP</td><td>Stopped ... barely</td></tr>
<tr><td>.357 Mag. 160gr. Silhouette</td><td>Stopped</td></tr>
<tr><td>.41 Mag. 210gr. JHP</td><td>Stopped</td></tr>
<tr><td>.44 Mag. (reload) 240gr. SWC</td><td>Bounced off vest!</td></tr>
<tr><td>.44 Mag. 240gr. XTP</td><td>Stopped</td></tr>
<tr><td>From 45 feet:</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>9mm Federal 115gr. FMJ</td><td>Stopped</td></tr>
</table>
 
Special thanks to Jim Gabbard for allowing us to use his backyard
range for the PASGT challenge!
 
Source: www.gunssavelife.com/GSLife/gunnews/aug2003secure.pdf
& www.gunssavelife.com/GSLife/gunnews/sept2003secure.pdf
Ropik April 23rd, 2004, 07:49 AM

I read in some book for homemade armoring of vehicles that 1/2 inch(1,25 cm) of Al is required for stopping the bullet from
submachine gun. This does not count the blunt trauma which can be very dangerous to anybody wearing this armor. With soft
metal like aluminum this event require even more care than steel armor, for example.
chokingvictim78 April 23rd, 2004, 03:53 PM

This does not count the blunt trauma which can be very dangerous to anybody wearing this armor. With soft metal like
aluminum this event require even more care than steel armor, for example.
Maybe if something strong and hard were mounted on the inside of the plates, it could stop the bullet from making such a
huge dent in the aluminum, so that the kinetic energy is more evenly transfered throughout the entire vest? Moderately thick
plates of spring steel, maybe? They could be bolted or sanded and epoxied with something strong. I could be talking out of
my ass here, though.
Ropik April 23rd, 2004, 05:41 PM

Hmmm... I think that better than something hard would be something soft, because soft materials wil dissipate the trauma
alot, this is why they are used as bullet-proof vest "backing".
However, two years ago I read in some weapon magazine that a cop was killed by sabot slug from shotgun, although none of
the kevlar layers of his bullet proof vest were penetrated, only ceramic shield was shattered. He was killed by the massive
blunt trauma of the sabot.
When some unlawful person starts shooting sabot slugs from sawed-off(or any else, basically) shotgun, it is bad time to be
cop. :rolleyes:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Improved airgun performance - Archive
file
Log in
View Full Version : Improved airgun performance - Archive file

HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...where are other old faces? Have they all evolved into forum moderators? Oh well, guess I will drop in as a newbee
now...
Here's some tricks about airgun pellets that I gathered and experimented in the past few monthes while I was absent(so will I
be absent later). Hope you enjoy them.
1. How to boost pellet velocities.

2. Exploding targets.
3. Exploding airgun "plinkers".
4. Exploding airgun pellets.
1.How to boost pellet velocities.
Idea came from past issue of "AIRGUN"magazine of Britain. Without modifying airgun itself,
one way to boost airgun energy is to plate
the pellet with brass.
You need a film can (short and stubby black polymer ones that you get when you buy a roll
of film) and some brass coins like a Canadian loonie. The key idea here is to use straight
plastic containers which has similiar size to, but larger, than the coin.
Put a brass coin at the bottom of the film can and place pellets "standing" on top of the coin. Place another coin on top of the
pellets so the coin is flat and supported by
pellet heads. Repeat the "sandwiching" as you desire.
Now fill the container slowly with

"tap water", cuz tap water contain ions nescessary to ionize brass and lead.
Warm up the container and let it stay as warm

as possible, leave it overnight.
Next day the pellets should have been plated

with brass. Dry the pellets and re-lubricate them, they are now ready for use.
The result of improvement varies from brand to brand depend on the pellet manufacturer.
On one brand of pellet the author of the article claimed some 480 fps increase, while another brand only have 200 fps
increase.
Proceed with caution since some countries have restriction on airgun velocity.
My notes: Brass sheets and large containers can be used instead of coins and film cans. The velocity increase come from
reduced friction between brass "jacket" and bore.
This method is good because the plating is natural single replacement reaction and it will stop then the pellet is covered
entirely
with brass. There is no need to worry if the plating has become too thick.
BEWARE OF LEAD POISONING.
2.Exploding targets
Co-invented with my friend. Place some HMTD powder between two pennies and sandwich
them, tape them together. Tape them on blank
paper. Start shooting.
My notes: We thought it didn't work at first, but actually we(well, I) missed the shot, when we tried again, it made a blast and
send
the coins airborne. The coins are permanently distorted and cannot be used again. Gun used are just below 500 fps, where
our Canadian law permit.
BEWARE OF LEAD POISONING
3. Exploding airgun "plinkers"
A minor discovery of mine. Some firecaps are

loaded on a plastic strip instead of on a ring for toy revolver use. Those strip loaded
caps can be removed easily with hands. Firecaps of similiar size can be fired in .177 bore without problems. In my case, they
are loaded from breech, flat nose facing towards muzzle.
The "plinker" is not accurate(hell no!) due to bad bullet shape, but will always make a pop when hit something, if bullet
stumbling is not severe, 70% of chance you can see a jet of flash. (should try shooting in total dark.)
My note: You will see smoke in the barrel after taking a shot with this. What you see is lubricant present in the piston
becoming aerosol, not that the kick of pressure loosen
the cap content.
I tried multi-charge the gun to make it a "plinker shotgun" but one exploded in the gun and I need to clean it right after.
Test gun is right below 500 fps. The plastic

"plinker" didn't ding walls but could penetrate about 20~50 pages of phonebook.
***Don't try to fire a firearm primer(or a projectile adapted a firearm primer) from an .22 cal. air gun, the primer is too
sensitive and too short to stablize inside the bore and when it hits, the fragment can do serious harm(will pierce your eye and
other bodyparts FOR SURE)***
4.Exploding airgun pellets
Invention of mine. Was struggling whether or not to publicize this but as long as you "sickoes" don't use it against human or
some originally friendly dog, what the hell?
If you spend a day just looking at an airgun

pellet, after several hours you will start
to see illusion and hear things. One of the
things you will hear is the pellet saying :
"Oh I look like a tiny flask with a built-in
funnel, so put something funny in me and go out bust some rats."
It is important to choose the right brand of

pellet from the very beginning. You need pellets that is really similiar to "a flask with built-in funnel." There must be space
inside the pellet head, the opening of the funnel throat should be adequate.
***Wear eye protection during all this.***
a. Wash pellets with detergent to remove oil.
b. dry them.
c. load some HMTD powder into the "funnel"
d. tap the pellet on table so powder fall into the "flask" or head of pellet. Fill it
to right below the throat of the "funnel".
e. seal the throat with glue or vaseline.
f. wipe(recommended) or blow the pellet clean
g. re-lube the pellet.
h. fire the pellet at a hard surface for testing
In 20 meter tests, I have never recovered unexploded pellets. To prove it really explodes, I enclose the concrete surface with
a paper box and shoot at it at 10 inch range.
The impact sound is normal and there is no flash showing and no trace of unused explosive is visually seen.
The effect is interesting. The "skirt" is intact without any distortion, but the "head" is totally gone and became very tiny lead
fragments (more than you can count in 20 seconds) found within
the box. I assume it is a success.
My note: If you are interested in using them against vermints, shoot the pellets at a block of soft clay first, if it didn't work,
either the range is inadequate, the gun is too weak, or the HMTD needs sensitizing, try
to blend HMTD with some fine sands.

By the way, did I mention

"BEWARE OF LEAD POISONING"?
sadsakjoel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 170
From:
Registered: OCT 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read that issue of airgun magazine, was it the one with the mountain bike dude?
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I think that's also the one issue with
"airgun cartridge."
Yes it is, I found my magazine, wear and moisture have almost reduced the book into pulp. With the book at hand I should
correct one error.
The maxinum increase the author had with one brand of pellet(.177) is 395 fps (810fps to 1205 fps) instead of 480 fps which
I wrote, losing memory here.
And the least increase in velocity with a brand of .22 pellet is 204 fps (425 fps to
629 fps)
It's "AIR GUNNER" magazine, april 2000, page

57. With comprehensive and close-up photos.
In the maximum increase case, the velocity became about 1.5 of the original, that's roughly 2.2 times the muzzle energy of
the original.
In the minimum increase case, the muzzle energy change is also close to 2.2 times.
While some serious American hunting magazines

are babbling about whether or not .270 Win is adequate for elk, British airgun magazines are taking people on "BIKE-
HUNTING".
How shooting sports can be interesting really depend on what you do with your gun...I think, not saying that big game hunting
is boring.
Microtek
Frequent Poster
Posts: 194
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to make explosive pellets I have a method that will produce a more useable result:
First, use a soldering iron to melt a small amount of solder which you keep suspended on the tip of the soldering iron. Then
use this to place a drop of solder in the "funnel" of the pellet ( you can also use epoxy, but then you must make sure that it
will stick to the lead by sanding the inside ).
Now cut or grind the tip of the pellet off ( BTW, I'm assuming you use the pointy
pellets - if not, you may need to modify the process slightly ), and use a small drill to make a hole ca. 1.5mm diameter from
the point, into the cavity in the pellet. Next step is to fill HMTD or AP into the cavity, and compress it using the blunt end of the
drill-bit. Once the compacted HMTD is almost level with the point of the pellet, use some of the filler from plastic toy-caps to
function as an impact initiator. It will be most reliable if you carefully mix this with a few iron filings. You shouldn't compress
this, but simply cap the top with a bit of wax ( not candle wax, use something more sticky ).
The reason for pressing the HMTD is that it will be more resistant to the shock of firing, and more can be put into the pellet.
Also, the DV is greater.
The use of the impact initiator is to ensure that the pellet will detonate even if it hits something soft, such as cardboard or
flesh.
J
Moderator
Posts: 605
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way of increasing the pellet velocity is to spray some WD40 into the compression chamber. On my cheap Chinese
made .22, the difference is amazing :-) Before anyone decides to use petrol, be warned that the effect is much more powerful.
A 'friend of a friend' did this, and the gun re-cocked itself from the force. At this power level, an exploding gun becomes a real
possibility!
Another method for making 'exploding' pellets: Cap the funnel (skirt) with solder or epoxy, then drill a hole into the head.
Insert a lighter flint into the hole, use glue to secure it. When fired at a wall, you will get a nice shower of sparks.
Just edited it to make a few things clearer and correct a typo.
------------------
[This message has been edited by J (edited February 08, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these exploding pellets, do you guys mean to fil the skirt or the head of hollow pointed pellets? I assume that if you fill
the skirt, then you fire them backwards, which would probably make accuracy suck.
I too use AP sandwiched between coins for exploding targets, those things fly off fast!
I'd be careful about using string solvents like petrol, you could end up with a dissolved piston seal. In theory diesel would be
the best choice, since it is intended for compression ignition and would probably burn nice and cleanly.
I take it that brass coatings won't damage the barrel rifling? What makes brass such a good lubricant?
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
From: None of your bloody business!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your rifle is a pre-charged pneumatic, try filling the air canister with helium at the normal pressure that you would use with
air. This significantly raises the velocity of the pellet, because the helium stores the same amount of energy, but it's lighter
than air. Therefore, more of it's energy goes into the pellet, rather than into propelling itself if you know what I mean.
Foodos
Frequent Poster
Posts: 210
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by 'funnel' you people are refering to the skirt right? (as anthony stated) then how is the accuracy going to be very high at all?
I remmember pyroboy made a post about melting some pellets together into a .177 cal brass pipe (or alum) to 'mold' his
own, then he may have melted it to another half-pellet to obtain the skirt. why not do this with only 2-3 pellets, metl 2
together into a large 'slug' type pellet, and then using a saudering iron heat up one end, and the tip of a commercial pellet to
'weld' them together. then drill out the larger end of the pellet to fill with explosive/whatever, it would keep more accuracy
having a skirt.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The explosive only goes into the head, the pellet is fired normally. In 20 meter test with a scoped rifle, accuracy is the same.
I didn't bother increasing the size of the pellet for more power, cuz if the head is too long, then it will not compress flat, will
not likely to work reliably.
Remember, the explosive packed inside is loose powder HMTD, it is ignited by sudden compression, not because of the shock
from impact.
If still obsessed with more power, experiment with a .22 cal. airgun, there is more room inside the head, but the velocity is
slower.
Plastic pellets can be ideal for all you to

mess with since they are not toxic, easier to
modify( to mess with ) and although I have not seen them personally, I assume their wall
is made thinner cuz plastic are tougher than lead.
Melting lead to make big pellets? Unless you

are working on heavily customized ammunition,
you can order a bag of .172 25 grain hollow point bullets from Hornady or other reloading suppliers, save some work. (But
again the slow rifling won't stablize heavier bullets)
"Dieseling" an airgun with caution, it is reported to cause receiver bulging and stock
cracking : pressure too high.
Not that brass is a good lubricant, lead is too soft and will "drag" and "smudge" in the bore.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can get plastic BB's called "plinklers", I wouldn't use them in a springer though becasue they weigh next to nothing and ca
casue the piston to smack into the end of the compression chamber.
If lead is too soft, what about these new, all tin "Dynamic" pellets by prometheus? I've found them to give slightly better
penetration but that's probably due to the fact they don't flatten so much.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead is soft to a degree that you can write things with it on paper. When a pellet
is shot through the bore it leaves a rough
trace of lead on the rifling, it "fouls" the bore a lot.
Dynamic pellets have a relatively "straight wall" shape which contributes to higher
"sectional density" and thus the penetration
is better than original head-with-a-skirt design. Since they are made with alloy, the
performance of impact can be controlled.
They are better hunting rounds for that reason.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"a flask with built-in funnel."
Hollow points?????
Is there any truth to the rumor that a drop of deisel in the pellets skirt increase's velocity?
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, good to see you HMTD Factory.
Using any kind of petroleum distillate in your air gun will ruin anything made of rubber, say o-rings. If methanol worked,
maybe that could be used?
I found that shooting the toy plastic caps out of bb guns with as low fps as 280 with a .177 cal steel bb will still make them
blow up on impact but accuracy is bad.
I used to load armstrong mix into the back of pellets binded with dextrin and wetted with 70% isopropyl alochol and let it dry
with good ressults
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Vehemt, good to see you again.
The .172 25 grain hollow point bullets are
originally firearm bullets, designed for
.17 remington and other .17 wildcats.
.172 and .177 have a difference of 0.005 inch

and that's about the thickness of human hair.
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 403
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMG, i'm sorry to say this, but....
What month was the magazine published in? (April)
Why haven't any major pellet manufacturers thought of this idea before?
I think if you look carefully you will see this is an .... APRILS FOOL!!!
I too saw this issue, and am 100% sure that this is fake. Boy will i feel stupid if i'm wrong, but I incredibly doubt it. Sorry if I
sound big-headed or arrogant, happy to see someone else was fooled too!
------------------
drake
Frequent Poster
Posts: 60
From: london
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
same here, i got pissed off, after i did it for the 10th time and no results, BELIVE ME its april fools, in the previous years issue
they had an artical about a device that bred rabbits from embryo's, now that dident get passed me, but the pellat thing did,
then i saw the month on the front and thought , stupid fucking me,
fake, thats all it is, think of it, why would they TELL u how to go over the limit, and give hooligans like us a way of further
distruction
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 403
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol Drake, i was just going to post about that, that was pretty funny about the cloning machine, looked just like a set of small
drawers, and then you saw the name of the person who wrote the article, lol
------------------
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will personally verify if that is of fake information or not.
Drake, by trying 10 times do you mean the brass does not go on the pellet or it did go on the pellet but didn't make any
improvement?
[This message has been edited by HMTD Factory (edited February 09, 2001).]
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of plating hasn't come out yet, so
keep waiting.
But I tried the explosive pellets in a spring gun, it mostly blow up in the gun, In one case the head leaves the bore but the
skirt
is still inside.
Then I pushed the pellet inside the bore (with a short steel rod) for about 5mm deep to eliminate the resistance when the
skirt engages the rifling by manually engaging it.
Then I put a small paper ball behind it to cushion the compression.
The loading is cumbersome but now the pellet work 100% of time. I did two tests with the pellet. One with an orange, one with
a bucket of water.
The pellet exploded inside the orange when shot in short distance, but it didn't explode
when shot 90 degrees into water.
A clean entry hole is found on one side of the orange but a cross shaped breaking (1 cm wide, length and width) is found on
the other side. After I cut the orange open I found the skirt is inside the orange with a wake of inch-long gray lead mark.
while the cross-shaped exit wound should be made by the exploded head leaving the orange at low speed.
Another find is that the pellet can be sealed

with dissolved smokeless powder (in acetone)
and left for drying, the dried film is durable and light in weight
Plastic pellets may be ideal because they weight less and will receive less kick from the compression, reduce the chance of
pellet
exploding inside.
Test pellet is .177 7.4 grain round nose.
drake
Frequent Poster
Posts: 60
From: london
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i meant that i had attempted the experiment
10 times, with old style "high bronze" (their not)pound coins, and all 10 times, nothing happened
1 the mag does this sort of thing every
april as is attested to
2 as a starting-out metalagist i thought long and hard and it is IMPOSSIBLE for the migration from bronze to the pellet the
metal atoms, it doesnt happen, due to the absence of a redox reaction (chemists,back me up) and so it isnt possible, what
would be possible, is for the pellets to be electro plated with copper (from copper 2 sulphate) this i will explain if wanted, but it
wouldnt give anywhere near the power boost of this "method"
and one fact , your air rifle cannot contraviene the conservation of energy law, as if it were to accelerat the pellet this much
there would have to be NO FRICTION this means u could blow the pellat out of the barrel , let alone the power from the spring
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you remove oil on your pellets?
Looks like mine are succeeding, but I kinda cheated, I dripped a drop of HCl in the water
to speed up the reaction.(HNO3 will be better
though.)
Metal content of the pellet is another factor, the purer the lead is the more likely
to succeed.
It is common case to lubricate the bore or the bullet to increase velocity, for instance
, Moly coating on bullet, Moly treating in the bore.
Moly treatment in the bore shrunk my 10/22

group by 40% at 25 meters.
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I plan on making an exploding pellet. What I have done so far is glue a primer onto the skirt of a pellet and glue some
stiff piano wire into the hole and skirt. Then, i have a half inch length of .15" ID brass pipe i think it is that I am going to fill
with flash (KClO4/Dark Al). Then I am going to glue that onto the primer with epoxy, making sure it is securly stuck to the
primer. Then when the tube hits a wall, it will push the primer backwards into the wire that is glued to the skirt still trying to go
forward. I dont know how effective this will really be, but I am going to make sure to tie a rope to trigger when testing it. Also
going to do it at the farm or at night at house when parents are nowhere close. Dad might not like exploding pellets. It looks
like overall length will be about 3/4" so i will have the gun close to whatever I am shooting at so stability wont be a real
problem, although if it his bass-ackwards it should still go off, if not better. It should be interesting, and if I make a couple I
might have to try to hit a rabbit. Dont know if the tube will even explode, or if it will separate my fairly strong bonds. I can
always hope parents leave home for a while so I can test it so I dont have to wait for next trip to farm.
The_Rsert December 8th, 2004, 05:59 PM

I have a new 1.0 joule airsoft gun (Modell M16 A4) :) an an old but very good 4.5mm "Diana" airgun :)
I have just shot of <500mg diacetonetriperoxide in my room with the softair-gun and a 0.20g bullet.
Kaboom! This was one of the loudest "little" detonations, I've ever had.
Of course, this will work also with the airgun and outside.
:) :) :)
nbk2000 December 8th, 2004, 08:12 PM

Was the AP in the hollow air-soft bullet, or shot out the barrel as a melt cast slug, or what?
good1 December 14th, 2004, 02:30 PM

You can buy copper coated pellets,I got some recently to try compared to my lead although on the tin it just says for extra
hardness.Recently read a book on airguns and dieselling(Explosion of vaporised lubrication due to compression from the
spring piston).Adding lubrication into the transfer port does increase velocities but can damage your spring/break it.

Adding oil to the back of a pellet is called "dieselling" since the rapid heating from the air causes the oil to burn, and power
the pellet out fast, just like in a Diesel engine.
It will rapidly destroy most air rifle types, causing a loss of accuracy when not being dieselled. Never try it in a pneumatic gun!
They can't take the back pressure on the valve. Only use old spring guns.
Also, use the heaviest pellets you can find, and tiny amounts of oil to start. You will find that you can get the pellets to fly
apart and go supersonic, even with small amounts of fuel.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Exploding pellets revisited. - Archive file
Log in
View Full Version : Exploding pellets revisited. - Archive file

Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, just to let you know, I started a new topic so we could focus just on this, and not how whatever magazine has good
jokes. Well, my first attempt was a primer glued to skirt of pellet, with a steel pin (stiff piano wire) glued to skirt, with a half
inch of pipe glued to front end of primer. Before I attached the pipe though, I rammed some tissue paper down in there pretty
dense, then used CA to harden the whole thing, both sides of paper. Then I filled with a grain and a half (.1 gram) of good
flash powder, then glued open end to fire end of primer so it would ignite the flash. I set up at a 90 degree angle my trigger
pull (rope around a stake) so I was in my garage with the door down and fired. It hit the armor plate I have been testing my
AP pellets on. But, with the primer in back, it just didn't go. Maybe I will find it tomorrow, but I dremt this all up earlier when
parents were not home. Then, in my room, I shot a pellet skirt and primer assembly at the plate at point blank basically. I
wrapped a junk jacket around it to contain any peices. It left a heck of a dent in the metal. I scavenged and found 3 lead
scraps of the skirt, the anvil of primer, and the cup, all separated. Well, that I deemed a sucess. Just now, I had a dream
where I built another one, this time with primer on front. You have to be very good at doing this though. The gun I use is .22
pellet. The reason you have to be careful, is because when these exploding things are 3/4 of an inch long or a little over that,
it is very easy to make it crooked and not go in barrel. But I was careful of that and they go in no problem. Since these are so
long, and fairly heavy, I am sure they will not stabilize right, so I would be range is under a couple yards (meters). Dont know
until I make a few though. Oh, and before I forget, not only do I glue the edge of the primer to my brass pipe, but I also put
a little CA on outside, and wrap that tissue paper around the pipe and primer a few times, and make sure it has plenty of CA
to harden the whole thing. That should keep anything from coming apart other than by throwing or stepping on it.
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, thats about all I have to say about the pellet. I didnt know a grain and a half of flash could be so loud! However, i dont
think that the pellet actually did much. It just shot the primer off the front and my endplug out the back. But there was a lot of
hot gas going one direction or the other. And a big dent was left, but nothing like shrapnel or anything was done. The brass
tube the flash was in bulged at one end, thats all. I am sure if I had a welded endcap on and a primer that I could find out
how to secure better than CAing it on, the thing would be much more impressive. If i were really wanting it to explode, I'd
simply use AP like some others would have, and then it would be real awesome with all that extra on.
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 160
From: USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several months ago I also did some expirimenting. I had a .22 pistol barrel (from a fucked up, but new, pellet gun). I stuck a
large pistol primer in there. I aimed it at a soon to be pipebomb (I dont know what metal {most likely an alloy} it is, but its
EXTREMELY VERY strong) and blew hard. It exploded shooting the anvil about 1/2 in. under my left eye where I had to pull it
out. I was like "Woah, fuck, hehe my eye, is bleading" (I was high). Nothing serious, just an eye opener. I have done many
expiriments with my .22 pellet gun and primers. I was doing an ability to detonate test once. I opened this cabinet where 2
mice hung out. I glued a bb to a primer and shot one mouse (he was in the corner) and it penetrated, and detonated because
the wood on the other side. It blew the mouse out of the cabinet on the floor. Pretty cool. Very unreliable detonations with this
method though. I need to go soon, so one more thing. I sometimes would put a pellet in backwards for it to be a hollow point.
I usually did this for fairly close range rabbit hunting (I always aim for the head).
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Windowbreaker:
This is an interesting technique that my nephew and I discovered when we were screwing around with his airgun. All you have
to do is load one pellet in the breech of the gun like normal and another in the muzzle of the gun, pushed down with a
cleaning rod about 6 inches. Aim and fire. That loud bang you hear is the pellet you rammed down the barrel going
supersonic. We tried this on a gun that averaged 550 fps, so that's a considerable power gain. The accuracy wavers, but your
groups will open up to about 2 or 3 inches at 20 yards. This sort of shot is suitable for close range hunting where you need
that power boost (Racoons and the like. I took out a fox with a headshot using the same gun once.) The farther down you
ram the second pellet the more accuracy and less power you get out of it. Inserting the pellet backwards, like Cricket said,
does some rather spectacular things at these speeds...
~Zero the Inestimable
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know its going supersonic?
It doesn't seen possible to me...
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessin the bang is the pellet smacking the other pellet. If anything it should lessen power since not only is the
"projectile" twice the weight, but energy wil be lost when the first pellet strikes the second.
Inserting pellets backwards is damn difficult, that's why I just buy hollow points...
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 160
From: USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I rarely had trouble putting it in backwards. But I bet our guns are different. Mine was a rifle and it was like a bolt action, but a
little different. When the bolt was open, you had almost an inch to lay the pellet in the barrel. I would just put it between my
fingers backwards and lay it next to the bolt. Then just roll it in the barrel. It requires practice, but works. Sometimes you will
still get one stuck, so just straiten a hanger out and poke it in the barrel. I miss my gun. I especially miss shooting out all my
neighbors street lights! Thats what they get for calling the police on me for "testing" stuff.
[This message has been edited by Cricket (edited February 15, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just got a break barrel springer and the breach is quite tight so it's probably just me then. I have trouble fitting some
pellets in the right way round, my finger ends up looking like the Olympic flag
One more thing about the double pellet idea, I'm surprised it doesn't get jammed. Because the head of the first pellet would
fit into the skirt of the second, expanding the second pellet in the barrel.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be careful putting pellets in backwards, clearing a jam without a cleaning rod handy is a bitch.
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the first pellet acts like some kind of high speed piston creating a pocket of high pressure air behind the first pellet?
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 160
From: USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I learned a neat trick from my brother during one of them boring Sunday morning church services. I would get a plastic Bic
pen. I would degut it to where its nothing but a hollow tube. Then I would get a pice of paper and chew it til its nice and soggy,
but not all tore to hell. Make another. Then we would have to get something that fits inside the tube and it strong. I get
hangers and chop off about 8 inches of it (the straight part on the bottom) and round the ends with neetle nosed pliers. Then
poke the spitwads in the ends extremely tight. So if you understood connectly, you have a pice of a hanger (much better if
you make the ends round so it wont poke through the spitwad), a pen (hollow), and two spitwads. Hope this is clear enough.
Poke the ramrod through as fast as you can (I just hold the pen in my hand and slam it on my hand or somehting). It should
make the first spitwad make pressure and blow the second one out the end with a surprisingly loud "pop" (not loud, just
louder than you would think). Its really fun to shoot people with this, makes school worth going to. I bet this is whats
happening in the barrel when you put in two pellets. I bet it would be better if you could make the pellet at the end of the
barrel get stuck a little bit. So it would build up more pressure before it shoots out.
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's exactly what happens- You get all the pressure/force/whatever you call it from the pellet in the breech compressing the
air between the two pellets. On top of this the air that it compresses heats up and expands even more, creating more
pressure. The pellets never hit each other unless you ram the second one down way too far. The first pellet (the one you load
normally) takes a different and much shorter trajectory since it loses most of its power, usually landing someplace strange and
doing neglibable damage. Sometimes you can even see it fall out of the barrel.
Another fun one is to load up a pellet and then several BB's for a shotgun effect. I'm sure we've all figured that one out
already, though.
Framing nails have interesting effects on crows, too.
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 160
From: USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yea, I used to do that. I would fill my whole barrel up to the top with bbs and shoot that shiny spinner thing on top of my
house (hey, it was 2-3 years ago). It wont spin now needless to say, after several 5,000 packs of bbs. I remember when I did
that, I would get some recoil off of it. More than a .22 it seems. Its much slower though, like ANFO compared to NG. It just
lobes them out the end, but a .22 blows it out. If I had time to and was close enough, I would put in an extra 2-3 bbs to give
me more knock down power (wich I dont understand, its a bird not an elephant). Also, at my grandmothers house I would go
to the dock and feed the fish. When they would come close to the surface, I would slowly put the barrel of my rifle bb gun in
the water. I would move it to where they are about 2-3 inches away and shoot them in the head (usually). Then they would
swim really fast and you couldnt even tell where they go. Pretty funny.
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to do that with a brass tube, a bamboo skewer and orange peels.
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orange peels? I used to have a Chinese springer rifle with a seal that I think was made from orange peels...
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably leather, which can stand petroleum
lubricants.
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually that was a reference to how cheap the gun was, but never mind...
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still unsure of how this could work. All energy for the shot must come from the spring/piston, transfering the energy from
the piston to a pellet, then from the pellet to another pellet can only result in a loss of energy.
Another consideration is that if you ram the second pellet half way down the barrel, the effective barrel length (the amount of
barrel the second pellet travels from zero to muzzle velocity) is drastically reduced.
The only thing I can think of that explains it is, that there is not restriction of the gas that pushes the second piston, unlike
the restriction that were would be from the piston pushing the first pellet. This would only have a small effect however and
could be simply gained by drilling out the air transfer port from the piston chamber.
One more factor I just thought of, the compression between the first and second pellet allows dieseling of any oil in the barrel
between the two pellets.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No way, it doesnt take much to push a pellet down a pellet gun barell, as soon as the pressure built up enough for the pellet
to move it would be pushed out of the barell.
Of course if the velocity of the gun is high, then yeah, its probably one pellet smashing into the other.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solve the myth with very simple logic.
The second pellet will travel slower than the first pellet.
The first pellet will travel slower than a pellet which is forced out as the only projectile .
There you have it, the second pellet is not

travelling any faster than one-projectile pellet.
The pop comes from released pressure between

the two pellets, not from sonic boom.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at, just didn't word it very well
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if you'll just explain why pellets I load like that penetrate more, everything will be peachy...
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought of this a while ago, but was not sure if this is right. What I am thinking, is when you push the pellet down the barrel,
backwards of the way you normally push it (I think this is what you mean)then it expands a little, so it is a little tighter than
normal. When you fire, the pressure is building from the air and the pellet traveling very fast. The pressure keeps building
until BAM! the first pellet farther down the barrel has to release. So, more air is behind it than would normally be behind the
pellet. That, or I could be talking without having a clue (probably the latter).
Spud
Ps, forgot to spell check, this is going to take some getting used to.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Careful, if this turn into an argument the Mods. will lock it.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tighter pellets don't neccessarily mean higher FPS since you're wasting energy to friction.
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I am sure that an air rifle has more energy than that is needed to just fire one pellet and as such can use this "reserve"
to help this occur (ie, high speed piston). The air rifle doesnt just have exactly enough energy to be used to fire a single
pellet.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No formal test is shown to prove that the
second pellet actually penetrates more so there won't be explaination as well.
Spudgunner's explaination will work for gunpowder firearm, but not a piston gun.
His idea is that if the peak-pressure is high

then there is more "area under graph" there will be more "punch" stored in the pellet.
(There won't be more air inside piston chamber though).
But the pressure of the piston reach the first pellet first. That is the piston will start to move the first pellet before it can
"feel" the resistance of the second.
When the pressure reaches both, the piston simply "feels" like pushing two pellets.
Those who are interested in testing can shoot

at a phone book under the same condition and
tell whick pellet penetrated more pages.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airgun pellets are designed to make maximum use of the energy release in each shot. A lighter pellet will go faster a heavier
pellet will go slower. So two pellets will have the same effect as a pellet twice the weight.
A heavy pellet would create a higher peak pressure inside the piston chamber though, but the heavy projectile would still limit
the velocity. The gun will also become damaged from using heavy projectiles.
Testing is the only way to get a definate answer, preferably over a chrono as well as the yellow pages test.
Macgyver April 4th, 2003, 12:44 PM

The explosive ammo with HMTD in the pellets works pretty good.
My BB gun which normally would only put a dent in my steel trashcan goes straight thru the trashcan with a HMTD prepared
BB..... It does not make much of a bang, but it definitively makes more damage than a regular BB.Made a hole about 1 cm in
diameter in it.... :D
[ April 04, 2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Macgyver ]
Aaron-V2.0 April 4th, 2003, 10:41 PM

An HMTD prepared BB? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> What are you trying to do, blow the barrel? A BB
could roll and friction between the barrel and HMTD "Dab" would initiate it...
Or are you mistaken and called a pellet a BB? (Hopefully you are...)
Also, this was in another airrifle thread. Who else has had luck "Dieseling" their pellets? I.E. 1 drop of diesel behind the pellet.
I lack a chronograph (Now) but it's either the bang from the gas or the pellet going supersonic. Eitherway it sounds equivalent
to a .22
Macgyver April 5th, 2003, 02:28 AM

Sorry, I meant pellet of course.... I am not *that* crazy even though I am a bit of a mad scientist :D
I am Swedish, so english is not my native language.
Sometimes things gets mixed up :)
And I was very careful to seal the top of the pellet with Loctite glue and clean it from HMTD on the outside after the glue dried.
Wonder what these cuties would do to a rat?
If it blows 1cm2 holes in my trashcan it will sure blow the head of a rat. (At least if I hit the head bone, because the HMTD
needs something hard to initiate).
[ April 05, 2003, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Macgyver ]
Mr Cool April 5th, 2003, 08:20 AM

The best round I've used for short-range rat/rabbit hunting is a normal .22 pellet, inserted backwards. I wouldn't trust it at
longer ranges, but the accuracy is OK. The pellets stop dead and cause massive tissue damage as the skirt expands, giving
much more stopping power.
I just wouldn't want to use an HMTD-impregnated pellet in a good rifle, just in case.
Anthony April 5th, 2003, 09:12 AM

Since ratting is done at close ranges, even the cheapest airrifle should be accurate enough and disposable if something went
wrong :)
Dieseling definitely does increase pellet velocity. In fact, the process is normal in a spring/piston gun to some degree - the
guin would perform very poorly in a vacuum or inert atmosphere.
If you want to test it, just do the Yellow Pages test. A shot or two before adding the diesel will give you a control figure. Don't
forget, the effect of the diesel will take several shots to wear off.
Macgyver April 5th, 2003, 11:42 AM

I think that it is quite unlikely the pellet will detonate in the barrel, and in the event it would do so, the force would be directed
in the easiest way, and in the front of the pellet is only a thin layer of Loctite glue, so probably it will not be ruining the barrel
of the gun.
Even though HMTD is strong, there is a difference between the thickness of the gun barrel and the steel in the trashcan I shot
it at :D
Mr Cool April 5th, 2003, 12:21 PM

I don't think it would destroy the gun, but it would ruin its accuracy. Which is why I wouldn't want to try it on a good gun; on a
cheap rifle, accuracy is poor to begin with, but I would not want to destroy a nice Anschutz barrel...

True....
But I find it very unlikely for the pellet to blow before it hits the target.But then again, Murphy's law applies to all sorts of
things :(
Would be more fun with a larger pellet (longer?) that could fit more HMTD in it..... :D
Ghostcustom 24 April 5th, 2003, 02:49 PM

Standard air rifles shoot 4.5mm pellets, so thats not much room.
But on the other hand you can always get a specialty air rifle or BB gun.
Anthony April 5th, 2003, 08:30 PM

The standard airgun calibres are: .177" (4.5mm) .20" .22" and .25"
Actual "BB" guns come in .177 only.

Now I have made serveral experiments, both with pellets filled with HMTD and pellets filled with AP, not a single one that
detonated before it hit the target.
So I consider this one to be quite safe, since the amount of HMTD or AP shouldn't be sufficient to damage the barrel if the
worst should happen.
(My neighbours must love me now, think they hated me before for my indoor shooting-range, then now things start to go
boom sometimes when I am shooting...). :D
Yorki_pyro February 26th, 2004, 05:59 PM

I have messed around with a few exploding pellets in my time, the main one i used was a standard .22 roundhead, its simple
to do, just take some paper caps and cut round the red dot on them and stuff the dot into the hollow void in the middle of the
pellet, most pellets have this void including;
marksman .22 roundhead
marksman .22 pointed
eley wasp .22 roundhead.
When you have stuffed the void with the caps then you can either fire it as is or use some pliers to fold the soft lead of the
skirt over the material. i know that this leads to a loss of energy as the skirt does not deform to seal the barrel however it
may help reduce the chance of the compression heating igniting the material. I have also used match heads with success,
however for these i did not "fold" the skirt of the pellet.
The third design i have tried is one pellet packed with paper cap material then crimped the skirt into a round shape then
epoxied a 1inch piece of tubing to the back, filled this with some flash powder then epoxied another pellet to the back, this
pellet being crimped at the front to leave the skirt intact.
Design 1 isnt very destructive although it would be with a decent filler, match head as filler works well on deodorant cans but is
not reliable, the long one makes a hell of a bang but i have not tested the damage from it seriously.
dinkydexy February 26th, 2004, 06:14 PM

Just take a pinprick of PVA glue and dab it on the head of any .22 pellet. Wait till it's dried, and load and fire in the usual way.
Blackhawk February 28th, 2004, 03:37 AM

Umm I am not sure if this is an idiotic question or not, but what would a dab of PVA do on the nose of a .22?
dinkydexy February 28th, 2004, 06:41 AM

Nothing whatsoever, other than interfere with the flight to such a minute amount as to be irrelevant.
Jacks Complete February 28th, 2004, 06:45 AM

If you hit the target, it would stick to it. After hundreds of rounds, that rat won't be able to walk away! :)
Seriously, I have no idea why PVA alone. PVA plus a small rifle primer should be good though. I used to superglue them on
the front of .22 rifle pellets, and they made a great crack as they went off against a wall. I never tested them on anything for
power or accuracy though. Pretty much the same as the OP.
Yorki_pyro February 29th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Would diesel be the best fuel for dieseling? What about lighter fuel or ether or something like? (Gasoline would be bad as it
has additives to prevent detonation from pressure)
In my tests, dieseling does not seem to ignite either explosive or matchhead filled pellets.
Blackhawk March 2nd, 2004, 06:35 AM

What do you mean ignite explosive or match head fired pellets? The idea of diesiling is that the drop of diesil behind the slug
combusts due to the pressure pulse giving it more power, I don't see how this links to explosive pellets.
Yorki_pyro March 2nd, 2004, 12:25 PM

I mean, the way I make an explosive pellet is to cram a pellet full of paper caps or match heads, I was wondering whether the
dieseling effect would ignite these explosive pellets. It doesnt.
Sorry if i was going off topic but someone mentioned it earlier.
vulture March 2nd, 2004, 03:29 PM

Acetylene detonates when pressurized.....
Trouble is that you'd get one hell of a muzzle flash as:
C2H2 ---> 2C + H2
Secondary H2 explosions when it comes into contact with air are to be expected...
And a barrel full of carbon soot.
EDIT: Does lead suffer from hydrogen embrittlement?
Jacks Complete March 3rd, 2004, 04:33 PM

I think every metal suffers from hydrogen embrittlement, but don't quote me on that. It certainly wouldn't be an issue at
these temps, pressures and durations, though.
Wouldn't the acetylene burn from the air injection from the air gun? In fact, how would you get it in there to start with?
As for dieselling, you could use oil, petrol, whatever. The anti-knock additives in petrol will make no odds. You will ruin your
rifle though. I used to use 3-in-1. Too much would frag the pellet, and the gun would smoke when I got it to work just right.
Velocity was surreal for an airgun, but it wasn't very consistent. Like, sometimes it went supersonic, mostly it didn't, sometimes
it would go like normal. With some work, I probably could have got it down, but hey...
I think the trick would be to only use a tiny amount, consistently measured, in the cup of the pellet. Perhaps if you try
something really thick, like Vaseline... Perhaps someone with a cheap airrifle can run some tests over a chrono and get some
solid data. Keep the oil out of the barrel, otherwise you just get random effects. Also, go for heavyweight pellets.
Stick whatever payload you are using to the front! Don't forget, oil kills primers, and most other payloads.
Yorki_pyro March 3rd, 2004, 05:26 PM

Supersonic?
Is that confirmed on a chrony?
My lastest little explosion was a result of me playing with a butane lighter on a dowel much like the shotgun grenades
proposed in the anarchists crapbook, i had a (very) crude rag on the dowel which was soaked in gas and lit before firing,
worked a treat with a nice fireball from butane.
Not exactly an exploding pellet but still involves an air rifle and an explosion.
Blackhawk March 4th, 2004, 05:58 AM

Not really an explosion, more of a pressure pop and burning gas cloud. Did you have it so the dowel was all the way down the
barrel?
Also do you think that diesiling (say with WD40) would work with a spring air rifle (I am turning one out of Al parts, uses the
spring from an umbrella that takes roughly 60Kg to compress to half its origional length-firing a 1/4" projectile).
Wild Catmage March 4th, 2004, 07:07 AM

I was experimenting with 13mm projectiles in my air cannon. They're made from emptied AA batteries filled with HMTD and
sealed with a PVA glue/sawdust plug. In a trial run, the projectile did not go off upon hitting the side of a warehouse at an
angle of about 30 degrees. I presume that this is due to the projectile not impacting with enough energy. I've now put this
project on 'hold' until I build a larger air cannon.
I'm starting to think that using HMTD isn't a good idea, because of its sensitivity (although the projectile didn't go off). I'll
have to do some research into other explosives and detonation mechanisms...
Yorki_pyro March 4th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Blackhawk, dieseling definately works with a spring piston air rifle as the air is compressed when the spring is released and this
heats it up which can ignite an oil, the ignition of the oil then gives extra pressure to propell the projectile.
And the dowel was about 3/4 of the way down the barrel with insulation tape around it for a bit of a better seal.
Ropik March 27th, 2004, 03:49 PM

There is really simple recipe to make an exploding pelets. Drawback: They are not nearly as powerful as HMTD filled ones
probably are(I didn't test any) Advantages: Very simple, cheap and safe to make and shoot. They probably can not damage
the barrel if they detonate inside, althoug this is very unlikely event.
1. Scrape powder from one or more (depending on pellet size) strike-anywhere matchhead tips
2. Pulverize it safely. In small quantity! When one matchhead explode, it doesn't matter, but if explode few hundreds of
them...
3. Pour powder into back of pellet and compress carefully with matchstick
4. Seal the pellet with wax or Locktite
This pellets can be loaded in normal manner (at least in my airgun with 170 m/s) and they explode with hard impact. Yellow
Pages or wood suffices. I am able to split broom handle with one shot using this pellet.
EDIT: typos
harris March 31st, 2004, 09:00 PM

I am going to try this method.
Jacks Complete April 2nd, 2004, 08:23 PM

Supersonic?
Is that confirmed on a chrony?Nope. Just the distinctive sound made by a supersonic round. Of course, it could have been bits
of the pellet, or fragments, since hitting the target was just pointing towards a large wall.
If I had a PoS springer I would try it again, but I don't, and no oil goes near my Falcon!!
Ropik,
I suggest you get a little pot of water, and dampen the heads first, then cut them. They are less likely to throw bits
everywhere, and they can't go off (not funny when you have three boxes cut up!) and then, once you have the paste, just
scoop it into the base of the pellet, and it will then dry out and stay put a lot better than otherwise, meaning you don't need
the wax unless you want to use them in the rain.
Ropik April 3rd, 2004, 04:41 PM

Wet the matchheads can be a good precaution... But if you have a few boxes of strike-anywhere matchtips lying around your
workbench... hmm... You shouldn't even look on explosives, I think!
Anyway, a bit of dextrine added to the matchtip paste can be helpful to hold it in a pellet even better.
I am going to test this idea because I don't know if a match powder compacted with a "wet methode" will go off... If not, a
touch of sand or glass powder should get rid of this.
Jacks Complete April 7th, 2004, 06:28 PM

Ropik, it will work fine. Just let it dry in the sun for a day.
If you want to make it tracer, let some get down the side of the pellet, so the barrel friction sets it of in the barrel. It might
even work!
Ropik April 8th, 2004, 05:19 AM

It should work, but I am worried that in confinement of barrel will be ignited the "base charge" too. I would try it with some
cheap air gun, but not with my finely tuned "poor man's snmiper rifle ;) "

Ropik,
For sure! Don't use any of these dodgy pellets in your best rifle! A little dieselling will trash a gun, as will lots of matchhead
shite burning, AP charges, steel pellets, etc.
The base charge is supposed to light, and burn pretty fast, but it gets lit as it flies, hence tracer. (but I have never done
them) The other ones (which I used to make) don't seem to burn, but do go pop when they hit a wall.
the flash August 17th, 2005, 01:36 AM

Years ago I experimented with drilling a 1/8" (3mm) hole in the front of my 44 Mag cast semi-wadcutters. The hole was about
1/4" (6mm) deep and filled with a match head sized piece of a Railway Torpedo. The material was softened with a little
acetone and pushed into the hole and allowed to dry for a few days. I put a coat of nail polish in the hole to seal it. They
would make an audible bang, even when hitting wood or a metal bucket. They absolutely ruined any penetration of the bullet.
Without the mixture a 250 grain semi wad-cutter cast of wheel weights , from a 6" pistol, would go almost two railroad ties at
30 feet (10m). With the exploding tips, the bullet would shatter and would not penetrate even one railroad tie. It worked but it
didn't help anything.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > s h a p e d c h a r g e s / a n n m - Archive file
Log in
View Full Version : shaped charges/annm - Archive file

shady m utha
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 149
From : austra lia
posted Decem ber 17, 2000 07:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to make shaped charges for punching holes threw thick steel and concrete.I only have access to ann m . H a s a n y o n e
m a d e s h a p e d c h a r g e s w i t h a n n m ? I m l o o k i n g f o r a h o m e m ade meathods coz I have very few tools and fewer skills.So in short
I want all ide a s o n c h e a p a n d d i r t y s h a p e d c h a r g e s t h a t h a v e b e en tested and wo r k . T h a n k y o u .
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1466
From : s o m ewhere in florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you dont have what's nessisary to m a k e s h a p e d c h e r g e s
SATANIC
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 232
From : austra lia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u h h u h . a n n m is not strong enough, nor has a fast enough det. velocity. and as you say yourself, you don't have the
necessary tools.
sealsix6
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 154
From : NYC ,NYC,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W hat exactly is a sha p e d c h a r g e a n d h o w c a n o n e b e m a d e ?
MacCleod
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 215
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I t h e o n l y o n e h e r e w h o ' s s e e n R a g n a r B e n s e n ' s " h o m e m a d e C - 4 " v i d e o ? . D a m 'n,I m ust be ge tting old.He build s a s h a p e d
charge from the bottom half of a wine bottle,fills it with AN/NM,and detonates it,cutting a hole through a girder over an inch
thick!.He also shows in detail how to clean/dry the AN,and the ratio of NM to AN th at he uses.Used to be able to order it from
Delta until th ey pussied out and quit selling things of th at nature.If you can find a copy,it's worth p icking up.Anyway,to answer
s e a l s i x 6 ' s q u e s t i o n , a s h a p e d c h a r g e i s a n e x p l o s i v e m ass which is so shaped tha t when detonation occurs the explosive
energy is concentrated in one direction ,giving the charge greater penetrating effect than ordinary charges of the same
volum e . T h e b o t t o m o f t h e c h a r g e i s c o n e - s h a p e d ( c a n u se steel or alum inum funnels and a tin can for im p. container).W h e n
the charge is shot,the pressure developed collapses the cone from top to bottom,creating an extremely powerful jet of
gasses(10,000 to 30,000 feet per second,depe nding on explosive used)to exit the bottom of the charge."Improvised Shaped
C h a r g e s " ( G o v . m a n u a l)lists ex p.velocities from 20 to 28,000 f.p.s. as effective for these charges;AN/NM falls within this range
at roughly 20,100 f.p.s.
------------------
"There can be only one!"
[This message has been edited by MacCleod (edited December 17, 2000).]
CragHack
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 606
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a s h ape charge is actually a fairly sim ple device, and if m ade corectly has TONS of power. the purp ose of one, is to create a
m olten jet of a dense substance to cut through hard m e t a l s a n d s h i t . a n e x p l o s i v e i s m o l d e d a r o u n d a m aterial in such a way
that, that m aterial is com pressed into a jet and "shot" into the thing needed to be cut. they are really cool. i have seen shaped
charges (on tv) that generate 1 m illion psi on a specific point, they cut through hardened steel like a hot knife through butter.
------------------
...
Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
Registered: OC T 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sh a p e d c h a r g e i s a n e x p l o s i v e c h a r g e t h a t i s s h a p e d t o b e t h e m ost effective (generaly most dam a g e o r p e n e t r a t i o n ) . T h i n k
of a car roof. You cou ld blow a hole in it by puting a big ball of C 4 on it a nd detonating it. Or you could get a bag of quick m ix
(fast drying) concrete and puting it in a 5 gallon bucket. Then add water and put a cup in it. After its dry, cut off the unused
bucket and fill the cup with C4 (or what you can get). Put it on the top of the car and detonate. In the first exam p l e t h e g a s
from the C4 would m uch rather hit the car and m ove away into the air. In the second, with all the concrete on top of it, it dont
h a v e m u c h o f a choice of where it can go so it pushes out the metal. It will always have some effect on the shit used to shape
the charge, but alot more ene rgy goes to the m etal than without the concrete. Shaped charges are u s e d t o u s e a m inim al
a m m o u n t o f e x p l o s i v e t o d o t h e m a x i m u m a n n o u n t o f d a m a g e . T h e s e a r e u s e f u ll if you dont have much explosive , but mu st
d o s o m e d a m a g e . T h e r e a s o n t h e a r m y uses these is because in the long run, it can save alot of m oney. Also if you have a n
anti-tank m issile, if you dont use a shaped charge, you will have to have m u c h e x p l o s i v e t o d o n o t s o m u c h d a m a g e a n d a l s o
a bigger m issile to hold all the explosive(less room a n d m ore weight).
MacCleod
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 215
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a basic design for an improv. shaped charge:find 3 steel or alum inum f u n n e l s o f t h e s a m e size and a tin can or pipe
that these just fit into the ope n end of.Cut the narrower part of the funnels off,stack them o n e o n t o p o f a n o t h e r . T a p e t h e m
into the end of the can/pipe p ointing upward (height of exp.should be twice the height of the cone;i.e.-4 in. cone=8
in.container).Next attach 3 dowel rods to the sides of the container to provide a standoff distance from the target surface of
. 7 5 t o 1 . 5 t i m e s t h e b a s e d i a m eter of the charge;a container m easuring 4 in. across the bottom would require a standoff of 3
to 6 inches.Fill the container with H.E.and prim e in the top dead center.This should do the trick!.
------------------
CragHack
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 606
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a couple thin gs here, cricket, your description o f a s h a p e d c h a r g e u s i n g t h e e x a m ple you used is, well, sorta wrong. a shaped
charge m akes a molten jet of liqued that punches a hole (or cuts) som ething. it is not the directed blast of the explosive itself.
also, when m a k i n g a s h a p e d c h a r g e y o u w a n t t o u s e a d e n s e m e t a l . c o p p e r i s p e r f e c t f o r u s e i n s h a p e d c h a r g e s . d e n s e , y e t
soft. aluminum is to "un"dense, and steel is way to hard. i have actually watched a show on television where they used copper
b a s e d s h a p e d charge s. they did tons of dam a g e . t h e c h a r g e i t a l k e d a b o u t a b o v e , t h e 1 m illion psi one, i think was m ade with
copper as the metal. if you want to m a k e o n a t h o m e to fart aro und with, copper is the choice to use.
------------------
...
CragHack
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 606
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h e r e y o u g o , h e r e i s a s h a p e d c h a r g e u s i n g c o p p e r a s t h e m e t a l t o b e f o rm ed into a jet.
if the im age does not work, here is a link to it:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com / a s s q w e r t y u / i m a g e s / s h a p e d c h a r g e . j p g " target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com /

assqwertyu/im a g e s / s h a p e d c h a r g e . j p g < / a >
------------------
...
[This message has been edited by CragHack (edited December 18, 2000).]
sealsix6
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 154
From : NYC ,NYC,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks guys!!!
shady m utha
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 149
From : austra lia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers..Is there anyway to direct the blast?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2304
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first link I could rem e m b e r t o s o m e s h a p e d c h a r g e s , t h e s e o n e s a r e a ctually for sale!
<a href="http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/5-5inch.h tm " target="_blank">http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/5-
5inch.htm </a>
T h e y ' r e a t a d e x p e n s i v e b u t d o g i v e s o m e stats. O ddly enough, they have no sta ndoff legs, I'm guessing that the cylinder
shaped part of the ch arge acts as a stand off a nd you just fill the cone shapped bit.
For the record, you don't have to have a liner with shaped charges, the jet of hot super high pressure gas from the explsoive is
plen ty enought to cut things. I think the ones on this site don't havea lin er.
CragHack
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 606
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well all the shaped ch a r g e s i h a v e s e e n , o n d e m olition shows on tv, have used a m etal lin er to form the jet.
------------------
...
Ctrl_C
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 225
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a l l t h e o n e s i h a v e s e e n a r e m ore like long pieces of angled coppper (lik e a wedge) with explosive i n s i d e t h e a n g l e
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From : G u e s s
p o s t e d D e c e m ber 19, 2000 10:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This photo illustrates what a m ilitary shaped charge design looks likes. As you can see it has a copper cone and not m uch
explosive to it, but it will pene trate about 4" of arm or. And it's only an inch and a half wide.
T h i s i s a b o m blet for cluster bom bs.
The shaped charge that anthony linked to was designed for use in missiles (so it appears) so there's no need for standoff
legs. That's provided by the m issles body. And it does have a copper liner, look at the bronze colo ration on the inside.
C o p p e r i s g o o d , b u t d e p l e t e d u r a n i u m , t a n t a l u m , and tungsten are better because they're harder and denser. But warhead
d e s i g n g e t s m ore complicated u s i n g t h e s e b e c a u s e t h e y n e e d p r e h e a t i n g j u s t b e f o r e d e t o nation to get above transition
temperature so they have suitable properties to form the jet or fragm ent.
And don't forget to add lighter flints to your explosive just behind the liner so the flints can ignite any flam m ables the charge
m ay release.
------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them "
Go here to download the NBK2000 website PDF.
Bubba
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 71
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THe technical nam e is a "Monroe" shaped charge right? named after the scientist who first m a d e i t . U s e d i n R P G s e t c . C o o l
design, I im a g i n e t h e g u y ( M o n r o e ) w a s a g e n i u s .
M a c C l e o d : I h a v e t h a t video also...I also have it in .AVI form at on a cd. I collect vids, and . P D F b o o k s o f t e s a m e k i n d . C o o l
stuff. I am n e v e r g o i n g t o m a k e a n y t h ing that dangerous, I just like the "Hows" of it. Cool stuff!
ENGINEERKILLER
A new voice
Posts: 9
From : ft irwin c.a.
p o s t e d D e c e m ber 21, 2000 12:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the picture is of an m -42 submunition it will punch abou t 2 inche s of steel it,s 2 inches lon g a n d a b o u t 1 1 / 4 i n c h e s i n d i a m eter
i've taken the pepsi challenge with my im p r o v i s e d s h a p e c h a r g e s a n d i g o t t a s a y g l a s s i s t h e w a y t o g o t h e l o n g s h a p e c h a r g e s
are for cutting they are called linear sh a p e c h a r g e s m ost shape charges that you buy will have the approriate standoff built in
chokster
A new voice
Posts: 16
From : Austra lia
posted January 04, 2001 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok I have alot of ANNM and I want to m a k e a s h a p e c h a r g e , I a l s o h a v e s o m e 3 / 4 " t u b e t o m a k e t h e c o n e out of this when i
shape it will m ake the cone 1" to 1 1/2" wide and i will fit this inside a steel pipe and the explosive will be ANNM with a AP
detonator also the opposite side of the pipe from the cone would be sealed with a pipe cap. Now can som e o n e t e l l m e h o w
long the pipe has to be how m uch ANNM i should use and the stand off d isstance ( I was going to use an 1" )
MacCleod
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 215
From :
posted January 05, 2001 12:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the info I've seen on imp. shaped charges suggests the explosive depth should be twice the height of the cone;I im agine
m ore wouldn't hurt,though.The standoff should be .75 to 1.5 tim es the d iam eter of the base(If your pipe m e a s u r e d 2 " a c r o s s
the open end,you could go with 1.5" up to 3" standoff legs).
------------------
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
From : None of your bloody business!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to make a really effective SC, then you'll ne e d s o m ething with a higher det. vel., like around 8000 m/s. ANNM will
work I expect, but I doubt it'll be as efficient.
I read that the physics involved in SC's are sim ilar to that when you drop a drop of water into a pool (yes, that's right!). The
d r o p l a n d s a n d c a u s e s an indentation (the shape of the shaped charge). Gravity (or the force of the explosion) forces the
sides of this indentation to com e together. The result: that little drop of water that shoots up an in ch or so after the drop has
land e d , o r a c o l u m n o f d e n s e g a s a t 1 0 0 0 0 m /s!
blackadder
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 313
From : L o n d o n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read about terrorists who dig tunnels under buildings, and when under the building they put about 10 sacks of ANNM
together, then surround the m a s s i v e c h a r g e w i t h s a n d b a g s , a n d s o i l a f t e r t h a t . T h i s c o m p r e s s e s t h e e x p a n d i n g g a s e s / s h i t a n d
directs it towards the building, exerting the m a x i m u m force on the building and nothing else. I don't think you'll do this, but
hey, you never know.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > 3/4" Impact Rocket - Archive file
Log in
View Full Version : 3/4" Impact Rocket - Archive file

SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
From: the cretaceous period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok we have all heard about how you can make explosive arrows by filling a hollow arrow up with flash powder and using epoxy to secure a shotshell primer to the front of the
arrow where the arrow head
(if thats what its called) would normally go and super glueing a bb to the shotshell primer so that it sets off the primer on impact, but would it be possible to use the same
principle on a rocket
(estes c size rocket with Kraft paper tube attached which holds 1 oz. of AP, primer is secured by epoxying it to an end plug)
I need to know if the AP would detonate just by speeding up so fast and if the primer would be set off on impact of a hard target.
the launcher will be a 3 foot length of 3/4" PVC pipe with an electric ignition system and an end cap on one end.
Haggas had something on his site about an impact detonated cratermaker rocket, but I don't know what happened to him or his site
[This message has been edited by SafetyLast (edited January 11, 2001).]
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well..i think the ap would just go off on impact. And in estes engines the ejection charge would set the ap off prematurely if the rocket was designed to fall to its target.
Hehehe..ive had some fun with these engines.. we and muffscres digits tried to make a rocket from scratch...we made our nose come with a blob of hot glue tipped upside
down..it was actually paradolic at the end...when we shot it off....it went completely crazy and came a few fwwet from hitting m,e in the head. Fortunately, it zoomed past my
head with no injuries...but the rocket proceed to speed in the direction of a tree..when it hit it ripped a big branch off and kept going crazy...it was like a bottle rocket with no
stick...also called a wild willie and a "fag finder"..im not gonna try that again
[This message has been edited by ALENGOSVIG1 (edited January 11, 2001).]
Energy84
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: Earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on the weight of your rocket, the AP could be set off on ignition. If the rocket is really light, it will accelerate very quickly and possibly prematurely detonate the AP.
Also, if the AP is too close to the motor, it could go off because of the heat generated. Personally though, if I wanted to make an impact rocket, I would use the D11-0 estes
rocket motor. It has more power than a C6-x and doesn't have an ejection charge. These motors are usually used to launch R/C sail, which don't need an ejection charge and
are very powerful. I have built a rocket however that is about 4 feet tall. All I had for motors at the time were C class estes so I used a C5-6. The rocket was a bitch to
stabilize but in the end, I had about eight 1/4" ball bearings in front and huge 8 inch fins in the back. She flew, and the beauty of it was that it had a really slow takeoff
velocity. It oly flew to about 200 feet but I bet it would be stable enough and powerful enough to lift a really big load of AP. Heheh, lots more too if I took out the ball bearing
weights!
------------------
why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 606
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually to make sure the parachute charge does not set off the AP, you can easily just put a metal plug between the ejection charge and the AP, and make a few slits just
below the plug (between the plug and the engine) to vent the gasses. this would work real well. i say to use metal because the ejection charge will be to quick to heat this up
and set off the AP. use a light metal though, like a 1 inch thick Al plug.
------------------
...
Energy84
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: Earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, instead of holes, most hobbyists just fit the motor into the rocket just a bit loose. That way, you could get away with a thin cardboard (less weight) plug. Best part is,
with less weight in the back (motor is ejected out the back) the more stable your rocket will fly!
------------------
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I removed the clay, the the ejection charge, and the delay so now all there is is 4 seconds of thrust. I'm going to try one of these rockets on a stick before I shoot one out of
my launcher just to see if the AP prematurely detonates or not (it might, seeing as there are more G forces acting on a rocket travelling vertically than one travelling
horizontally) the charge is around an ounce of AP and I had the idea of using fishing line tied to a target and to a tree and half of a straw attached to the rocket so that the
rocket travels on the fishing line.
Im not entirely sure that the AP would detonate if it were to hit a target it might not be hard enough of an impact
Dracul
Frequent Poster
Posts: 73
From: Melbourne, Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made an impact rocket out of AP putty that was 2 halves with a nail going down the center and a toy cap at the end of the nail inside the warhead and the 2 halves joined
togeter around the nail and cap. The warhead was 14g and i used an A10 engine with the ejection charge end filled in with epoxy. I used my timer set for 5 min to launch it
because I didnt want to be anywhere near it. It launched at about an angle of 30 from the ground and went about 150m. Didn't need to land on anything hard either, just dirt.
I have the sound recorded and some plans i drew up for it if anyone wants them.
[This message has been edited by Dracul (edited January 13, 2001).]
Energy84
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: Earth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SafetyLast, If you want the rocket to be moderately safe, launch it vertically so that it has more G's on it. Then, if the AP doesn't go off, you'll know almost forsure that it won't
go off horizontally. Besides, it's only about 1 G extra so who cares, it's probably going through about 10-20 G's already. I once put a cricket inside of a little rocket (1/2A motor)
and the little bastard was squashed to about 1/4 of his original size. And also, before you launch it, make SURE that it's stable. Go find some model rocketry pages on the 'net
somewhere and find out how to test the stability of your rocket. It's not that hard. Once you know it's stable, then you can be sure that it'll fly straight. Oh, and don't worry
about a detonator for the AP. These suckers fly at around 500 km/h so the impact should be more than enough to set it off.
------------------
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah thats what I was talking about earlier, I'm going to test it vertically first. I have a couple of books on rocketry and I know how to keep the rockets center of gravity
proportioned by taping a string to the rocket and swinging it around in a circle if the rocket tilts then it's weight is not proportionate and it will not fly straight
I think that if the AP were to be unwashed that it would most likely detonate once the rocket was to gain momentum after ignition
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 346
From: UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well if i was gonna make an impact sensitive rocket i would make some sort of push button thing.
i mean like a 4mm brass tube with a piece of circular metal in it (nice tight fit) which could slide back and forth.
i'd block one end of the tube in with solder then fill the tube half way with hmtd.
then i would insert the metal and attach it somehow to the end of a rocket.
the idea is that as tthe metal is pushed in fast as the rocket hits its target then the hmtd gets compressed rapidly setting it off.
i dunno if it would work but its just a thought.
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 346
From: UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
does anyone think my idea will work?
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it would work, but it wouldn't be as simple as my idea
(putting a shotgun shell primer with a BB attached onto the front of the rocket and firing it at something like a car door) you could also use a cap gun cap instead of a shotgun
shell primer.
you might have problems with the rod not compressing the HMTD enough.
If you were going to make a very large rocket you could use a normally open pushbutton switch wired to a 9v battery and a igniter or a detonator attached.
the pushbutton switch would have to be placed on the tip of the nose cone and there would have to be no chance of the rocket hitting the target slanted.
the pushbutton switch could not be one that easily gets pushed in (it would have to be one of those push on push off switches)
as to keep the charge from detonating accidently like if the rocket was handled roughly before launch.
(a toggle would also prevent this)
the rocket in this case would have to be very large, like 12'length x 1'width so as not to disturb the balance too much.
Pyrotek sells Altimeter switches in there magazine (near the back) that can be used with my large rocket idea. The kits are $35 i think. these can be set to eject a chute at
apogee and there are other settings for times that it ejects the chute also.
They are about the size of a matchbox and are powered by a 9v battery.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > INFRASOU ND
Log in
View Full Version : INFRASOUND

now heres an interesting toy for all of you interested in exploring the wonderfull world of low frequency sound as a weapon go
to <a href="http://www.nch.com .au" target="_blank">www.nch.co m.au</a> and download the tone generator ( its free and a
piece of piss to use )
and with the right speaker and amp you can REALY give p e o p l e h e s h i t s a n d m a y b e m ake your girlfreind have an orgasm. well
i dont know about the orgasm bit but it will go down to the bottom of the scale and it will generate a num ber of diferent wave
form s be warned ! with enough watts it will fuck your speaker if its not up to it.
<sm all>[ March 08, 2 0 0 3 , 0 3 : 2 1 P M : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : s m o k e y ] < / s m all>
Machiavelli March 9th, 2003, 04:56 AM

You already posted this in the white noise thread, there's no need for a new topic.
B e s i d e s t h e p r o b l e m is not ge nerating the signal, the problem is getting the necessary ha rdware to turn it into soun d.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > chlorine & milk - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : chlorine & milk - Archive File

green beret
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 102
From : Austra lia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont want to sound KeWl but I heard this from a num ber of sources, I heard that by mixing chlorine (dont know if it is gas
granular or liquid) and milk in a glass bottle yo u can m ake it explode by throwing it and h aving it sm ash on a hard surface.
Personally I think it is all BS b ut I want too m ake sure. Also, without wasting space by stating a new thread, what else is urea
fetiliser good for apart from m aking urea nitrate? I have alot of urea 46-0-0 (I Think). Is it detonatable by itself? Sorry, the
urea bit might have to be in the HE section but I didnt know. Thanks all
wantsomfet
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 233
From : EU
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to detonate urea you'll need to shock it *VERY, VERY STRONG*, nice PET N booster perhap s...
------------------
for best catfood visit:
catfood.tsx.org
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could m ake cold packs with it
Stone
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 140
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's bullshit, green be ret The chlorine and m ilk react to produce heat and gases, so if you break th e bottle.. you loo se all of
y o u r g a s e s t h a t w e r e m e a n t t o m a k e t h e b o t t l e " e x p l o d e". They are just pressure bom b s , s a m e a s d r y i c e b o m bs a nd vineg ar/
b i c a r b s o d a b o m bs. Anarchist cookbook type stuff
green beret
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 102
From : Austra lia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T h a n k s S t o n e a n d e v e r y o n e , I g o t y o u r e m ail Stone, thanks m an, do you live in NSW Sto ne?
Stone
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 140
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, Vic.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R ifle Laun ched Grenade - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Rifle Launched Grenade - Archive File

AR-15 Man
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 176
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone have diagrams showing how a bullet trap works on a NATO rifle grenade? They have m a d e m e curious as you
don't have to switch amm o with them cause they trap the bullet. I don't even wan na try to even attempt to im p r o v i s e o n e b u t I
a m just very curious about this device.
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I a m not sure how the specific NATO rifle grenades work b u t a s I u n d e r s t a n d s o m e r i f l e g r e n a d e s h a v e a h o l l o w h o l e g o u n g
through them a l l o w i n g t h e b u l l e t t o p a s s t h r o u g h , a l t h o u g h t h e c l o s e d o n e s I b e l e v e h a v e a t u b e o n t h e i n s i d e a n d h a v e a
thick m etal coating around them (so they dont set off the main charge) and at th e e n d
Digital-Dem o n
A new voice
Posts: 38
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm sorry but if it had a tube a llowing the round to pass through it then the grenade would not be propeled, it has a a kind of
percussion cap on the inside.
basicly when the bullet is fired the the round goes up th e barrel hits the grenade and propels it while the percussion cap starts
the delay.
hope this helps
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I a m not talking about delay system s h e r e a n d s o m e rifle grenades do allow the bullet to pass through (alot of old ones i've
seen) of cource there is some kind of initiatator but i am trying to describe the bullet trap
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a guess: The bullet goes into a thick walled, converging steel tube in the gre nade. This would bring the bullet to a stop
relatively slowly, so it wouldn't bounce out, and all it's m o m e n t u m would be given to the grenade (and a little bit to itself).
Or a thick rubber block?
But that is a com p l e t e , u n - e d u c a t e d g u e s s .
How heavy are the grenades? I was just gonna work out about how fast they would go.
The Real
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 136
From : C olum b u s , O H
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say probably a converging tube filled with som ething that can expand easily under a trem e n d o u s a m o u n t o f s h o ck. But I'd
t h i n k t h e s t i l l e x p a n d i n g g a s e s w o u l d p u s h t h e g r e n a d e m ore so than the bullet would. O bjects when it with a .308 at close
range don't fly 400m , even if they stop the bullet and a re lined up to fly.
A n d y e s t h e r e a r e p a s s t h r o u g h g r e n a d e s . T h e y d o h a v e a m uch m ore lim ited range howe ver.
A d u m m y rifle grenade (from t h e W W 2) era I'd GUESS weighs 1.5-2lbs all innards removed. I've played with them , but have
never actually weighed one.
drake
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 60
From : l o n d o n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
its a series o f steel plates, each about
1/4"-3/8" thick , the bullet (5.56) will pass through 1,2 or even three but htere are two m ore to guard from prem d e t o n a t i o n ,
i know this from first hand knowedge, and from am m u n ition,sm all arm s , g r e n a d e s a n d p r o j e c t e d m unitions (greenhill m il
m anuals)
there are m o d e r n p a s s t h o u g r e n a d e s e g :
FN Bullet-thru (actual spel) range 400yds
a l s o t h e l a s t p l a t e s ( h a r d e n e d s t e e l ) a r e s e t a t a n a n g l e to quote "and a hardened steel bullet deflector which ensures that,if

by som e freak,the trap does not stop the bullet
it will be deflected out through the side of the tail"
the bt/at 52 (israel) weighs 510 gm s , a n d g o e s t o 3 0 0 y d s

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Crossbows - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Crossbows - Archive File

The_Coyote
A new voice
Posts: 18
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone have good plans for a crossbow? I want someting mabye in a repeating model...
------------------
Gun control is being able to hit your target.
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 233
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yup a repeating crossbow like the kind that doesn't exist right?
I have looked at about 2 dozen crossbow retailer web pages and I still haven't been able to find a repeater (they dont exist)
just buy a cheap crossbow pistol they cost $20us from <a href="http://www.budkww.com/Search.asp" target="_blank">http://www.budkww.com/Search.asp</a>
why would you need a repeating model?
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because he just beat Hlaf Life and in his infinite Kewlness he wants one of those repeating crossbows with the scope and the clip of 5 exploding arrows.
Want a Gauss cannon, too?
------------------
The A Files
{Link is a direct download.}
The_Coyote
A new voice
Posts: 18
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I am a target archer and I thought it would be better if I did not have to reload every shot. Anyway I found a site with plans for one. If you knew anything about weapons
history you would know that the Chinese used a crossbow repeater that could shoot 5 arrows via a gravity fed magazine. If anyone wants to know here is the adress. <a
href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/7919/crossbow.htm" target="_blank">www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/7919/crossbow.htm</a> (The
measurments are a little fuzzy.)
------------------
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Romans also had a repeating balista (kind of crossbow)it had a chain in a loop that was run by a guy with some racthet handles, the chain grabbed the string, drew it
back, rotated the magazine, allowing a bolt to drop down, kept going back till the sear engage, it was fired by rotating the chain even more. Good though it was, it required
two people to opertate and could not be carried. So unless you had a winch motor (very fast, hence very powerful) to draw the string and the required batteries on a belt then
a semi-auto crossbow is unfeasible. You can get brewak action crossbows which are quicker to load.
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok you CLAIM to be a target archer, sorry buddy I've been doing archery since I was 12, there is no retail crossbow that "repeats", actually if your a target archer why the hell
are you using a crossbow, their only good for killing
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are Crossbow's that have gravity fed magazines. There not Commercially available though.
The_Coyote
A new voice
Posts: 18
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I archer! I use a crossbow because I like making them. Ever scince I was ten I have made them (origionaly made with bunjee cords.) I also own a recurve bow but, I have
always hade an atraction to the idea of combining a rifle with a bow. Anyway you could not kill much with the bows I make their draw weight is about 30. Just enough to
make them stick into trees, but that is about the extent of thier power.
Bandit
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: U.K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<a href="http://www.xbows.co.uk/pistol.htm" target="_blank">http://www.xbows.co.uk/pistol.htm</a> semi auto crossbow.
Bandit
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 233
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry about that coyote
I read the e mail you sent me and it sure
proved me wrong
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not actually semi-auti though because yopu have to cock it for every shot, I don't even see a magzine of any kind in the picture so definately not semi!
They claimn to have the world's most powerful pistol crossbow at 75lb, but I'be got an 80lb one. It's the same as the "Phantom" (35lb) just with a 80lb limb included, no
wonder thye mechanism is so over stressed!
9lives
A new voice
Posts: 9
From: nothin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't get a reloading crossbow, why don't you just reload it????????????
Also you could try to get one at shops for about $20 which has 2 shots, one on the bottom of the crossbow and one on the top, it looks really cool.
------------------
oh no i lost a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how bout you all shut the fuck up
let him dream his fantasy bout his crossbow
go to Fruegals and download the plans and build ureself one
or go watch From Dusk Till Dawn
and blow yer jocks over that shit
as for all you other lame wankers who are new, keep your god damn opinions and abbuse to yourselves
The Real
Frequent Poster
Posts: 136
From: Columbus, OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only pics have I have I seen mag fed crossbows. But like Safety last I've never hear or seen of one commercially avaliable. But I don't get the point either. I really doubt much
time is saved from loading a bolt, what does it take a second? I can do it as I bring up cocked bow to the carry or shoulder postition pretty quickly, it's on the way up anyways.
I have a phantom pistol and think it is one of the worst investments I've made. It'll do a work on carp though. So call me hillbilly, I love bow stickin carp.
The slide action crossbows as seen in The Shadow do really exit as well, however the draw weights are nil around 20-30lbs and these aren't commercially avaliable.
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 281
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually there is such thing as semi-automatic crossbow... it called the chinese repeating crossbow.
i'm looking at reference right now.
----------
Chinese repeating crossbow of a type used as late as the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. Generally used in defense when it could be rested on a wall (its a big motherfucker),
allowing the operator to use one hand to aim it and one to operate it. A supply of short featherless bolts is stacked in the vertical box-magazine on top.
----------
its got more but it describes what is happening in the pictures below, i don't have a scanner.
----------
this just goes to show that all you new cunts should shut the fuck up, and do a little research on the subject. then if you don't find anything, don't think that it does not exist,
just wait and somebody whill eventually answer the question.
------
coyote sorry it took me so long to reply
and this is not commercially availabe but it is a pretty simple concept that could be made at home
------------------
angelo's place
have a good link? add it here
10fingers
Frequent Poster
Posts: 421
From: USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for a full auto crossbow with a 30 bolt magazine.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how about a shotgun style pump on the bottom with a rack and pinion(not sure if it is the right term)system to pull back the bow and a ratchet to keep it from falling back and
an auto release once it is cocked so the cocking lever is free of the bow string, however, this would need pretty good tools and skills with machining tools
god
A new voice
Posts: 31
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks safetylast did you see bb gus that are full auot 250min aqnd the grapling hucks
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From: England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God, please sort out your spelling and grammar, your post makes little sense.
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never knew god was so illerate
smokey
A new voice
Posts: 7
From: newcastle nsw australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kint youse peeble unerstind wot thet gud oops god seyz atal

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Actual Pellet Gun - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Actual Pellet Gun - Archive File

sadsakjoel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 170
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I t o o k t h e i d e a f r o m m a k e s h i f t a r s e n a l and changed it round a bit to ma ke it full auto. also added springs for the inner barrell
to be pulled back, no specs and stats yet or dim e n s i o n s b e c a u s e i t s n o t c o n s t r u c t e d . D o e s a n y o n e n o i f t h i s i s a g o o d i d e a a n d
also some possoble sizes, lengths widths, etc. thanks
oh fuck this picture isn't working. how can get a picture thats saved in paint to appear here?
------------------
All there is to fear is your own co-ordination
[This message has been edited by sadsakjoel (edited February 02, 2001).]
Azazel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 91
From : ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lem m e just say one thing
if yo ur design does not have suffient PSI when the triiger is released the pellets wont do much
in order to m a k e a f u ll auto pellet gun which actually wo rks nicely you would need a kind of valve which allows pressure to build
up then release when it hits a certain required PSI... kinda like a rubber ring... ok thats prob a lil hard for you to understand
because i dont realy know how to explain it
but if your canister is just running straight and pellets are flowing into the barrel it wont wo r k t o g o o d
hope i helped a little
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pressure in an aresol can isn't very high so pellet velocity would probably be negligable.
I've thought about making a full auto pellet gu n and it's not as simple as feeding pellets into a stream of gas. This is because
you will end up with several pellets in the barrel at the same time and yo u m ust have only one. If you have m o r e t h a n o n e ,
the one in front will stop being pushed as soon as another drops into the barrel b ehind it, shorting the efective barrel lenght
and giving lo w velocities.
T o m a k e i t w o r k y o u n e e d a b olt so that it lets another pellet ou t of the m agazine once the one before it has left the barrel.
Modelling your design on a full-auto paintball gun would probably be the best way to do it.
sadsakjoel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 170
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't think that the pressure com ing out of the aerosole would be too great in power, But Lowry seem s tot hink it works. I
a s k e d s o m e o n e e x p e r i e n c e d i n p r e s s u r e s y s t e m s and he said it should work. Also, what I would be using is butane gas under
high pressure or a type of fly spray which has such great pressure it hurts when you spray yourself with it. If anyone has any
g o o d i d e a s f e e l f r e e t o l e t m e know.
------------------
All there is to fear is your own co-ordination
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Errrr, are you supposed to spary fly-spray on yourself???
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1474
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fly spray is saposed to have a powerful am ount of pressure to it so that it can reach all the flys buzzing aro u n d
sadsakjoel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 170
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the type of fly spray you spray on the ground to m ake a barrier, I wasn't wearing shoes, It hurt!
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 651
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"how can get a picture thats saved in paint to a p p e a r h e r e ? "
You must upload it to a site that alllows direct linking, I use Geo cities
T o m a k e i t a ppear in your post, read the faq.
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 651
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the lower pressure, I would use 'darts', to insure penetration evey time.
Zero
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 93
From : ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S o m eone beat you to it:
<a href="http://www.thegateway.net/gyroman/Default_mv1.htm " target="_blank">http://www.thegateway.net/gyrom an/
Default_mv1.htm </a>
~Zero the Inestim a b l e
HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 217
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The video is cool, Hig h s p e e d p e l l e t s s h o t i n t o d e a d h u m an torso(just kidding)
Noticed the pop cans in the Minigun video being shot are actually unopend pops instead o f water-filled ones?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Crossbows in Australia - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Crossbows in Australia - Archive File

Crux
Frequent Poster
Posts: 71
From: australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i was just searching the web and found a site that sells cross bows in australia they sell air rifles and cross bows and say you need a licence for the air rifles but say nothing
about the cross bows i thought that cross bows were illigal in australia maybe not in victoria i dunno any way if you wanna have a look i's at <a href="http://
www.alcockandpierce.com.au/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.alcockandpierce.com.au/index.htm</a>
ST
Frequent Poster
Posts: 100
From: 000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are only illegal in NSW, where you need a prohibited weapon permit.
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 281
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in vic you can buy them from any army/hunting/disposals store.
but they cost abit, cheaper to make it yourself
------------------
angelo's place
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im obsessed with crossbows
i love them
Alcock and Pierce sell the best ones around
Horton brand crossbows. Top notch shit.
BUT you should never hold on the fact that they arent illegal... the way i see it is that they arent illegal, YET..
see i used to own a pistol crossbow. At the time 4 years back they were legal in Victoria but now, hahaha cant even buy em with a liscence.
So my point if u interested in one get one before they put a permit on them.
Best of all only need to be 18 to buy one.. just get ure older brother or sum cunt to get it for you if you are underage... and they can take down bears and buffalo... all you
need next is jurassic park and a T rex and youv got ureself a huntin trip !!!
I_am_the_Black_one April 29th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Does any one know how many LB's pull weight would be suitable for combat and what tips I have a document on making explosive arrows the basic jist of it is you fill a
aluminium shaft with an explosive and put a impact sensitive device in the arrow head. Is this feasible ?
or another bit of good old disinformation out there on the net?
Another Idea is filling the arrow with a nerve gas but it would require pressurerisation and I think would be highly dangerous to posses/use lol not to mention highly illegal
:D
xyz April 29th, 2003, 04:05 AM

The amount of LBs pull that your crossbow should have really depends on how strong you are. Anything over 150-180 LBs (combined with broadhead arrow tips) should be fine
for taking down a human sized target. Basically, go with the most powerful bow that you are still able to pull back comfortably.

"Another Idea is filling the arrow with a nerve gas" What a billiant idea!:rolleyes:
Remember that unless you hit the brain/spinal column or the heart, a bowshot target will take a little while to die. There's no shock effect like you get with a gunshot.
xyz April 29th, 2003, 09:10 PM

A small AP warhead should fix the shock effect.
P.S. That's a wicked sig Anthony:D
Magas April 30th, 2003, 07:59 AM

Remember Stalone in the Rambo 2/3 movies The head design for the arrows is on the net think it in archives will post a link when i find it. They are simply machined
containers that screww on a shaft Arrow or bolt and are detonated with a simple lge rifle primer nder the nose cap:cool:

You wouldn't want the warhead on the tip of the arrow, you would have a broadhead arrow tip and have the warhead inside a hollowed out section of the shaft just behind it.
This makes sure that the warhead goes off inside the target instead of on the surface of it. The warhead could be triggered by an electic ignitor and contacts on the arrow head
that closed when it hit something, you would use an ignitor that took a fraction of a second to heat up, giving the arrow time to penetrate.
Ropik May 28th, 2004, 05:52 PM
One idea jumps to my mind: use electric contacts like xyz mentioned, but make it in such fashion that if you hit something (I'm assuming that you want to use this on living
targets, like... squirrels), liquid(body fluid, for example) close the circuit. I wonder about something like contacts glued on or melted to the bolt shaft.
This can work only if you can fit the warhead to relatively normal-sized bolt, apparently. But OSS had one special arrow (for crossbow Big Joe 5) with flare, designed to bring
an enlightement to the target;). In front of the flare was sharp steel spike which stick to the target and hold the flare on it.
If you use some explosive insensitive enough, you can even recollect bolts stucked to trees during the "Bad to be a squirrel" day, because trees aren't moist enough to set this
off.
Final thought: do not use these arrows in a rain. This can make nasty, unwanted surprise for you...
Maybe silly idea. But IMO worth considering.
MMIV September 17th, 2004, 04:25 AM

[QUOTE=I_am_the_Black_one]Does any one know how many LB's pull weight would be suitable for combat and what tips I have a document on making explosive arrows the
basic jist of it is you fill a aluminium shaft with an explosive and put a impact sensitive device in the arrow head.......................
you could check the IRA explosive handbook with has a section exp. tip arrows. The minimum pull weight should be no less than 150LB's pull weight. :)
neo-crossbow May 27th, 2005, 12:24 AM

Buy yourself a box of 25 12 guage rounds, take the primer and collar from the rounds and get some copper tubing from Mr.Toys Model department (in 3/8th of an inch) glue
your fletchings onto your pipe, plug the rear of the bolt with an end cap (or nock for bow) and fill as much powder into the bolt as you can, glue in the primer collar (requires
little crimping) then glue on the head of a nail so you have impact ignition heads for a bow / crossbow.. I think its in the explosive part of the anarchists cook book. I've given
it a whirl only 3 times and on my first attempt I had no explosive reaction as the primer didn't go off...



The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > blowguns and genetic fingerprints - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : blowguns and genetic fingerprints - Archive File

jelly
A new voice
Posts: 4
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the good times for blowgun weapons are gone. :-)
If you are blowing an arrow thru a blowgun, the arrow is moistened by the warm condensing breathing air .
Therefore a sufficient number of body cells of you is sticking at the arrow to be able to identify you by a genetic fingerprint.
Note, all blowgun arrows fired by you are carrying your "calling card".
Jelly
- Don't beat me. Beat my translation program. -
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True.
But you can always retrive your dart after you fire it. Another option would be that you could make you dart disolve(ie. cotton candy instead of a cotton ball, etc.).
I don't think that that many cells would be on the dart.
------------------
A wise man once said:
"... As He Waits For The Time When The Last Become First And,
The First Shall Become last"
--RATM
Agent Blak-------OUT!!
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 606
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but with the cell gathering technology getting better and better each day, only a few cells is all that is needed to get convicted.
------------------
...
Metal
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
From: I'm everywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology they have now is incredible. Even if you use cotton candy instead of cotton they can proboably pull your DNA off of the dart itself.
------------------
Knowledge Is Our Greatest Defense Against Their Ignorance
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about rigging a compressed air tank/hose with a blower attachment to it?.Squeeze the trigger and off goes the dart.Just an idea.
Spudgunner
A new voice
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, compressed air would be awesome. You would very much improve performance. However, with as much air that comes out, it could cause instability if you are still letting
air out when dart reaches end of blowgun. But if it was just a short puff it should work. Or maybe use air and a sabot? Or another tail cone or disk or something that will push
the dart but not let anything else touch it? That probably would not work very well though. Compressed air is very good, hard to have in small package though. Maybe you
could find a way to hook a 12gram up to it. Still a LOT of power, but in a small package.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Idea
You could use a cocking system similiar to that used in a Pump-charged Airgun.
------------------
"... As He Waits For The Time When The Last Become First And,
The First Shall Become last"
--RATM
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was younger,my dad had a 2 foot long,8 inch O.D.tank with a tire valve attached, that he would fill with a compressor;we kept it in the trunk,used it to fill flats in an
emergency.It held just enough air for 1 flat.Anyway,he also had a hose with an airgun attachment that snapped onto the compressor that he used to clean auto parts with.We
had a great time with it,launching pencils,nails through copper tubes,firing turbo spitballs at each other,etc.I'm picturing a backpack tank attached to a blowgun tube,with the
airgun handle built into it;could be designed in the shape of a simple rifle-you could even put rudimentary sights,or a .22 scope on it!.
Raspy
A new voice
Posts: 1
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They make one that is CO2 powered.
cdg3851
A new voice
Posts: 3
From: cuntzvill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can always make one that is like a pump shot bb gun, spring loaded so there is no overblowing of air, and no dna can be attached on the dartitself. but then again, what is
the point if you can have a pump bb gun modified to fire darts.
------------------
---I am bored! If i am being lame, please tell me to shut up---James---
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 651
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backpack unit?!?
you could keep enough air for several 100+psi shots in a simple 1" nipple.
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well,I'll be the 1st. to admit this isn't my area of expertice,as I've never even owned a co2 gun(didn't need one,as I got my 1st. 22 rifle at age 11).I'll leave the logistics to the
pro's,namely you guys who have tinkered with them!.
Machiavelli
Frequent Poster
Posts: 278
From: Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For everyone who wants a CO2 system for his blowjobs: <a href="http://www.southord.com/catalog.asp?cat=misc" target="_blank">http://www.southord.com/catalog.asp?
cat=misc</a>
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could always just use a bb gun that shoots darts.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > buttmaster - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : buttmaster - Archive File

HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 217
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the pen gun
<a href="http://www.serbu.com/" target="_blan k">http://www.serbu.com /</a>
T h e y g o t m a n y g o o d s t u f f ( b e st .50 I've seen
and a built-from-scrap gun) , especially the funny video .
Also chech out this gun.

<a href="http://securityarm s.com/20010122/galleryfiles/0700/754.htm" target="_blank">http://securityarms.com / 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 /
galleryfiles/0 700/754.htm</a>
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T h a t a n t i - g u n g r a b b e r o n e i s g o o d ! W onder if anyone is actually stupid e n o u g h t o s h o o t t h e m self with it?
HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 217
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably just a joke gun.
Cuz if the gu n indeed work, the m e c h a n i s m
will be awkward.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2312
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T h o s e v i d e o s o f t h e l a w n m ower getting killed are good. I thought that 75 rounds from an AK-47 would have caused visible
d a m age to the mower, it hardly even moved. Still im p r e s s i v e t h o u g h . O n ly just over 5 seconds of full auto fire, I bet the
m ilitary would be very interested in the "unlimited-am m o" clips they have in film s!
A n y o n e s e e n Charlie's Angels? Two guys with standard m a c h i n e g u n s m a n a g e d t o p u t e n o u g h h o l e s i n a t r a i l e r h o m e t o m a k e
it disintergrate! They just have been firing for at least a m inute! That has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen, I was
goin g to write to the production company and d emand two hours of m y life back!
HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 217
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a site somewhere that dedicated to
firearm m ishaps in various m o v i e s .
Thin gs like 1 0 shot m a g n u m r e v o l v e r o r a r e v o l v e r t h a t m a k e s t h e s o u n d o f a s e m i - a u t o
slide cocking is pretty comm o n .
blacktalon April 10th, 2003, 02:19 AM

I n t h e m o v i e Anaconda they have a bolt action, sem i-auto rifle.

I n t h e S h a w s h a n k R e d e m ption, they have a sem i-auto bolt action rifle :)

W hat do you m e a n ? s e m i-auto bolt action? the re is sem i-auto with the bolt automaticly cylces, then there it bolt action where
you have to m anipulate the bolt to reload. I've never heard of a s e m i-auto bolt.

Check the last post in the long, original post Anthony m ade - they're referring to film m i s t a k e s .
However, you can have sem i-auto/pum p shotguns, which is kind of like a bolt-action/sem i-auto rifle - you have the choice of
s e m i-auto action or m a n u a l m anipulation. However I've never seen a rifle in this com bination, I believe it'd be im p o s s i b l e .
In fact, no, it's not im possible , you can turn the gas-system off on a rifle such as the FN FAL and cock/load the rifle. Howeve r,
that's a straight pull really, no t a bolt action.
stickfigure May 24th, 2003, 12:21 PM

You know what just in furiates m e a b o u t movie gun effects is that everytim e s o m eone pick s up a gun it m a k e s a n o i s e , a l i t t l e
"click" or "cha-chink" I've never had a weapon do that, unless it had a sling or loose m a g a z i n e ( A K - T y p e s ) . O r e v e n worse is
when they run out of am m o ( t h e r e a r e s o m e m ovies wh ere this happens) the slid es don't slay ope n and they always cock their
gun, that's pretty weak. I do think Arnies reproducing am m o b e l t i n C o m m ando was cool, in one seen it was twenty rounds
long then he turns around and it's nea rly dragging on the ground, I think his am m o was A-sexual or som ething self-
replicating. O n a differant subject in the Serbu video of the AK lawn m ower shoot, I don't see m any rounds hitting the m ower a
couple here and there but there's a lot of m ud flying there should have been a few pieces flying I imagine. An awesome web
video is of the IbisTek Viper and Cobra vehicles @ http://www.ibistek.com /security_vehicle.html these are im pressive. There's a
video of a full-auto glock 21 so it says, that's equally eye opening, I wish they would repeal or rewrite the 1986 Crim e Bill so
that some of the newer toys would be on the m arket.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > C rossbow Trigger - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Crossbow Trigger - Archive File

An@rki
A new voice
Posts: 2
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody got trigger p lans fo a crossbow or know where i can get some.
Also what is the best improvised weapons site.
Predator
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 139
From : U nknown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to keep it sma ll :/
A quick sketch I made of a crossbow trigger m ech I cam e up with
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com /co /W ildEye dPsycho/cbts.gif" alt=" - " />
Sorry if it stretches the screen :/

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Model Rocket Missile
Log in
View Full Version : Model Rocket Missile
HypersonicGamer March 26th, 2003, 07:19 PM

Hey fella's, I am going to construct a rocket launcher out of some PVC tube and I plan on launching model rockets that are
rigged to explode on contact. I have partially designed the PVC tube, but I think that will be the easier part to construct than
the actual payload and the missile itself. I have drawn up an image of what I think might work - I know you folks here are
experts at this kind of stuff, so I just want a little bit of advice on what to improve on. If I can master the missile, I'll finish up
the tube and I'll try it and video tape it.
Regarding the drawing:
The tennis ball will have to fight in snugly with a rather large rocket, which might make the missile slower and bulkier and
more inaccurate - attaching this tennis ball to a smaller rocket will need a lot of taping and it will look very ... unprofessional?
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> I mean, it will be like a big ball on the end of a small rocket, and
fitting it in there is impossible. I was thinking of maybe hollowing out the default nose cone and putting in some touch
explosive? Could you guys help me on which one to choose, or is there a totally different improved way of detonating the
missile? I placed APAN in there because I thought the impact of the initial BP and Tennis ball explosion would cause it to
ignite, which would ignite the primary high explosive PETN. I was hoping to shoot a pretty heavy duty missile (in terms of what
it would do). Could you guys please help me on this? I was also thinkin' about placing a small C02 in the half-cut drilled in
nose cone. I do not know if that would work though... Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you :D
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/magic/cookaburro/rocket_ship.bmp" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/magic/cookaburro/rocketship2.bmp" alt=" - " />

I know we're being more restrained now, but I really do hope this topic is a joke. A tennis ball "bomb"? Please, go back to the
cockbook. Touch explosive would mean that if you touch it it would explode. How do you propose to make/fill it? And let's get
this straight, you go from a primer, to BP, to ANAP, to PETN? If you can make PETN I'm pretty sure you can make a more
reliable primary. POGs? Goddamn...
Or did you just skim some posts, pick out some words and then throw them onto a drawing? If you intend to stay then at least
learn.
AARGH, just noticed, PETN is a secondary, not a primary! I'm *extremely* tempted to lock this topic and ban you. But, maybe
some of the REAL members can make something out of this.

Quite possibly the lamest post I've seen in a month, although there has been a BIT of competition in the Caltrop thread. In
fact, this post is so crappy that I think you're someone taking the piss, trying to get people to discuss an idea like <a
href="http://www.xinventions.com/main/pyro/model_rocketry.htm" target="_blank">this</a> as something original.
First thing to do is go <a href="http://www.roguesci.org/cgi-bin/ewforum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=faq" target="_blank">here</a>

and learn that lot.
Next do some research both here and on the rest of the web. Then, when you've got some credibility (gunna take a while now
I'm afraid), come back with an idea that isn't as half baked and badly thought out as this one. I can't even understand what
you're trying to describe. That's either because you haven't a clue either, or you're incapable of putting an idea across.
E minus, going to have to do a LOT better to stick around.
Haggis March 26th, 2003, 09:04 PM

If you plan on filling the tennis ball with a payload, the rocket will be too unbalanced and will not fly. To circumvent
'unprofessional' taping, use epoxy putty. Tennis ball 'bombs' will not work. I also do not think that the 'explosive train' will
work at all. The D engine will not just sufficient lift. Oh, and the heat from the engine could detonate the AP in the APAN and
later the APAN. At this point the PETN will detonate while the rocket is fizzling in the launch pad. People that play with PETN do
not use 'tennis ball bombs' as the ignitor.
Energy84 March 27th, 2003, 12:20 AM

And to help out with the criticism of the actual rocket design... A 'D' motor won't even get that ugly beast off the ground.
Now, assuming it ever did get off the ground, I wouldn't want to be within a half mile of that damn thing. It will cartwheel in the
air due to the instable rocket design. The fins are too small and the CG/CP ratio is way off.
You haven't said how you intend on launching this thing either, but you'll probably need a fairly strong launch rail or some sort
of tube setup. So don't even worry about accuracy right now.
APAN would be a poor choice of main charge because it will probably have to be sitting furthest towards the rear and will be
suseptible(SP?) to the heat from the rocket engine.
I hope you realise that 'D' engines only burn for about a little less than a second anyways.
And how do you plan on using a goddamn tennis ball as a nosecone? For one thing, all the fuzz on it will be a major drag
(literally) and for another, a goddamn tennis ball?!? Jesus christ man, get real!
Then there's your charges, well, I'm not even gonna go there. I think zaibatsu pretty much covered that anyways. Only thing
left to mention is that APAN would be bottom on my list for a warhead. Just pack the damn thing full of PETN. Unless of course
you have the holy grail of all explosives, double based smokeless powder!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]"
src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
Damn I hope this guy likes HED. I want the old, stricter rules back! :D C'mon NBK, we know you're bloodthirsty!
blazter March 27th, 2003, 01:25 AM

Wow. I sure got a good chuckle out of reading that post. With all the time that poor fool spent drawing those fanciful images
he could've used it to actually learn something useful. I would like to second the motion for giving this one HED. Please at
least delete this useless thread.
Gargoylebrother March 27th, 2003, 01:58 AM

Good Fucking God how stupid can you get. A fucking tennis ball bomb Please...I really really REALLY hope he tries something
like this and fucking KILLS himself...well not rerally but at least takes off a limb or two. That way he will never thinks about
doing anything like this again.
Come on NBK where are you when we need you the most. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Adding an explosive payload to model rockets rockets isn't new. Using a "tennis ball bomb" to set off petn is a load of Bull
Shit aswell.
If you want to design, build and use a rocket launched missile then: 1. Do some fucking research
2. Have some previous experience with this technology.
3. Learn to draw.
There are far more efficent ways to set off PETN and if you could make the stuff then you'd know. A 'D' engine not would have
enough power to get your "rocket" into the air. So you would have to either: 1. cluster your "D" engines or 2. Design and build
a rocket engine.
HypersonicGamer March 27th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Sorry for all the stupidness :( - I should have looked around the net for some plans on model rocket missiles, but I tried the
search on this site but it would not yield anything of the sort so I thought I'd start a new project-thread on this subject (bad
start...). Yeah - I fucked up bigtime, and as a newbie I have tarnished my reputation. Although battered down and threatened
with NBK's excessive insulting comments :p (j/k), I hope you guys could still help me and point me in the right direction.
Flake: I can make PETN, but I was just unsure of how I would detonate the rocket...obviously it was not well done or planned
out :(. Filling the whole thing with PETN - which booster could I use for this?
The tennis ball: Sorry...
Hmm...have any of the members here built something like this (well, not that THAT, but a missile)? If so, could you please
tell me what you did and what you used?
Please, no HED! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
vulture March 27th, 2003, 10:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />but I tried the search on this site but it would not yield anything of the sort so I thought I'd start a new project-
thread <hr /></blockquote>There is a huge thread about spin
stabilized model rockets and also another thread about rockets.
While I can understand why you would use a tennisbal, I'd rather use a golfball, as these things have been designed to reduce
drag.

Come on lads, embrace the huggy-feeliness <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
At least his attitude doesn't suck like too many newbies. He's just miss-guided, a lot like his rocket would be :D
Your main problem is trying to fly before you can walk. Your firing train is bizzare and if you thought a tennis ball "bomb" was
an ideal component, then obviously you haven't done much playing with even basic pyro experiments. Using HE components
at all, let alone PETN would be beyond your current grasp. Don't take that as an insult, it's constructive criticism. We all started
somewhere, and it wasn't with PETN for any of us...
If you want to do this, look up some threads on "CO2 bombs" (cratermakers, COBs). Make some of these loaded with BP or
flash. Then think about fuzing one with a shotshell primer and tapping a D motor to the back and firing it from a length of
(unmaned...) PVC pipe. There should be some old threads covering this pretty much exactly. Then move up to a HE filler,
*then* start thinking about scaling it up to something bigger.
These projects aren't as simple as cobbling together a variety of ideas you've seen on the net. Aside from being impractical,
it's way to over ambitious and can only result in dissapointment and frustration. Start out with the basics. Even for COB sized
rockets Estes motors aren't too good, for something the size you've drawn, you *will* need to make your own heavy duty
rocket motors.
BTW, I think he might have meant the PETN was the primary explosive payload (i.e the base charge), still incorrect
terminology though.

grumble grumble, thicko's grumble, fucking why should we bother grumble moan, half baked, grumble whinge, fucking shit
idea, grumble how much help does he need for fuck's sake, mutter grumble moan.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm trying, I just think this project, the approach to it is so shit that it's easier to say "fuck off and come back when you've got
half a clue". The concept, the drawings, the approach, the, the, the, the........fucking TENNIS BALL............. :rolleyes:
It's a serious question - just how far back in his education should we be expected to reach?
(sorry, I've got a cold, am knackered and in an especially grumpy mood)
[ March 27, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Arkangel ]
nbk2000 March 27th, 2003, 02:17 PM

He deserves a good vivisectioning. :)
But not by me...I only feed on healthy prey...not the weak and sickly. :p
knowledgehungry March 27th, 2003, 07:04 PM

Welcome back NBK.
Ezekiel Kane March 27th, 2003, 07:14 PM

I wouldn't particularly recommend using a "golf ball" or "tennis ball bomb." I really hope you try this. Either you'll destroy
yourself or you'll have something to contribute, and either way I'll be satisfied.
Not to challenge your ruling, nbk2000, but are there perhaps any admins who DO feed on the weak and sickly? :rolleyes:

Energy84 + Haggis - Thanks for the information.
Anthony - Thanks for the polite reply. I will build some C02 Rockets will D's on the end and a shotgun shell primer in the front
(I'll initially test it with BP). After I do this though, I was still wondering about the rocket design.
Another thought that came into mind was building a new rocket from scratch, a 2" PVC tube (I'll try keeping the rockets very
simple) to start off with. I could get the bottom end threaded and fit on an end cap and I could get some PVC that fits the
diameter of a D engine correctly, and I could get the top ends threaded and epoxy on a total of 4 D engines on the main 2"
PVC shaft (in a square formation). I could maybe load the main shaft with some Mid-Low sensitive explosive, but for my
impact nose cone, I would need an explosive that would be impact-sensitive (back when I was using the term "primary" freely,
I did mean for it to be used in the sense that it was a "primary" charge; the primary/base explosive in the missile). <img
border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
The launcher could be like the one on Xinventions, and the fins on the rocket base and near the tip (like an AIM 9 Sidewinder
:) ) could be plastic, small, thin, and short (glued with epoxy). To rig all four of these D-engines would take two copper wire I
am presuming, one ring of it all connecting the positives and then another ring connection all negative wires, and then the
alligator clips would attach to them as normal. I see the main problems while building these is encountering weight/lift/drag/
size problems the most, and then what type of explosive to use (probably an impact sensitive one...which one could be used?)
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
Thanks for the help - I at least appreciate you guys responding and not locking/deleting the thread immediatly. <img
border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
PS: Hey NBK, which parta' Kansas you in? I used to live in Hays when I was a child. :cool:
[ March 27, 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: HypersonicGamer ]

HypersonicGamer,
You need to start at the very very beginning.
Before anything else use the link at the top of the page and read the EWF rules at least twice. Next you must learn how a
model rocket works. I suggest a basic Estes Model Rocket booklet. After you have learned the forces acting on a rocket and
what stability is and how it effects rockets, I would suggest you go out and buy some simple level 1 rockets and learn how they
operate, maybe even try launching one. After that you can move on to more advanced things like how the motors work [realy
advanced !! :D ] and maybe after more hours of intensive study you can try building a simple rocket (It's good to know how to
make simple ones first before going on to complicated ones <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ).
Until then I suggest not posting becuase you have already upset more that a few people.
Energy84 March 27th, 2003, 08:49 PM

Have you ever built a model rocket in your life??? I think you need to learn how to SUCCESSFULLY build and fly a rocket. It's
fine and dandy that you want to learn, but remember, baby steps. Don't even attempt to put anything explosive in it until you
can fly the damn things. Fins at the front of the rocket are trouble and actually decrease stability alot. The only reason that
you see fins on the front of rockets are either for looks (ONLY if the overall design is very stable) or for guidance. Don't even
bother trying to build a guidance system because at this point, YOU WILL fail.
So like Ghostboy said. Go buy an estes rocket and build that, learn to fly it, experiment with different engines and stuff. Then
get their kit so that you can try building your own custom designs to see if they'll fly. The most important part about model
rockets is getting the cp:cg (center of pressure:center of gravity) ratio right. You actually want it to be nose heavy (contrary to
popular belief) to make it fly straight. Once you get this ratio correct, anything will fly straight. The biggest challenge is getting
this ratio right while still keeping it lightweight...
In short, go buy a book. Then go buy a model kit. Fly it. You need experience.
Aaron-V2.0 March 28th, 2003, 03:48 AM
And you do know that a tennis ball will fit perfectly in a 2.5" PVC pipe right? No way in hell will it fit in a 2". Exactely how much
research did you do on this anyway?

Hypersonicgamer have you ever successfully synthesised PETN before?
I have had some experience with model rockets and I know for a fact that they are design to fly straight up. Not down, not
sideways and unless the engine fucks up or the rocket isn't balanced they will fly in the direction they are pointed.
TheBear March 28th, 2003, 03:31 PM

If we could try to get back on topic here, and give this poor lad a chance:
What impacttrigger would be the safest to use?
I'd guess some kind of electrical switch, perhapps an electrolyte in a glasstube, which when broken completes the current and
sets off an electric BC.
But if one would like the rocket to penetrate light armour and then detonate the payload, how would one construct the
impacttrigger? It would be very different because then the nosecone has to be strong and not break upon impact which
complicates the design of the impactstrigger.

fuck this huggy friendly shit!
i'd like to see some good ideas and info on rockets following the torrent of crap above.

Flake: I haven't actually made PETN before, sorry if I was unclear in that I could. I have been following along with the PETN
thread and I had saw on a couple of other sites like Flashbangboom a synthesis on PETN. Even though the synthesis guides
one through the creation of PETN, I'm sure a newbie or someone who is not versed well in chemistry could NOT correctly
synthesize PETN on their first time, right? I'll start with baby steps like you guys suggested, I have a bad habit of starting too
high, and then to have my ideas crushed/picked apart like they have been done so here <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
My father is a chemical engineer, and he keeps a plethora of various chemicals in our storage basement (I don't know why he
keeps them there though, I haven't seen him touch them). Well, I was browsing through some stuff and in this small tight
bottle there was some nitric acid (98%) and some other complex liquid compounds. He also has some sulfuric acid (98%) and
a lot of acetone. I'm sure there is more, but from what I have searched for/seen, those are the only ones.
Energy + Ghostcustom, thanks for the tips, I'll be sure to start with the basics of the rockets.
A couple of days ago, I had bought an "Astrocam" model rocket which takes a photo during flight. I launched the rocket the
following day, and it was the first time I have ever launched a model rocket. It was quite fun/amazing, since I haven't even
seen anyone actually do it (this is what sparked my interest in the missile with the explosive payload). Indeed, I have very
little experience with model rockets, from what I have only launched, it has gone straight through my 4-6 trials throughout the
week. Next weekend, I think I'll buy some PVC and experiment with the dynamics and physics of the rockets, and then I'll
launch it without a payload and hope it goes straight (I'll probably go through many trials before it even goes somewhat
straight, heh). <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Also - the fact that the rocket will have increased weight
after the explosive payload might alter the way it operates when launched. (Hopefully, maybe I will at least get this theory
correct?) :D
Aaron: A tennis ball glued on with epoxy on a small 2" PVC rocket would look very stupid, agreed, heh - but the drawing above
that shows it fit in perfectly was designed to fit with a larger diameter PVC tube, which would be a lot heavier (I presume?) and
it would make the rocket go nowhere or very slow if it went anywhere (not to mention all over the place like stated above).
Again, sorry for the tennis ball, I know the Anarchist Crapbook is frowned upon here - the last time I actually looked into it for
informative information was a year ago, but I had remembered that tennis ball bombs were a fun impact popper that I had
used a while ago.
Setting aside the physics and mechanical aspects of the rocket itself, I would like to discuss how an advanced rocket hobbyist
would go about detonating this thing! :D Also, how one would place the engines and fins in a manner or construct it in a
manner to improve the trajectory, stability and speed?
The Bear: Thanks for your friendly gestures, I appreciate it. An electrolyte in a glasstube is a new idea I haven't heard
(literally) - it sounds like it would work, would you like to elaborate on it with us? Detonating light armour, haha - I didn't want
to destroy any light targets but designing a rocket that did successfully penetrate and explode sounds fun and challenging
(although right now we're stuck on the first step :) ).
Thanks again for the input. :cool:
Skean Dhu March 29th, 2003, 01:03 PM

first i'd like to add on to what energy84 was saying, you want it to be nose heavy and the fins at the back help keep it stable
by increasing the drag on the tail end.
on spudtech.com there is a how-to on making 'rockets' designed for launch from -- you guessed it a potato launcher. i have
been toying with the idea of modifying these with explosive warheads. I was thinking that if I used some AP in the rocket that
it would explode upon contact with something hard(since it is so sensative(sp?) and all. obviously it would be sealed off to
protect against flames and i would be cowerin.....I mean standing behind a protective barrier when the launch is preformed.
would somebody help to talk me in/out of doing this. would the AP detonate when it is accelerated from the blast, would the
shockwave from the combustion set it off? i don't want to try this if it isn't going to be as 'safe' as humanly possible.
and just to save you the typing these aren't going to be used maliciously, for entertainment purposes only
xyz April 2nd, 2003, 06:46 AM

I doubt that the impact with a hard surface will set your AP off. I have fired a CO2 cannister packed with AP out of an air
cannon. It was aimed at a large, solid tree about 15m from the air cannon. The CO2 cannister just bounced off the tree
without exploding (even though it would have been going at more than 75 metres a second).
Ghostcustom 24 April 2nd, 2003, 07:52 PM

My advice would be to scratch PETN and try to structure the model rocket after a LRPG (light rocket propelled grenade).
Obviously you would need to do some research into the mechanics and explosives used in them and attempt to scale it down
and apply it to a model rocket, which if I may remind you will be no easy feat.
Technically, it will not work in a 'model rocket' at all. You will surpass the defining characteristics of a 'model rocket' (as in
weight, propella nt weight ect.) befo re you ever put the e xplosive s in. This would be classified as a Large model rocket or
Amateur rocket (my money would be on the amateur rocket class no que stion). You will a lmost certain ly need to make your
own engine because you will need much more power than a cluster of D's or F's can give you and the burn time for those is
incredibly short.
Energy84 April 3rd, 2003, 01:03 AM

I've been out of the hobby for a couple years now, so I don't really know much about the latest developments in engine
technology, but I'd probably reccommend using at least a 'G' or higher class engine, which is about 8" long and 1.25" around.
I've only actually seen one 'G' class (officially classified as 'high powered model rocket') launched and it was quite a hefty
rocket. IIRC, it was 4" around and 2.5' long, with a camera in the nose and microphone w/transmitter to transmit and record
the sounds of flight onto a laptop equipped with a receiver. I'd estimate that it flew about 750 feet high.
Now, using simple physics, if a projectile can reach say 1000' altitude, that means that at 45 degrees, it can reach 500' altitude
1000' downrange at apogee, and hit the ground at about 2000' downrange.
So I'd say that a 'G' class engine will be more than enough for a rocket with a 2" diameter and 2' long.
BUT, keep in mind that this rocket will have to be less than 3 pounds. These things are not built out of PVC pipe. They are
built with thin cardboard bodies, lightweight plastic nosecones and balsa wood fins. Even the paint plays an important role in
aerodynamics and even sometimes weight.
<img src="ftp://ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/hosted%20images/energy84/rocket%20stability.jpg" alt=" - " />
Since I'm sure that most of you don't have a wind tunnel to test stability, here are two tricks that I've always used.
The first is to build the whole damn rocket, load it up just like you were ready to launch (engine, parachute, wadding, payload
(if any)) and balance it to find the CG. Next, tie a string around the CG (fasten it with a piece of tape so that it doesn't slide
around) and swing it around your head. The rocket should 'fly' around you nose first. If it doesn't, that means that it's
unstable. And if it does swing around nose first, then it is stable. Simple as that.
The other method, is to take a piece of cardboard and make a cross-sectional cutout of your rocket. All you want is a side
view, made of cardboard, sort of like in the picture I made. Then with the cutout, balance it on your finger. The CG of the
cutout will be the CP on the real thing. Then you just have to find the CG on the actual rocket and compare it to the CP.
Remember, the CG is always in front of the CP in a stable design.
All this probably seems alot harder than it really is, but once you understand what's going on, it's really simple.
[ April 03, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Energy84 ]
Ghostcustom 24 April 3rd, 2003, 08:59 PM

I would like to second those stability methods and also recommend that you investigate into finding some nice model rocket
software. I tried one version called <a href="http://www.apogeerockets.com/rocksim.asp" target="_blank">RockSim</a> ,
where you can actually build the rocket on your computer using parts from manufacturers or you can impute your own. It does
wonderful calculations to find CP, CG, approximate altitude, and more.
>>Now if only someone could find out where we can this free as it is very expensive. They have it so you can download
the FULL version somewhere, but I don't know how to look around on their server - SOMEONE PLEASE HELP HERE !!!!!
--Oh and also go out and get the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" by G. Harry Stine (Amazon.com)-- best book on basic rocket
principles, you can probly find it at the library also.
HypersonicGamer April 4th, 2003, 10:28 AM

Thanks for all the great information - I'll play around with model rockets more in depth and I'll get the basics down before I
impose a payload.

Rocksim costs, there is a good peice of freeware rocketry software called AEROLAB that I use, it can be downloaded <a
href="http://www.rocketry.org/downloads/software/aerolab.zip" target="_blank">here</a> . It is 390Kb.
Use this to calculate your rocket's center of gravity (CG) and center of pressure (CP). If you adjust your rocket so that the CP
is about 1.5 calibres behind the CG then the rocket will be stable. (1 calibre is the diameter of your rocket's main body)
If you are launching rockets from a tube, a combination rocket/recoilless launcher system is probably the best to use as a
rocket will probably not accelerate fast enough to keep going in a straight line when it leaved the tube.
A recoilless laucher is basically where you use a low explosive propellant like BP to fire a projectile from a tube that has a
partially closed back.
You will also probably need to use sabots on the rocket so that it fits the launching tube well. Or you could use a spin
stabilised rocket with two nozzles so that it doesn't require fins.
[ April 07, 2003, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: xyz ]
kingspaz April 7th, 2003, 01:10 PM
dammit!
my previous post was meant to include this:
<img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/kingspaz/impactdet.JPG" alt=" - " />
the end hits a hard object which drives the solid pin back aswell as shearing the copper wire so its free to move. it then strikes
the primer. the pin should be pointed too which i didn't have on the diagram. primer flashes into the primer mixture which
carries the flame to the primary.
comments?

Kingspaz - thanks for helping with the diagram. I think your plan looks good. Essentially, it kind of acts like a mortar, and
when the pin hits the primer, it ignites the priming composition which is carried out into the Primary which shoots out the steel
rod right?

No, I think what Kingspaz means is that the right end of the steel rod strikes something, pushing it towards the left, shearing
the copper pin and striking the primer, which then goes on to ignite the priming composition.

I think it may need some modification to keep it under weight but the overall idea looks pretty good.
(PVC can be substituded for steel)
[ April 10, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Ghostcustom 24 ]

Hey guys - I was also thinking of another weapon besides a model rocket. I didn't want to start a whole new thread about this
subject, but I was wondering if it would possibly work if altered (I promise, no pictures, hehe). ;)
If one were to rig a model helicopter with a weapons payload -like wings of an Apache, and fit these with an electronic release
system; would it be possible to turn the helicopter into a weapon? I was thinking of putting AP in C02s and having them
dropped from the electronic wing-mounted release system. I'm guessing that once the C02 hits a hard enough surface at a
certain height, it would be a decent shockwave to ignite the AP? :p
These are all preliminary thoughts and nothing too serious, please add some comments to what could be done to better the
design/weapons/anything. :)
Energy84 April 18th, 2003, 02:39 AM

I believe there was already a thread discussing that idea at some time. But just like you, I'm too lazy to SEARCH for it right
now...

Landing on a hard surface is NOT a reliable way of detonating AP inside a CO2 cannister. Like I have previoulsy said in this
thread, I have fired a CO2 cannister of AP from an air cannon into a tree and it didn't go off.

Luk@ME&my L33T HL 0f D3atH!
You're assuming the CO2 cartridge falls on hard ground, you're assuming that a CO2 of AP will either have a large killing/
maiming range OR you can drop it accurately.
You start designing rockets before you know about rocketry, and you start designing air-to-ground weapons before you know
about them.
Read a bit more, then post your thoughts.

I saw the impact rocket missile post - ugh...I should have searched there before I posted this (sorry, I'll search first and
thorougly before I post something idiotic).
I can't really make it an accurate weapon - the pilot would have to fly it controllably enough to make it accurate. The helicopter
would have to fly relatively high for a detonation, but XYZ - you fired a C02 filled with AP and it DIDN'T go off? I was reading
articles on AP and the article on Mega's synthesis of AP - and it seems like extremely sensitive stuff.

AP is a comparatively sensitive explosive.
Like all explosives, it is more and less sensitive to different means and methods of initation. It's one of those things you get
the feel for when you've actually made something before...
The idea will work, but you will require and impact ignitor, such as a firearm primer. This is certainly not a new idea. Nor is the
use of model helicopters/areoplanes as weapons platforms. These matters have been discussed extensively before.
HypersonicGamer, I think that it didn't go off because the CO2 cartridge formed a hard shell around it that stopped the actual
AP crystals fom being whacked against anything.
If it had been a cast caseless block of AP putty however, I think it would have gone off.
AP is not all that shock sensitive compared to how flame sensitive it is.
FragmentedSanity April 19th, 2003, 04:36 AM

HypersonicGamer - have a look for Lowry's Makeshift Arsenal, from memory the rocket launcher in it was pretty much what
your after. But I cant comment on how effective it is as I never made one... but thats what your thread reminded me of when I
read the heading. It does seem a little toy-like, but should be good for ideas.
As for AP sensitivity - there has been alot said about it, you should read as much of it as you can; breify variations occur due
to things like method of manufacture, purity, storage and a whole lot more. But IMO impact just isnt a reliable method of
detonation for AP, in my dreams - unconfined crystral (pea size mound) takes a sharpish blow from a hammer on a solid
surface to work. But it can happen so be careful.
xyz: I dont spose you could be convinced to try your theory about a caseless AP Putty projectile? Sounds VERY nice :)
later
FS

Sorry for all the stupidness - I should have looked around the net for some plans on model rocket missiles, but I tried the
search on this site but it would not yield anything of the sort so I thought I'd start a new project-thread on this subject (bad
start...). Yeah - I fucked up bigtime, and as a newbie I have tarnished my reputation. Although battered down and threatened
with NBK's excessive insulting comments (j/k), I hope you guys could still help me and point me in the right direction.
I saw the impact rocket missile post - ugh...I should have searched there before I posted this (sorry, I'll search first and
thorougly before I post something idiotic).
Promises promises eh hypersonic? Three strikes...
kingspaz April 19th, 2003, 07:18 PM

HypersonicGamer, enough with the random ideas. if you have an idea do some bloody research into it yourself and then if
after a few hours fact finding it still seems a credible idea THEN post somthing. why waste our time and yours with useless
ideas.
do you know anything about model helicopters? do you know they can only carry enough fuel for a relatively short flight? do
you know they are just as difficult as real helicopters to fly? do you know they are quite expensive WITHOUT the radio control
equipment and engine? do you know you'd most likely have to heavily modify a standard helicopters engine and rotors to lift
the extra weight of any decent sized munition?
now, enough of these silly poorly thought out ideas. if you have an idea do some work on it yourself. you have access to the
internet so use it!
Ghostcustom 24, yes i agree! i really didn't think much about the material. i think aluminium tube and rod. metal is more
likely to set off the primer reliably.

FragmentedSanity, I am NOT going to try a caseless AP projectile due to the friction on the sides of it as it goes through the
barrel.
FragmentedSanity April 20th, 2003, 10:10 AM

xyz: Nods. I should have thought of that. Im sure there would be a way of doing somethinhg similar - I just really like the
idea of shooting a lump of explosive at a target... maybe if it was just partially encased - leaving the front open. Or with a nice
thick coat of NC lacqure as a shell... Its another one of those things Ill test out oneday I spose. But for now ill stop trying to
hijack this thread and leave it to die quietly.
FS
Skean Dhu April 28th, 2003, 04:06 PM

if you really wanted to shoot AP (assuming you could form it in the proper shape) why not just launch it inside a sabot, no
worries about barrel friction.
but as it stands it sounds like its not worth the time and effort when there are much better explosives to use and better ways
of setting them off

Well the thing is, I don't really want to shoot AP, it just seems that FragmentedSanity wants me to.:)

S h o o ting AP does nt sound like the brightest thing to do, as you will probably kill yourse lf.
I have compiled some *basic things that we need to figure out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. We need to find a suitable explosive(s)

2. We need to find and adapt a suitable triggering mechanism
3. We need to figure out how to make the model rocket fly level
FragmentedSanity April 29th, 2003, 11:24 PM

Lo all :)
It seems Im the only one who likes the idea. Thats harldy a first. But like it I do - and there WILL come a time when I start a
thread on my dreams about it - eventually (unless someone beats me to it, but from the tone of the replies that seems
unlikely). I think there is potential in the idea... and at worst Ill prove myself wrong :p
Usual safety rules would apply. The device would only be fired remotely - One might consider using a hand held launcher after
extensive testing - if thats the sort of thing one was into.
The only likley fatality I can see is the air cannon, and thats assuming I cant overcome the potential friction problem.
But to me the beauty of the idea is this - Air cannons are simple enough to build, from easily obtainable parts, no licence - no
questions.... AP is the same. Both are effective by themselves - but together they could be devestating.
later
FS

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Suicide Bombs
Log in
View Full Version : Suicide Bombs
nbk2000 September 16th, 2002, 08:32 AM

Found this interesting site with details and pictures of the construction of suicide bombs, as used by the ragheads in their war
against the kikes.
<a href="http://www.waronline.org/en/terror/suicide.htm" target="_blank">http://www.waronline.org/en/terror/suicide.htm</a>
vulture September 16th, 2002, 11:30 AM

I found this very interesting:
Helvetica">But with all the disadvantages of a dangerous (for the terrorist) preparation, acetone peroxide has one definite
advantage over other types of explosives - it cannot be discovered by dogs. Specially trained dogs (including dogs that were
recently bought by Israel in USA) can discover explosives such as ammonal, plastic explosives, hexogen - but not acetone
peroxide. <hr /></blockquote>
Bitter September 16th, 2002, 12:03 PM

I find that strange. In my experience, AP has always given off quite a pungent, sickly-sweet smell. Surely dogs can smell that
?
Anthony September 16th, 2002, 12:20 PM

They can most probably smell it, but don't recognise it as a smell that gets them a reward for making a big noise about it.
Doesn't this having something to do with AP not containing nitrogen compounds common to nearly all explosives used?
vulture September 16th, 2002, 12:42 PM

It could be, but pyrotechnic mixtures containing chlorates or perchlorates are also detected by dogs IIRC. Or were that
explosive scanners?
xoo1246 September 16th, 2002, 03:25 PM

Predictable construction, anyone surprised?

Helvetica">The plastification of acetone peroxide ("cooking" the explosive to form it as needed when it becomes cold) is a
very dangerous process, too. <hr /></blockquote>What? What are
they talking about?
Helos September 16th, 2002, 06:34 PM

I think they are probably talking about melting it, it has an meltingpoint of under 100C degrees.
Fl4PP4W0k September 16th, 2002, 08:43 PM

Not to far under, mind you.
97C if I remember right.
Letts hope they keep casting AP... thin out their population :D
You would think that AP Putty would be useable, but would the dogs \ scanners smell the small amount of NC in the ping pong
balls?
About the smell... Sometimes I think it smells pretty good, other times it smells overpowering. Hard to put your finger on the
smell tho...
Eliteforum September 16th, 2002, 09:07 PM

I saw this site many weeks ago, but didn't think it was worth posting a whole new topic on it, however, having watched a
documentry on SB's (suicide bombers) the police said that they could 9 out of 10 times know whom did the bombing.
As when the bomb explodes there normally wearing pipe bombs around the chest, this makes a small shaped charge kind of
effect pushing up the chest and popping off the head, so they can reconise whom it is by the head!
Wonder if your still alive to feel your head popping off? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
chemwarrior September 16th, 2002, 09:40 PM

Your likely alive for split seconds. Its the same principal as when you cut the head of a chicken and it runs around for a few.
Only the blood drains quicker from the head than in the body and as long as there is blood there, your still alive and in
TREMENDOUS pain I would imagine. Lol, and this is kinda a good thing. Think about it. The rag heads need someone to show
the younguns how to blow themselves up correctly, thus "I only demonstrate once!"
Maybe if we're lucky, theyll kill enough of each other that we'll be saved the trouble.
Asger September 17th, 2002, 09:13 AM
I don't think they feel any pain at all. Not even for a split second (sorry). I shot myself in the finger once and I only felt kind
of a moderate 'smack'. No immediate pain at all. After that the finger was completely without feeling for a few minutes or so.
Then I could start feeling when I touched the finger and finally the pain and thundering came sneaking ever more powerfull.
I took advantage of the few minutes of numbness for cleaning the hole throughly with a cottonstick and some disinfectant.
However there was no way around it. I had to come clean and seek professional help.
But, who knows. There may not be any two people that has the same perception of pain.
And I am aware that a shot in the finger and kilograms of explosive around the chest dosen't compare very well... to say the
least.
[ September 17, 2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Asger ]

There was a link to a website regarding suicide bombers in the Sri Lanka conflict involving the Tamil Tiger group. Lots of
pictures where you'd see nothing left of the bomber but a red spot with a head about 30-50 feet away. It was funny looking at
pictures of mud heads lying in the street. :D
They ought to have a small bomb that they stick in their mouth before they blow themselves up, to destroy their heads so
there's no way to trace them back to the group/sect that they belonged to.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur September 17th, 2002, 01:18 PM

studies were carried out by the simple doctors of the french revolution, with the inmate being instructed to blink after
decapitation, and there are (unconfirmed) reports from doctors of heads responding (eye lids flickering) to their name being
called out (nice of them to name the heads isn't it :p )
I suppose that with the head being blown off, it gives them a sensation of flying to the after-life :rolleyes:
btw, i wonder if they bother washing the AP? I suppose they dont
mind if the AP goes off prematurely, :p
[ September 17, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]
Arkangel September 17th, 2002, 01:39 PM

NBK, it was the Sri Lanka Army website, "why we fight", and the section on LTTE suicide attacks. More blown off heads than I've
had hot dinners:
<a href="http://202.51.141.138/lttemasacare.htm" target="_blank">http://202.51.141.138/lttemasacare.htm</a>
Mick September 17th, 2002, 01:50 PM

maybe they should just not blow themselves up?
in all honesty, how dumb are they?.

they blow themselves up because they believe that they will be granted passage to paradise.
now, if this were true why haven't there leaders done it?
i mean, look at it like this:
"raghead suicide bomber cult ranking system"

street scum suicide bomber - entry level pleb - 2nd level pleb - leader - allah(paradise)
now obviously, if it were true that by blowing yourself up you would go to paradise, why hasn't the leader done it? why bother
building yourself up to the rank of "leader" only to have all these SSSB's overtake you on your quest to get to paradise?.
if these moron ragheads had even half a brain, maybe they would stop and think: "why doesn't the leader want to gain
passage to paradise?...." or possibly when asked to become a suicide bomber they might just say "you first...".
maybe i'm just simplifing it to much, but it just seems so obviously dumb, and i just can not understand why suicide bombers
don't get the whole "being used" concept.
fucken religion...find me a war where religion hasn't been directly involved.
also, does it really matter if AP can be detected by dogs or not? its used as a detonator, which means its surrounded by other
explosives that can be detected by dogs, which makes its nondetectability(word?) null and void.
xoo1246 September 17th, 2002, 02:04 PM

No, they use AP as main charge, and obviously casted too(!).
Somtimes they use TNT extracted from shells and mines.
No, it's not very bright to blow yourself up, and the leaders doesn't, they use younger people as their bombs. I it is since "the
leaders are important to the continuing struggle". Hiearchy you know.
MrSamosa September 17th, 2002, 04:13 PM

Hmm... Why doesn't George Bush take some BDU's and an M-16 and go to Iraq instead of trying to convince us that WE must
remove Saddam? You NEED the leadership preserved. That's why you don't see Generals out on the battlefield, or the
President fighting in the streets. Just think about it for one minute.
Why Suicide Bomb in the first place, you ask? Because planting bombs in such heavily secured areas is often impossible. If
you leave your bag unattended in an airport, what happens? They confiscate it, search it, and destroy it. Same thing happens
in those areas. Therefore, strapping bombs to yourself is often the only way to deliver them.
I was thinking though; why not build the casing in such a way that it directs the explosive force outward? So you could
essentially be wearing a belt of claymore mines. YOU would not suffer much injury, except for some bruising and maybe a few
dislocated bones, but those in the target area would get the whole force of the blast. Of course, you aren't "martyred," and
you have to make your escape...which might not be so easy once you've upset the hornet's nest of jackbooted police.
kingspaz September 17th, 2002, 04:54 PM

MrSamosa, are you trying to say if you wore a belt of claymore mines facing outwards that you could survive?! <img
border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
casing or no casing the shockwave would kill you.
[ September 17, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]

Helvetica"> Hmm... Why doesn't George Bush take some BDU's and an M-16 and go to Iraq instead of trying to convince us
that WE must remove Saddam? You NEED the leadership preserved. That's why you don't see Generals out on the battlefield,
or the President fighting in the streets. Just think about it for one minute.
<hr /></blockquote>Indeed. Bush and Blair are both warchickens.
They have never served themselves. Bush abused his fathers connection to stay out of the army. Ironically enough, if he
would have had to join the army, he maybe had to fight in the Gulf war. Makes one wonder doesn't it.
Those who scream the loudest in the home, piss their pants the most in the field...
Anyways, I don't think one would survive mr Samosa. The blasts only way out is away from your body, so any protection will be
pressed into your body by blast pressure. Ouch...
[ September 17, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]
Whitey September 17th, 2002, 06:24 PM

This doesn't relate to explosives but those of you who are interested in the tactics of Middle Eastern terrorist groups might find
it interesting. <a href="http://www.metatempo.com/analysis-alqaida-tradecraft.html" target="_blank">http://
www.metatempo.com/analysis-alqaida-tradecraft.html</a>
It is supposed to be a translation and anaysis of a manual that was found on a suspected al qaida member's computer in
Britian.

I did read in time magazine that they fill the pipe bombs with AP exclusivly, and how many lose fingers due to the hazardous
nature of mass production of the AP (or just stupidity with det's) they do often get help with the explosives/weapons arsenal
by israeli's selling military stock (illegaly) for a bit of cash (hehe, i'm off to buy a merkava :D ). But it has to be kept in mind
that quite a large number of the suicide bOmBeRz <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> do not want to
survive the blast (heading of to the land of 100 virgins or some other twat) they simply want to try and take out as many
israeli's as they can, they are taught from birth
( <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/28/world/main513730.shtml" target="_blank">www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2002/06/28/world/main513730.shtml</a> )
that the one true enemy is one that looks the same and even worships the same god (if you believe in such a thing) but they
are EVIL. How much sense does that make ?
Mick, religion is the root of all evil if you ask me (but i can't quite put my finger on how WW1 was due to religion)
"Hate is ONLY learnt from our elders, kids are born without knowlede of hate"
and my last rant on the subject is the bias of the B*&$DY F*&KING
BBC! I'm sure that one day the're going to pull something about a suicide bomber blowing him/herself up in "self-defence"
when he felt threatened by the IDF <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
(edit spelling)

It's impossible for people here to understand the rationale behind the suicide bombers, as none of us has a real idea what
they have gone through to get to that point.
An interesting case for me was the first woman suicide bomber in this latest episode. She was a 30 odd year old paramedic,
who had spent recent years trying to save lives that IDF soldiers had been trying to take. She'd been shot by small arms 3 or
4 times, and watched countless people die in the ambulances whilst sat at Israeli checkpoints. Finally she'd said ENOUGH! She
couldn't live with it any more.
And I have to say that I'm sure there would come a point where I (and probably some of you) would do the same. Sooner or
later, in the same circumstances I would say "Fuck this, Fuck them, I can't live like this, with this anymore. And since I've had
enough, I'll take some of those motherfuckers with me. Give me a bomb, and show me where the Israelis live" (or for that
matter, name any occupying army - Indian/Russian, whatever).
The IRA never quite had the bollocks or the conviction to manage suicide bombing. (Hence they are mainly involved in drugs
now) The nearest they got was the proxy bomb. In this courageous attack, they would break into your house in the wee hours,
stick guns in your mouth and those of your family and explain that unless you drove the bomb-laden car to a police station or
checkpoint, they would be shooting your wife and kids in their beds. :rolleyes:
[ September 17, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Arkangel ]
MrSamosa September 18th, 2002, 04:35 AM
What I meant by my idea of "claymores" was not literally claymore mines... But rather, some way of directing the majority of
the explosive force outward and away from your body. Think about it: the exposive force that's going inward at you is actually
wasted, except for the purpose of killing yourself. What I'm referring to is a belt of shaped charges or something. To deal with
recoil, maybe you could put something between your body and the bombs that absorbs the recoil. "Human Bombs" are an
interesting idea, but I don't think that they have been developed to their full potential. I guess it's not the sort of thing you
can experiment with like other kinds of bombs.... "I show you ONE TIME."
J.T.Ripper September 18th, 2002, 05:18 AM

Suicide bombings... ahh what a waste. i would think that groups like hammas would be involved with more user friendly
gurilla(sp) tatics like the IRA.
the signs are there, like the bomb that was placed in a school cafe. It used a timing device and was in a back pack. Doesn't
sound to flashy i know but when you think about how they're fighting it's a step in the right direction. The person who planted
that device will have an opertunity to do it many more times to come.
i don't really aggree with this type of activity but it is interesting.
Asger September 18th, 2002, 06:04 AM

MrSamosa
Action will always have 'reaction' or recoil. When the explosive accelerates the scrapnel in one direction something else will
have to be accelerated equally in the oposite direction. Be that explosion gasses, your body, the pinetree carrying the
claymoremine - or yet more schrapnel... The issue is evident with rifles and other guns. Here the recoil goes to your shoulder
and perhaps to a reloadingmechanism and or to exhaustgasses directed backwards through a muzzlebrake.
Now the belt you mention will still have to withstand the recoilforces of the explosives. Suppose you have a steel ring around
your body with dimensions : 40 cm diameter, 20 cm height and 2 cm thick. That would weigh about 40 kg and would to a large
extent be able to direct the recoil forces around your body between two oposite placed charges. But the charges must be
placed symetrically and detonated simultaneously. It could work with moderate charges but guess what : I don't want to be the
testperson.
There is also the question of protecting the height of you body. Could maybe be achieved by a curvature inwards of the
steelring from the outside. So the explosive mayhem will take place in a kind of toroid with the bomber in the calm center.
OOps... almost forgot - use your earplugs... ;-)
[ September 18, 2002, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Asger ]
J.T.Ripper September 18th, 2002, 08:21 AM

Why would you want to build a device like that. A big claymoore straped to my chest! What a way to spend next saturday.
With the size and weight of not just the armour but the explosives and shraps you wouldn't be able to move. I think a couple
of AP grenades would be better. You could maximise body count befor you blew the charge straped to you. Its silly why would
you want to have explosions going of aound your body so close. if there was a seem in the metal caseing then you would just
have the armour implod and cut you into odd shpes befor you spew your guts(litraly) and your head makes it's break for orbit.
I personly would just take a back pack full of active but non armed mines and hide them places. Anti-tanks in the carpark etc.
A-BOMB September 18th, 2002, 03:17 PM

I remember something from bombshock that someone post here about putting bombs in people by removing there
colons,intestines and stomage, then packing them with explosives. Then there was something about explosive/poison gas
breat implants. the waitress walks up to the VIPs table and boom her chest explodes with a cloud of cynanide.

mr samosa, let me quote myself here 'casing or no casing the shockwave would kill you'. maybe i didn't make it that clear.
being in such close proximity to the explosive the shockwave will travel through whatever armour you have and then through
you. sound travels through solids as do explosive shockwaves. overall this WILL equal death <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

i dont really think that using the abdominal cavity would work well for explosives, it would take a few hours for the op to
remove organs, and maybe a few days for the patient to recover (all the while not having any food) and the usual explosives
are toxic (especially when they would be bathed in interstatial fluid
from the blood vessels) which could damage the explosives/human host. Just the sheer size of the operation would be
immense (due to the need to clamp off all the arteries etc) and i suppose that the liver and kidneys are to be removed as
well.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
to quote "but guess what : I don't want to be the testperson"
life span after op, if done by a experiences surgeon, 3 days tops (if liver was left in , and dialysis was completed every day)
but the explosives weight could be quite large, in the order of 10-20kg for a large male (for a fat man it could be a LOT more
:D )
that would be a bitch of a job, and i dont think that a typical suicide bomber would go to such lengths.
it would be better if you stuck AP-putty up the guy's ass,

feed him some nuts and bolts....
and have the detonator on his little finger :D :D
brings a whole new outcome to "pull my finger"
Water always runs to the sea, electricity flows along the path of least resistance, Palestinian suicide bombers make the best of
the resources they have - don't assume (whatever you feel about their ideology) that they are idiots just because in the
comfort of home you could devise a better way.
JT, the reason they don't generally leave bombs laid about like the IRA is because this is Israel we're talking about - lots of
heavily armed, paranoid people that simply won't allow you to just leave a bag like that. IRA devices (with the exception of
Warrenpoint, Enniskilen, Omagh, various pubs) were too random to guarantee deaths. The Palestinians want to get right in
the middle of a group of Israelis, they want to guarantee killing lots of people, and the best way of doing that is to deliver it in
person. (If you look through the archives you'll find my explanation of how the word assassin came about) The uni/cafe bomb
was a rarity, brought about ironically by the atmosphere of tolerance and togetherness that used to exist there - they
managed to get away with it that time.
I was very interested to see the way they used small 6-8mm nuts for shrapnell, laid in sheets and then glued together - an
interesting way to make a claymore face or a trinade NBK <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The one thing I'd be inclined to work on if I was them, would be a concealed (maybe you hold it in your mouth, if you have a
beard) dead mans switch, since a lot of suicide bombers get shot before they can detonate. You'd have to have some primary
arming system to make sure you got to the target area. I'd hate to think I'd been capped and my expensive belt not go off at
all. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

i know its a bit kewl, but a switch like the hand-initiator in the movie swordfish (normally open) with a relay for the detonator,
hand relax's (due to death) and that cuts in the power to relay, closing circuit and setting off explosives. from pictures i have
seen, the suicide bombers seem to use "rocker" switches (spring, normally in central position...) and one click switch (to arm)
so its not
_that_ hard, one rocker switch would be the normally open, other switch to arm... but i suppose you dont really want to get the
two mistaken in the heat of the moment :p
EDIT:
another suicide bomber has struck in israel,
looks like the IDF is going back in.
(19/09/02)
the resourceless reaperman October 18th, 2002, 03:56 PM

It's quite illogical of the palestinians to stick explosives to themselves simply because they can't carry very much of it.
Also why didn't they ever try chemical weapons. Not something difficult to make like sarin but just Clorine or cyanide gas could
do quite some damage. Furthermore, the clorine would be easy to aquire is Isreal rather than take it across the border. the
clorine gas isn't that likely to kill but will be poisonous and will keep help away for longer than usual.
They could also stick a few bottles of clorine gas around their bellies in combination with the bomb. If anyone were to survive
the blast the clorine might finish them of. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
This would scare a lot of isreallies and that's really the purpose of the attacks...
[ October 18, 2002, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: the resourceless reaperman ]
MrSamosa October 18th, 2002, 04:03 PM

I know that some Palestinian groups, HAMAS most likely, have been experimenting with Chemical Weapons. I'm not sure
which agents specifically, but I know they've been messing around. There was an incident where a Palestinian was going to
poison the food at some dinner in Israel, but he was caught. Unfortunately, most Palestinians are not able to leave their cities
and towns right now, much less enter Israel. Therefore, obtaining chemicals, aside from the AN fertilizer, tends to become
difficult. If the settlers keep selling IDF stuff to the Palestinians though, surely they would be able to obtain some Tear Gas
Grenades (CS is what the Israelis use).
You would be surprised how much explosives can be tied on to you. The IRA guys could carry 50 lbs of explosives; although
they never really suicide bombed - they just ran into a police station, dropped the bomb, and ran out. Considering that the
bombers like to carry shrapnel, particularly washers and nails, then the relatively low amounts of explosives they carry will be
quite suitable.
xyz October 18th, 2002, 09:30 PM

I read something about an Israeli victim of a suicide bombing (who survived the blast) catching a disease (Heatitis i think?)
after a fragment of bone from the bomber (who had the disease) had been embedded in them from the blast.
As the bomber's blood would also be sprayed everywhere then you could turn a bomber into a walking cocktail of diseases like
AIDS or any other disease that can be transmitted in this fashion. You would simply have to inject them with infected blood
before the attack, you could also use more than one disease.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That idea has already been previoiusly mentioned by me in a prior thread about suicide bombers, after reading the (probably)
very same article.
NBK
[ October 19, 2002, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
Anthony October 19th, 2002, 12:18 PM
I'd imagine that APAN would be quite useful to these people...
I don't think they quite got this right:
"acetone is used for nail polish, as a solvent or (in a solution with sulfur acid) as electrolyte"
[ October 19, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Anthony ]
nbk2000 June 7th, 2003, 12:54 AM

An article I scanned in from the june '03 issue of "The Atlantic Monthly".
It's very informative about the preparation that goes into such an operation.
Some Guy July 13th, 2003, 01:40 AM

I totally agree with Arkangel, trying to plant a "package" in fortress Israel is near inpossible. There are soldiers everywhere,
and all of them are suspicious. Just an interesting point, in Israel, the bus system and buses are owned by the government.
Because of this, the buses are often used to transport IDF troops from place to place. The media would like us to believe that
Palestinian "terrorists" target these buses to kill women and children. However, by targeting buses the bomber is more likely
to kill IDF soldiers and cripple a valuble troop transport at the same time.
knowledgehungry July 13th, 2003, 02:50 PM

Yes, while it seems bad that civilian buses are being attacked, the israelies are doing the same thing as the Iraqis did by
hiding troops with civilians.
Rat Bastard July 13th, 2003, 06:09 PM

I was wondering if any of you have seen this page of pics on Suicide bomb vests & suitcases:
http://www.sftt.org/article12092002b.html
kingspaz July 13th, 2003, 06:56 PM

all those devices seem to be very uneconomical of space. i thought packing the whole suit case with an explosive almost big
enough to take up the cases volume and filling in the edges between the explosive and case wall with nails would have been
more effective.
DBSP July 13th, 2003, 07:21 PM

+ the fact that they'd have to use one hell of a battery/blasting device to get all of those charges to go off at the same time
since they are conected in series and not paralelly.
Allthough if they are using AP as they seem to do they'd only have to use 2 ignitors, one for each side of the body. or simply
fill a thin tube with a primary and run that to all charges, thus only requiering a single small ignitor. Something as simple as a
9V battery a piece of nichrome wire, some wire and a switch. Or if one would go really low tech, the tube could be run out one
of the sleeves and ignited with a cigarette lighter, of course pretending to light a cigarette.
If I where to construct a suicide west I would use sheets of explosives covering the whole body and BBs as the frags, that
would be very easy to conseal since it wouldn't be much thicker than a jacket or similar.
Anthony July 19th, 2003, 08:40 AM

They look pretty, but that seems to be their best feeature and I doubt they're as effective as they could be.
The use of multiple pipe bombs is simply adding the need for more ignitors (unless sympathetic detonation would detonate
them all, but could it be relied upon?) whilst eating up weight and space. There are *far* to few frags, what's the matter, steel
nuts on ration at the local hardware store? The nails are IMO too long, in the same space you could have two rows of nails half
the length, double the chance to hitting a target and less likely to bend in flight, reducing penetration.
In the briefcase, I could cover the interior with glue and pour in BBs, nuts etc. Build up layers living a cavity in the main
compartment (inside of lid would be covered completely) large enough to drop in a bag of 1-2lb of AP or APAN and 9v battery
and model rocket ignitor or improvised christmas tree light ignitor.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur July 23rd, 2003, 02:51 PM

just coming back from israel (yisrael) i can say that it's almost a nightly occurance that blasts can be heard in the refugee
camps (read terrorist for the most part) mostly due to something going somewhat errant (i'd say that it's due to someone
getting a tad complacent with the explosives :rolleyes: )
I have a few nuts that were used in an attack and they seem to have been altered somewhat.
chemwarrior July 23rd, 2003, 11:12 PM

Welcome back! Its been quite some time since Ive seen you on. I had thought you got tired of the forum.. but I was wrong!!:)
Also, Anthony, the idea of filling the top of the briefcase with bb's or such is a good idea. It will be just about the same effect
as a claymore, although you dont usually die when a claymore goes off... unless of course your the one its pointed at:p
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur July 24th, 2003, 08:50 AM

what? me leave the forum! You should know that no-one leaves the forum ;)
and from what i've seen, all of the pipe bombs used have a series of concentric rings that weaken
the pipe wall, allowing for a more consistant shrapnel pattern (shape/size)
Also you really haven't lived unless one of these suckers goes off less then 50 meters from ones person! It did a god job of
popping my ears.
Wild Catmage September 14th, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by kingspaz
MrSamosa, are you trying to say if you wore a belt of claymore mines facing outwards that you could survive?! casing or no
casing the shockwave would kill you.
[ September 17, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]
The claymore mine has a 15 metre semi-circular space behind it, which on the instructions has a label saying "Keep out of
here" :D
A secondary missle hazard zone extends for 100 metres behind it. With a claymore strapped to your chest, you would be
within both zones, but hey, you're a suicide bomber I guess.
to the front of the mine there is a roughly 30 degree wide kill zone extending to 50 metres, although the mine remains
dangerous out to at least 250 metres.
EP September 15th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Also you really haven't lived unless one of these suckers goes off less then 50 meters from ones person! It did a god job of
popping my ears.
:eek:
Can you give any more details on this?
VladiO September 17th, 2003, 11:49 PM

If the bombers got hold of an extremely obese guy with a lot of extra skin and liposucked him dry, could the loose skin space
where flab used to be not be used for storage of explosives? If you pack a guy who used to be 350 pounds of flab (well let's
say 150 pounds of it was solid fat), that's a lot of explosives. Then he goes up to a flea market and says "pull my finger..."
kingspaz September 18th, 2003, 09:39 AM

that an interesting idea. initially it sounds impossible and stupid but then think about silicone tits...
if you encase the explosives in the same sort of silicone as silicone breasts then the flesh would naturally heal over and grow
around it. then you have a walking bomb.
DBSP September 18th, 2003, 10:48 AM

Hmm, funny, me and a mate was discussing wether it would be possibel for women to smuggle drugs in their breasts by
replacing their solicone implants with drugs, maby even with a tube hidden some place on the body from which you could fill
the boobs or empty them making it easy to make lots of trips without to much hassle.
Same thing could perhaps be done with explosives, allthough the ammount of explosives wouldn't be very large(depends on
size of the breasts of cource) it could perhaps do some damage with a pre-fragged BH.
I remember a photo model that had these enormous implants, they would probably be good enaugh for 10kg in each breast.
That would be quite a blast if it was NG :D
A bit sick but still, if it works...
kingspaz September 18th, 2003, 11:09 AM

i REALLY think this idea has some dam good potential. it will also rid the world from lard guzzling food whores also. imagine
some 30 stone guy, suck 10 stone of fat out of his stomach area. then insert a 'balloon' of silicone, similar to silicone breasts.
then instead of pumping silicone gel in there, pump in some NG :D. providing NG doesn't dissolve the silicone it should be
fine. infact, it would be highly possible to insert the detonator into the guys belly button which will be heavily sunken due to his
size. all he has to do is remove the det from his pocket, put it into his belly button then light the fuse. 40kg of NG would then
be concealed completely and undetectably.
bobo September 18th, 2003, 02:32 PM

... and the mossad will wonder why palestinian men devour kilos of McDonalds food and the women get implants, all paid for
by Iran...
megalomania September 18th, 2003, 04:03 PM

The idea certaintly has merit, never underestimate the potential of an enemy willing to die as they are capeable of anything.
A formally fat man could have his fat replaced by any number of high explosive pouches. It would probably be best to use a
lower density explosive to match the density of fat. Otherwise the implants will droop and sag and not look quite right. The
surgeons could cut a series of small pockets all along the chest/stomach and accross the back. They could lipo these pockets
and then insert a sliver of explosive in the fats place. A detonator could also be surgicially implanted within the body. This
detonator would either be detonated by cell phone, or the suicide bomber could place a cell phone call to a nearby accomplise
(outside a security checkpoint etc) who would then activate the bomb by remote.
You wouldn't want to have a detonator on you in case you get searched, hence all the bother to surgicially implant the
explosive to begin with. The cell phone method seems to be gaining popularity nowadays as they become ubiquitous.
What about force feeding someone a large number of explosive capsuls? These could take the form of plastic spheres or gell
coated pills that are easy to swallow. The pills would be filled with bits of explosive. These could be swallowed up to several
hours before a suicide bombing. One would swallow enough to get quite a bit of explosive in the stomache. The explosive of
choice would likely have to be something fairly sensitive to detonation. Hopefully the bomber would be able to eat enough to
get a good blast radius. The suicide bomber could then approach the target and get nice and close. For example the bomber
could shake the hand of a certain elected political leader getting him close enough to take him out. A detonator could be a
simple low powered transmitter disguised like a keychain car alarm, it would only have to penetrate the flesh to reach the
detonator also swallowed. The bomber grasps the hand of the victum, pulls him close, cries Alluh Akbar, and presses the
button. Messy :(
bobo September 18th, 2003, 04:19 PM

Such capsules are being used in drug trafficing already. Poor hopeless person in the Antilles gets 10000 euros and a ticket to
the Netherlands if he swallows a few dozen large capsules with cocaine in them. Of course, the coating must be resistant to the
stomach. Sometimes a dead guy can be carted off the plane if one of the capsules has leaked and you only have to imagine
what happens if he can't shit out all capsules when they collect them in a backroom. But, this is the way much coke got
through the scanners in our country the last few years. If the scum of Osama adapt this cheap technique to get a similar
amount of AP into a plane...
cutefix September 30th, 2003, 10:11 PM

As this thread is about suicide bombs, and in Bali Bombing was also done partially that way...The latest issue or herald sun
shows that the bombers bungled on their attempt in assembling and effective bomb which to the mind of experts could have
provided more disastrous explosion of the procedures were followed to the letter.
What happened was IMO it was likely a deflagration to detonation transition instead or complete detonation.Just think of the
fires that resulted from that.
It can be also that the explosives were not well tamped and the loose powder instead of undegoing a higher detonation speed
could just have esploded like black powder and the initiating mechanism failed to provide and effective shock wave for the
main explosive which was the supposed eady to initiate potassium chlorate and fuel bomb.
Therefore the expected bomb total energy was not expended properly.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7424117%255E661,00.html
What stupid people are these Jemaah Islamiah are! More bluster but little effective performance which anyway is a blessing to
us.
If it happened as what was expected by the bomb designer the casualties are heavier
:p
Flake2m October 1st, 2003, 01:34 AM

Mega: Did you get that idea off Monty Python's; The meaning of life? "its only wafer thin..."
If you wanted to improve that idea, then you would use a binary explosive. Part A has been swallowed an hour or too earlier.
Part B is swallowed to set the explosive off. Though you'd have to smuggled though part B in the form of some pills or maybe
some sort or drink.
As for the Bali Bombing; I would not like to imagine how much damage would have occurred if the Bombs had gone off
properly. As for Amrozi, well I'd like to see him and his bunch of "believers" work in a piggery, cleaning pig shit for the rest of
his life.
oddreverie October 8th, 2003, 06:52 PM

there was an account of a man who head was publically decapitated by guillitine who had made previous arrangements to blink
as many times as he could AFTER his head had been removed. His freind who was in the public counted 12 blinks tending to
indicate that even after beheading there is some sensations
Now if this is true, and since I was not there I have no idea, it would occur to me there may be several seconds of ?
conciousness? before death if your head was to "pop off" do to a bomb being attached to your body.
just some little near irrelevant account I read in years past

I'd imagine that the intense shockwave passing through your skull would at least knock you out, if not scramble your brain :)
arnold October 5th, 2007, 06:20 AM

I believe a large amount of explosives like 20kg would blow the head into pieces too ;)
megalomania October 5th, 2007, 07:24 PM

The guillotined scientist in question was Lavoisier, who we all know and love as one of the great ancient chemists of the 18th
century, discoverer of oxygen, among many other great accomplishes. Ever the scientist to the very end he devised the
blinking experiment. He was either very brave, or completely oblivious as to his fate...

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Microwave gun for rem ote lowcost
instant detonation
Log in
View Full Version : Microwave gun for remote lowcost instant detonation
Asger S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2002, 08:38 AM

(Here goes my first new post as a newbie - hope I'm not still too early)
There is really two issues here : - how to make a functionally portable microwavegun.
- And and then using that gun to set o ff m oving charges. W ith m oving charges I have either spudgrenades or rockets in mind.
This is because I thin k it could be awesom e to detonate a grenade or rocket in m id air at will - and I have seen several
ocations where people discussed such capabilities, but never this solution.
The main advantage with this proposal is that the electronics that is sacrificed with the grenade is very cheap and easy to ge t.
T h e e x p e n s e s i s m oved away from the reciever onto the transmitter. The transm itter could even be from a cheap sem idefect
m icrowaveoven.
W hat I would appreciate is first of all your opinions wether this can be done at all or not. I had som e very basic theoretic
thoughts myself.
As for the m icrowave gun I was thinking 500 W effective output. (1000 W electrical input ?) Could be driven for shorter periods
from a car battery. And all tha t would be necessary would be a short burst for the detonation.
A so rt of perhaps double parabolic antenna would hopefully keep all the radiation within a few degrees. That is i would like a n
a r e a o f s a y 1 0 x 1 0 m a t 1 0 0 m eters to contain all the radiation (5 degrees).
Then all the rocket or grenade would n eed to carry to detonate the charge would be :
a s m all powersource eg. a battery or a freshly charged capacitor, a flashbulb in some AP for detonator, a sensitive transistor
( M o s F e t ? ) a n d o f c o u r s e a n a n t e n n a e g . a c o i l o f s o m e sort.
As soon as the antenna picks up the relative (to other electrom agnetic fields) powerfull microwaves this pulse will be am plified
by the transistor which will dump the energy from the powersource into th e flashbulb.
Now if the an tenna picks up signal from an effective are a o f 1 0 c m 2 t h a t w o u l d e q u a l s o m e t h i n g l i k e 5 m W out at 100 m .
Should be more than enough to trig th e transistor. The square area of a 1" spud gun is about 10 cm 2 - s u p p o s e y o u m o u n t
the antenna in the butt of the grenade.
Once the microwavegun is ready, it would be fitted with a low x scope (eg . 2,5x) and the m o u n t e d a l o n g t h e s p u d g u n o r
rocketlauncher. W hen the ordnance is fired you would have to quickly find it around the crosshairs - just within the b e f o r e
m entioned 5 degrees. You then track it and fire a shot of m icrowaves at it when it is tim e to detonate it - say if it is about to
pass close by but not hit the intended target. Like if you fitted your rocket or grenade with both impact det. and microwave det.
O n e c o u l d e v e n m a k e a t i m ing circuit between the launch trigger and microwavetrigger to have the round explode at a given
distance. - Knowing ofcourse the flighttim e from tests or calculations.
Cons :
- I have heard that lifetime of m agnetrons m ig ht be lower when they function outside the cavity of the oven.
- He avy contraption
- Ha ving to find and lock the flying gre nade with a scope yourself.
You probably don't want to m ount the m icrowavegun assem bly on the spudgun itself due to recoil but ask your buddy to aim it
at the target and be ready to pull the trigger when the grenade closes in on targe t and thus shows up in the scope.
And don't carry arm ed grenades of this kind into areas with heavy radiosignals. A cellphon e could m ost likley trig it....
Thanks for listening
<sm all>[ September 20, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Asger ]</sm all>
A-BOMB S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2002, 10:45 AM

W ell one thing is parabolics dont work with m icrowaves because of the wave shape you will have to use a HERF cone. But then I
h e a r d o f s o m e o n e u s i n g s o m e k i n d o f m agnetic field direct the microwaves.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2002, 12:07 PM

i've seen on a few KeW l sites the idea of using magnets, but as far as i can tell, the m agnetic power of the comm o n m a g n e t
will NOT deflect/warp a microwave projection (fo r want of a better word).
I have in my kewl days built a m icrowa ve briefcase (aviator style case with the guts of a m icrowave) and fro m all m y tests i was
unable to heat a glass of water at about 3 inches !!! but now tha t i have that m ore knowledge i would try and go back to get
this working, the only idea that i can suggest would be a microwave wave-guide (cone). if anyone knows the correct length/
angle then i would love to hear it.
btw, i used a car battery and an inverter to create the 1000w 240v ac current but it will only work for a short while due to the
power being sucked from the battery (about 80 am ps !!!) and a car battery is not built to sustain this output for long (i suggest
a diesel batt or a marine engine battery due to the higher am p-hour rating (number of hours that it can sustain a 1 am p
output or for a short tim e it's the rate of discha rge eg: 85 AH = 85 hours @ 1 amp/ a few m o m ents at 85 a mps) the internal
resistance of a wet ce ll is low, but at th e higher tem peratures generated at high-output this quickly changes m a k i n g the
m icrowave inoperable due to insufficient current flow
(I=V/R ) as R (resistance) increases, the I or cu rrent DECREASES
PYRO500 S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2002, 06:47 PM

The french guy is right, a comm o n m a g n e t w o n 't have a noticible effect on the m ocrowave beam . M a g n e t r o n s c a n b e b o u n c e d
off of a parabolic dish but that is gonna be pretty big to get decent gain and complicated. I would recomend a feed horn
directly attached to the m agnetron itself with a tiny rectangular feed guide for com pactness. I am currently constructing a power
supply that will pulse the magnetron at around 1.2 KW running on a 9V battery and the entire power supply will lie inside the
m agnetron's inductor chamber in the back. hopefully I'll be able to desig n a s m a l l h o r n a n d m a k e i t h a v e e n o u g h g a i n t o
crash pc's at a reasonable distance.
Anthony S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2002, 08:39 PM

W et cell/car batts won't be too portable. Sealed lead acids would allow a backpack unit. 80A isn't *that* m uch, but you'll soo n
knacker a starting battery by running it down to any significant d epth of discharge (about 80% rem aing or below).
Pyro 500, I'd be very interested to hear how you're getting 1.2Kw from what I presum e is a PP3 battery? Even in a pulse, it's a
lot of power!
PYRO500 S e p t e m b e r 2 1st, 2002, 01:20 AM

It's simple, The HV dc module I just ordered is going to charge a small capacitor. The capacitor is going to arc over a spark
gap and then give the magnetron a pulse of power. in actuality the average powe r will be pretty low while the peak pulse power
will be pretty high
the resourceless reaperman October 11th , 2002, 10:14 AM

eehhhm mm ,
I'm new so g o easy o n m e h e r e . B u t d o e s a n o rm al microwave-antenna have the capacity to even make the waves travel
further than say 15 inches because it isn't meant to. Even in the m icrowave itself reflectors are needed to g ive it sufficient
power. My point really is, is 1000Watts really enough, wouldn't it be neccesary to overpower the antenna?
Voltforce October 18th , 2 0 0 2 , 0 8 : 4 0 P M

An electrom agnetic wave can only be focused to its wavelength. For vissible light, a few nanom eters is enough focus to burn,
but for m icrowaves which have a wavelength of up to several meters, it is impossible to direct high energy in a certain point
without having a high energy m agnetron to begin with. A parabolic dish would have to be MUC H larger to better accomm o d a t e
the longer wavelengths. Microwaves do have the advantage of being very penetra ting because m olecular structures have a
natural resonant frequency that is far different than that of low frequancy radiation (that is why electrons must be m a n i p u l a t e d
in a vacuum to efficie ntly create microwaves instead of using other methods that rely on a tom ic or molecular properties).
Conductors however do readily absorb microwave radiation since the wave can be absorbed and m ade to induce eddy currents
within the conductor. This m eans that if the target has no m etal shielding, the electronic com ponents of the target will be
overloaded.
A l t h o u g h m o s t m ilitary targets are covered in m etal, exterior sensors ma y not be.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > U V initation of gas m ixtures, FAE:s or
therm obaric charges.
Log in
View Full Version : UV initation of gas mixtures, FAE:s or thermobaric charges.
xoo1246 S e p t e m b e r 2 3rd, 2002, 01:34 PM

There was a threat going on h ere at th e E&W forum about isotropic radiators. It hasn't been active for a while. I was planning
to construct one, but I haven't finished it and I don't intend to at the mom e n t b e e i n g .
Here is the link for that discussion:
<a href="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000396#0000 00" target="_blank">http://
www.roguesci.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000396#000000</a>
You can also check patents:

2,764,094
2,603,155
6,324,955
I had an idea, you probably know how the comm on m ilitary FAE work?
Otherwise check <a href="http://www.fas.org/m a n / d o d - 1 0 1 / s y s / d u m b/fae.htm " target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/man/dod-
1 0 1 / s y s / d u m b/fae.htm </a> to update yourself.
T h e a s e F A E : s u s e d e t o n a t o r s t o d e t o n a t e t h e c l o u d f o r m e d a n d I h a v e r e a d p a t e n t s c o v e r i n g c h e m icaly initiated ones. I was
thinking of a light initiated one(therm obaric, FAE or a premixed fuel/oxygen mix).
If we start with an exam ple,

im a g i n e a c l o u d o f C 2 H 2 / O 2 ( s a y i n t h e r o o m you are sitting) , within that cloud an isotropic radiator.( C2H2/O 2 m ixtures are
sensitive to UV radiation. Isotropic radiators em it plenty of UV radiation.) The isotropic radiator is detonated and all over the
cloud molecules are hit by UV radiation, causing initiation instantly all over the cloud. If this work the entire cloud deflagrate/
d e t o n a t e a l m ost instantly creating eno rm ous force(atleast that's what m y little brain is hoping).
I'm not sure this could be use d in a FAE, using fuel dispersed by aburster charge, since the UV radiation wo uld probably not
reach very fa r in such a cloud(not nece ssary tra nsparent) and and the intensity m ight not be sufficent depe nding on fuel.
Another option is a secondary(therm obaric version), sensitive to UV radiation to the intensity given of by an isotropic radiator,
but I'm not sure they even ex ist.
I started the discussion at sciencemadness so check,

<a href="http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthrea d.php?tid=199" target="_blank">http://www.science m a d n e s s . o r g / t a l k /
viewthread.php?tid=199</a>
t o s e e w h a t h a s b e e n said this far. I m o v e d i t h e r e t o g e t m o r e i d e a s a n d c o m m ents on the subject.
<sm a l l > [ S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , 1 2 : 3 8 P M : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : x o o 1 2 4 6 ] < / s m a l l >
simply RED October 18th , 2002, 07:39 AM

initiating the mix with 9 0 % M g 1 0 % o c t o g e n d o e s t h e s a m e!
in our conditions
2*4 gas cans punctured with acetone peroxide or urea nitrate or other cool explosive. and detonated with 8 0%Al powder
20%nitroglycerine.
It re ally work s a n d m a k e s t h e b l a s t 2 5 % more powerful...
by the way, it is possible som e asshole to post something idiotic with my nick, because here the computers block very often
and i can not log off after working...
<sm all>[ October 18, 2002, 06:44 AM: Messag e edited by: sim ply RED ]</sm all>

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > MEFP
Log in
View Full Version : MEFP
nbk2000 April 4th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Multiple Explosively Formed Fragments are one of those neat toys that the Big Boys have that have always seemed out of our
reach.
W ell, the idea occured to me that, instead of using com plicated m icrosecond accu rate tim ing circuits, EBW detonators, and all
the other tech shit ne eded to do it the BB way, that it would be sim plier to do it the O .G. way.
The nerds building the first atom ic bombs had the problem of trying to synchronize the explosion of m any different pieces o f
e x p l o s i v e , i n s u c h a m a n n e r a s t o c r e a t e a n i m ploding shockwave, to compress the Pu core.
Back in the days, they didn't have the electronics to do this, so they used "lenses" made of explosives of differing d/v to
shape the shockwaves as needed.
So why not use that ourselves?
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com /MEFP.jpg" alt=" - " />
By u sing an inert block (like wood/styro) as a carrier for pencil sized rod of cast explosives of varying velocity, you could create
the m ultiple m ach-stem interfaces needed to rupture an EFP platter into m ultiple fragments.
The centermost "pencil" would be of th e lowest velocity, with the velocity of the pencils increasing a s the distance from the
center does.
The idea is, that as the shockwave from the de tonator radiates outwards towards the outer edge, that the "pencils" pick up the
shock and carry it towards the platter. The diffe rence in velocity in the "pencils" needs to be such that the shockwave emerges
from the bottom of the "pencil" carrier (and the outer circumference) at essentially the sam e tim e.
This is why cast explosives would be used, since they are fairly consistant in their d/v when there's no entra ined air or other
obstructions. Being able to consistantly replicate the effect would be the m ost critical skill to develop, since random /
unpredictable effects are worthless.
W e wouldn't be aim in g for perfection like the BB's get with their sm iley face MEFPs :) , but being able to duplicate an MEFP (if
not the effectiveness) would b e a major step in our advancem ent.
If th e "pencil" carrier was rem ovable, without disturbing the outer explosive casing, then carriers with different "pencil"
configuration s could be installed to form different patterns of fra g m e n t a t i o n .
I'm posting this idea in the purely selfish hope that som eone will be inspired to try it and post up pictures. <im g border="0"
title="" alt="[W ink]" src="wink.gif" />
If anyone wo uld be interested in working with m e o n d e v e l o p i n g a n a n n u l a r w a v e f o r m detonation technique (as part of m y

DVD), I'd like to hear from you. Established m e m b e r s o nly. Newbies, don't waste m y tim e !
<sm all>[ April 04, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]</sm all>
Microtek April 4th, 2003, 02:46 AM

I u s e l e n s e s w h e n e v e r I n e e d a s h a p e d c h a r g e . G i v e n t h e s c a l e o f m y d e v i c e s , t h e s h o c k w a v e d o e s n ' t h a v e e n o u g h of a
"running start" to becom e planar before impacting the liner cone, so I use a circular low density m aterial in the axial center of
the device. T he detonation flo ws around the ed g e s a n d c o n v e r g e s o n t h e c o n e i n a m uch m ore efficient way than if it was a
plan ar wave.
The low density m aterial doesn't have to be explosive in this application ( I think this is called an air lense ).
nbk2000 April 4th, 2003, 03:00 AM

This isn't intended to form a planular wavefront. It's intended to form m ultiple initiation points that will intersect and
constructivly reinforce each other to shatter the EFP platter into multiple fragm ents. If you used just an inert block, you'd get
an EFP, but as a single m assive slug, rather than many discrete fragmen ts.
Cricket April 4th, 2003, 04:25 AM

It is hard for me to understand what exactly you m ean. It looks like you want to concentrate or focus all the shockwaves to +/-
one spot at +/- the sam e tim e o n a n E x p l o s i v e ly Forme d Plate? That looks intere sting, but may be too difficult to correctly u se
outside of ideal conditions or high(er)tech stuff. To m ake the right density of cushion and have it all the right distance apart I
m e a n . I a l s o thought up som ething like this. You could have a cone of cast (or contained liquid) explosive with a slight point
on the end that is to be detonated first. At the correct angle and with correct detonator construction and placem ent, I think it
would detonate evenly once past the curve of the point. Once on the stra ight tube of explosive it should de t o n a t e a s a n e v e n
line going down it, instead of a meniscus or concave (or convex, depends on your point of view) shaped detonation wave. Then
d e t o n a t e t h e end of it (in the dome) a nd hopefully it will create a higher peak pressure and have m ore of a shattering effect.
So the higher the detonation velocity, the m ore efficient I would think. If this is not at all what you mean then whoops. I have
trouble understand a lot of stuff. Sorry.

Figures giving VoD's of an explosive at differen t densities are easy to find. A graph could then be plotted of VoD/de nsity, an d
u s e d t o f i n d o u t t h e d e n s i t i e s y o u n e e d g i v e n t h e d i m ensions of your device.
You would know the density of your cast explosive of choice, and then if you knew the density of glass m icrospheres (weigh a
volum e o f t h e m and calculate the volum e taken up by air around the spheres...) you could work out the HE/m icrosp here ratios
required for the VoD's that you need. This way you would only need to use one explosive (finding several m elt-castable, easily
prepared HE's with the VoD's that you need would be practically im p o s s i b l e ) , a l t h o u g h s e t t l i n g m i g h t b e a p r o b l e m while the
explosive sets. Casting each charge a bit at a tim e would help this by lim iting any settling that cou ld occur.
Erythrite tetranitrate would be an excellent choice for the explosive, it is sensitive, VoD in the 8000 m /s range, and m elts at
61*C. It is prepared in the sam e way as MHN, and erythrite can also be found as a sweetener, although it does not seem as
c o m m on as other things. Xylitol, H(CHO H)5H, is m uch easier to find, although I don't know the m p of the
pentanitrate. And I haven't been able to find VoD/density figures for eith er which is a great problem . So, m aybe PETN, RDX etc
could be used as the main explosive, with cast ETN etc replacing the air. Then you could use the VoD/density figures of the
m ain explosive to give a good approximation to those of your m ixed explosive.
Annular: "in the shape of, pertaining to, or forming a ring." Maybe I'm not understanding correctly, but wha t exactly do you
want to be ring-shaped?
Edit: <a href="http://www.boom s p e e d . c o m /m rcool/IdeaNotFullyThoughtThrough.jpg" target="_blan k">Here's</a> an idea. It'll

need more thought, but it's an idea...
<sm all>[ April 04, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]</sm all>
nbk2000 April 5th, 2003, 01:55 AM

"...what exactly do yo u want to be ring-shaped?"
The shockwave.
By h aving two planular wavefronts collide with each other head-on, they form an annular shockwave. By having this take place
in the center of a cylindrical fragm entation case, the m ajority of the casing will be directed out in an expanding ring of high
velocity fragments running parallel to the ground, which is where the m ajority of the targets would be.
<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com /Annular_Frag_W M.gif" alt=" - " />
I f , i n s t e a d o f a s p h e r i c a l e x p a n s i o n o f t h e f r a g m ents, it proceed s a s a n a n n u l a r e x p a n s i o n , y o u c a n g e t a 5 x o r b e t t e r i n c r e a s e
of hit count, and better than 99.5% hit probability, with the effectiveness increasing by orders of m a g n i t u d e a s t h e d i s t a n c e
increases (compared to spherical). While a person would ideally be able to use pre-form e d f r a g m e nts (spheres), yo u could
also use a steel pipe or other metal cylinder, as the casing. By using annular waveform detonation, you would be able to
increase the lethality of a "sim p l e " p i p e b o m b b y m any tim e s .
Also, because of the constructive collision between the shockwaves, this greatly accelerates the fragm ents to higher velocities
than they'd otherwise obtain, resulting in a further increase in lethality. As you can see in the illustration, there's a very dense
ring of high velocity o range and red fragments within a m uch m ore porous sphere of low velocity green frag m e n t s .
T h e i m portant thing is to have the two wavefronts colliding in the center of the casing. If o ne is slower then the other, then the
m ajority of the frags will be skewed off into the ground, or the sky, rather than parrallel to the ground where they'll do the
m ost damage. Getting the two to meet where they should is the problem that needs working on. W ith det-cord, it'd be easy,
but that's rather difficult shit to obtain, and to im provise. Reliability is param ont.
As for the MEFP, if you could get an essentially flat shockwave to impact the "pencils" at the sam e instant, then the "pencils"
could be all the sam e explosive, their purpose being to convert a single wavefront into m ultiple colliding wa vefronts.
<sm all>[ April 05, 2003, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]</sm all>

T h a t ' s w h e r e t h e e x p l o s i v e l e n s e s c o m e in: Wh e n a d e t o n a t i o n h a s r e a c h e d a s t e a d y p r o p a g a t i o n s t a t e t r a v e l l i n g t h r o u g h a
cylin der, drag effects cause the edge of the shockwave to lag be hind the central part ( as was men tioned by Cricket ). An
explosive lense can be used to flatten out the shockwave by having it en counter a cone of lower VOD HE. The arrangem ent is
sim ilar to an SC with the liner and hollow cone replaced by a solid charge of slowe r HE; when the central part of the shockwave
propagates through the slow HE it is re tarded relative to the edges which still propagate th rough the fast HE. These effects are
reasonably robust so I think that fairly sim ple calculations would give a g ood starting point.

</fo nt><blockquote>quote:<hr />I use a circular low density m aterial in the axial center of the device. T he detonation flo ws around the ed g e s a n d
converges on the cone in a much more efficient way tha n if it was a planar wave.
</fo nt><hr /></blockquote>Is <a href="http://www.boom s p e e d . c o m /m rcool/
SC-centralvoid.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> what you m ean, Microtek? Please correct m e if not. A picture is worth a thousand
words, so I thought I'd knock one up to illustrate what I think is your point, to try to expla in it better.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Best Martial Art
Log in
View Full Version : Best Martial Art
photonic April 9th, 2003, 09:51 AM

Hello everyone,
I've found myself in need a lot lately for a way to use my body as a weapon. So, I was wondering if you guys had any opinion
on what is the best/most effective martial art? Currently I'm training in jiu-jitsu and muay thai. They both seem pretty good to
me. Also, I was wondering if any of you know certain places on the body that can be hit without leaving any visible external
signs? This is out of pure curiousity(I would never use it the guy I caught having lunch with my girlfriend after she told me she
didn't have time <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )
This topic my be more appropriate in Issues and Opinion(I have Issues at the moment and I'm looking for opinions), but I
suppose it relates to using your body, which is the only thing that will always be available, as an improvised weapon.
[ April 09, 2003, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: photonic ]

There are certainly some martial arts that are more effective than others, but there is no single system that is better than all
others. It all depends on what you want it to do; for instance do you want to be able to defend yourself against muggers or
drunks who attack without technique or do you want to fight skilled opponents. Also, what about weapons ( do you want to be
able to use them ? or to defend against them ? or both ? ).
In general, I'd reccomend a system that is quite broad such as ju-jitsu, because you will then never meet someone who
attacks in a wholely unfamiliar way. Specialized systems such as judo or ( most forms of ) karate tend to freeze up a bit when
faced with someone who fights differently from what they are used to. So grapple with boxers and karate practitioners ( and
wing tsun fighters ), punch at judo guys and fights defensively and whiplike against aikido.
Having said this, I should also mention that much of the effectiveness of a martial art lies in the intention of the practitioner
to improve his fighting abilities with what he learns rather than use it to advance in belt colour etc.
Another large part of the combat effectiveness lies in the experience and confidence of the practitioner and for these reasons (
and because skilled fighters tend to borrow effective techniques from other systems ), it becomes more difficult to determine
what system a fighter belongs to when he becomes more experienced.

Like Microtek said, trying a bit of everything would probbaly be best. I wouldn't expect martial arts training to give you any
more than increased fitness, stamina and improved reactions. If you can't throw a punch to start with, I doubt it would help.
Real improvement will take years to achieve. If you can't kick someone's arse now, a few lessons in wannabe-ninja ( <img
border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) won't help.
You don't seem like a guy that'd waste his time and only end up wrongly thinking he's invincible.
BTW, you haven't gone into any detail, but just from what you've said, this guy hasn't done anything wrong. He just got to
have lunch with a nice girl (depends, she might have roped him in and he doesn't really like her...). If I was him, and you
deemed I required punishment, then I'd at least try to put you down for what I percieved to be arrogance.
But like I said, I don't know the details :)
rikkitikkitavi April 9th, 2003, 05:15 PM

I could recomend Krav Maga or similar military originated defence and attack system.
They are all developed to be used by people in ordinary clothes without years of training, but of course the more training, the
better you get.
Many police forces also use this system.
Another popular system is filipino Escrima and Indonesian Kali( that is where the sticks so popular with US police come from) ,
also heavily focused on fighting hand-to-knife combat and similar situations.
Grappling techniques or wrestling is also useful in hand-to-hand since very little fights are done by round-house kicks to the
head.
And it takes years to learn how to jump 2 m high and break a piece of wood.
/rickard
photonic April 9th, 2003, 06:29 PM

Helvetica"> I wouldn't expect martial arts training to give you any more than increased fitness, stamina and improved
reactions. <hr /></blockquote>Heh, well, that's three advantages in a
fight right there. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Anyway, I get what you're saying. I used to think the
same thing because I took taekwondo for like 2 years when I was a kid. I'm fairly certain that the only thing that did was
improve my flexibility. My kicks or punches would not have been enough to hurt anybody. I don't really feel that's the case
with jiu-jitsu. I'm a fairly large guy(6'2" about 215 lbs.) and when I first started training I often got beat by much smaller
people even though I could throw them around very easily. Granted, it was grappling, not street fighting, but if I had wanted to
fight this guy/these guys IRL, I would have probably looked at him and thought, "He's smaller. Probably faster. My advantage
will be on the ground." and then if I took him down I would have lost. I definately think it gives you an advantage over
somebody who has no martial arts/fighting experience, but I still wouldn't be interested in fighting Shaq.
On a sidenote, I'm not actually interested in hitting that kid(the one with my g/f). I was just curious because I saw on a TV
show(Taxi I think) a police officer ask a guy if he wanted "to find out 8 places on his body that could be hit without a mark?"
So, I was wondering if there's any factual basis behind this.
rikki: Do you know how vale tudo compares with Krav Maga? They teach vale tudo(streetfighting basically) at my place but I've
never made it to a class.

A friend of mine had taken Hapkido - and he had to use it once in a fight. He was an advanced student, and he said that he
took down the street punk in seconds. Now obviously, this could be done with any martial art, but Hapkido utilizes "lightning
movements, which hardly can be noticed, the aggressor is arranged to reflex countermovements, which then are used in a
subsequent technique."
I don't know particularly too much about this martial art, but I've heard from friends that it is a very focused and respected
martial art. It is orginally from Korea - and it includes "a vast variety of arm an leg joint locks, weapon techniques, throw, kick,
hit, and nerve pressure techniques." (I'm sure just like any other martial art, heh).
Check it out at <a href="http://www.hapkido-info.net" target="_blank">www.hapkido-info.net</a>
Rhadon April 9th, 2003, 09:20 PM

Quoting myself (topic: Forum FTP)
Helvetica">Since hand-to-hand fighting is also related to the subject of this forum, I thought that some of you might profit
from viewing the (non-staged) Ultimate Fighting Championship. I could upload <a href="http://www.ufc.tv/events/ppv/
ppvFull.asp?eventID=48" target="_blank">UFC 41</a> (do not look at the fight card since it will show the outcomes; filesize:
1.4 GB) if you're interested and think that it's worth the traffic...
<hr /></blockquote>The offer is still standing. I could upload it as
soon as we're allowed to do so again.
irish April 9th, 2003, 09:40 PM

I did taekwondo for many years and it is very helpfull in a fight <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . you
are best to go to a few different places, look at different systems and you will see that some are big on the fighting side some
more on the tecneque (sp) side of it. this will very between different places of the same system too.
allso learn from other systems/codes than your own, for example taekwondo is big on kicking but not much use in a packed
crowd, if you are grappling with them and give them a good leg chek and they then find it's bloody hard to fight with one leg
:D .
so there are a lot of things that you can learn from all fighting martial arts then put them together to become a very effective
fighter.
good luck

Rhadon: I'm about to buy a 120 GB hard drive for the ftp I run on my computer. Once I hook it up, I, personally, would love
to have it. Althought this is off topic, my jiu-jitsu place also has a series of instructional videos. I imagine people here would
enjoy them. If I can get any of them(they're 75 a piece), I'll rip them down and put them on my ftp. Anyway, back to the
topic!
In UFC most of what you will see is jiu-jitsu mixed with other standing martial arts(mostly kickboxing). I've actually met Ken
Shamrock and Guy Mezger. If we have any members in the San Francisco area, The Lion's Den is a renowned place for
training.
[ April 09, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: photonic ]
Rhadon April 10th, 2003, 09:09 AM

Okay photonic, if other members do also have access to this FTP that might be a good idea!

I do Tang Soo Do, and I like it except for the part that I cut open my toe on the board I was trying to kick for testing on
saturday. But anyway I like it because sometimes we practice rope fighting and other things like knife, staff, grapleing,
everyman for himself typethings, and american gladiator kinda stuff.
<a href="http://www.rvtsda.com" target="_blank">www.rvtsda.com</a>
[ April 10, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: A-BOMB ]

Haha, I found out just how effective martial arts can be the other day! I'm not a trained fighter but I'm OK for an average guy,
I through a quick jab at this bloke (who I didn't know had completed his black belt test thing a year or so before...) and
before I knew it I was on the ground with my arm behind my back. He's not a big guy, either :o .
Good job we were only messing around!!!
Martial arts are a good way to go, but just sparring with a mate will help you to get better at the kind of fight you're likely to
get in on the streets. That's what I was doing with the guy above, we put some gloves on and had a little mini "Fight Club"
going <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
DaRkDwArF April 11th, 2003, 02:28 AM

I've done 6 martial arts in my life, all of which have been done for at least a year upwards to about 6 years now, believe me,
the only martial arts you want to bother about for street defence are military based modern arts, or a japanese school that
focuses specifically on modern day applications.
I currently study Iaido as it's a completly non combative art that I do for spiritual refinement and relaxation. I don't even
bother with competition.
I stopped studying Jujutsu because it's principals of self defence revolved around the fact that you were fighting one person at
a time (no such thing as a fair fight on the street), and Bujinkan Ninjutsu was good and went well into group attack scenarios
and modern day applications, but the techniques all lacked refinement and there was no further traing as the sensei was a
money hungry bastard.
Leave kickboxing, boxing, karate, kungfu and all that traditional stuff behind. Excellent for personal development and
fighting, but not modern day street fighting... Krav Maga and Military arts are the way to go, using western clothing, fighting
against western hands and usings everyday items to fight with.
I have a personal grudge about sports and flashy arts as their based on rules that you allow to be subconsciously
programmed into your head when training, even RTB by states to train as if it were real...

Well I do that some a few days ago training for selfdefence then master Homschek turns off all the lights and declares a
freefor all type of self defence(grap them any way and any one) the only like was from a broke street light and passing cars.
That was wacked.
Omogen April 11th, 2003, 08:51 PM

i have trained thai boxing for about a year and believe me its very effiecient in street fights. There are no fancy kicks or that
stuff like there are in kickboxing.
You never get the time too do a jumping roundhouse too the guys head if you havent trained for a long time.
When you kick in thai boxing you use your shinbone. This is more effiecient and more powerfull than just a usual snap kick
when you use your foot. Sometimes in thai boxing the boxers defend the kicks with the arms by accident...the usual parry is
shinbone against shinbone.
When this shinbone have rammed on the arm it has happend many times that the bone in the arm breaks. Its not THAT
common in thai fights since the boxers are experienced and would never parry a shibone kick with the arm. But a street punk
doesnt know about that. If you have some experience you could crack his hip bone or the rips easy as hell too if you get a
clean blow.
And with the exception of this extremely effiecient kick you learn how too use your knees and elbows, which is not ok too use
in that many martial arts. These are excellent too use also. Its VERY VERY easy too knock a guy down with a elbow blow.
An extremely good self defence/offence martial art in my opinion.
And i hope you are not thinking "hmmm which one is the best martial art i can learn fast and kick some ass"
Ezekiel Kane April 11th, 2003, 09:03 PM

I have a rather useful document on dim-mak that I will gladly send/upload where desired if someone requests. I may upload
it to the FTP when uploads are resumed anyway.
Dim-mak, AKA 'touch of death,' is a traditional martial arts skill that takes years to develop. Obviously, you can't just pick up
the skill of killing another with touch overnight, but the document is a place to get started. If you want a primer on traditional
ninjitsu, pick up a copy of Ashida Kim's Secrets of the Ninja.
green beret April 11th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Basically there is no best martial art, to become competent at fighting and defending yourself, the best thing would be to train
a variety of arts, and then "distill" the good knowlege into one having the good aspects of the arts you tried. Having significant
experince, I would reccomend, Jiu Jitsu, Hapkido, and also a form of non-sport taekwondo, I say this because I used to
practise a form of Taekwondo that was vastly different from any other forms. It was highly effective, for example: Blackbelts
from the other taekwondo club down the road would come to our club to try our style, and get smashed by middle ranking
people from our club.
I would reccomend wing chung kung-fu as well (or gung fu), it is good for building hand speed, power and reflexes. If you
have previous experience in the arts read some of Bruce Lees books on training for speed and power, his art is quite good, it
sort of moulds to suit the individual.
And please dont anyone start having a go that Bruce Lee is shit and its all acting or something, because his art has some very
good ideas and techniques. As he once said, be like water, water can creep, or flow or crash, yet it cannot be hurt. What he
was saying there was basically to be highly flexible and supple, be quick and strike like a whip, but be able to adapt to differnt
situations.
cutefix April 12th, 2003, 12:26 AM

Martial arts technique, hmnn.
In real life situation the effectivity of a martial art lies the quality of training and discipline that the individual acquires.
There is not a really good yardstick for a perfect martial art only its how you apply the techique effectively in a life threatening
situation.
What ever you see on these no holds barred shows on the UFC etc, is unrealistic in real life.You do not grapple and lie there
for minutes dealing an assailant.Street combat is done in a matter of several seconds(if delivered effectively) not in several
minutes that the likes of Shamrock , Taktarov,Gracie,etc, do in the ring.
DIM MAK and other forms of effective Chinese fighting arts take years to develop under the guidance of a qualified instructor.
Its effectivity lies is the proper use of internal power in the attack and the precise knowledge of a couple of hundred pressure
points in the human anatomy,and the time that this pressure points are very vulnerable.
Most books on dim mak do not show the complete (detailed)list of these vulnerable parts of the anatomy;nor emphasize the
detailed effect in the body if attacked precisely.Only a well qualified teacher can do that to a deserving pupil.
Therefore I do not believe the propaganda that these so called "death touch" manuals promise to their readers.
You must be familiar with the acupuncture principle as that is how the effectivity of true death touch is somewhat related to
it.And that can be learned effectively also under good tutoring (not reading).
Just reading a detailed book about these exotic arts will not make you a master in it. It requires extensive years of training .If
you start young and is really talented, you can acquire good fighting skill within at least a decade.
That is if you are gained the full trust of your master and have trained for at least 8 hours religuously everyday since from the
start.A major part of the difficulty is the culture and harnessing of chi and effective use in combat.
If you start training in the early teens up to adult it is preferable also that you abstain from sex for at least 6 years (including
masturbation)during training (especially critical in the development of chi) as that will deplete your "jing" which a major part
part in the development of internal power.Once you know how to circulate your chi troughout your body as well as use it
properly in combat then its the time you start playing again with women or your dick.But once youve done your training ,you
will be constantly reminded by the clause of moderation ( as emphasized by your instructor)in any of these matters of sexual
gratification.
These technique in internal kung fu as elaborated in the well known arts of tai chi,pakua, hsing-yi ,chi-kung,etc. requires at
least the same time of rigourous training under a good instructor in order to be profecient in it in combat.Many people gain
satisfactory fighting skill on it after fifteen to twenty years of training.
Meanwhile aikido which can be considered an internal art but does not emphasize on these pressure points in the same extent
as the aforemmentioned chinese arts.You can be effective in self defense (in a lesser time ).
If you want to focus really on dim mak you must first train in chin-na (pressure point kung fu)which is akin to the techniques
that is used in jujitsu and aikido but in a more varied ,profound and subtle in manner.
Meanwhile all these other external arts like karate, taekwando ,muay thai,etc, mostly use external energy.Therefore it takes
less time to gain proficiency in it.It is more practical to learn for most people who does not have the time , patience and
dedication that many internal martial art demands.And therefore practically suitable for training for ordinary street fighting and
self defense.
Although the technique may look fast to most people its is really slow process if compared to the instantaneous mind
control(willed) pulse of internal energy (in the internal martial arts)that travel from the tan tien in the abdomen traversing the
energy channels of the human body until it reaches the extremities i.e, finger tips (dim mak) and open hand ( ex. true iron
palm).
This is also related to the principle that the late Bruce lee emphasized in his jeet kune do training and even wing chun kung
fu.
Although wing chun and jeet are not pure soft arts but a combination hard/soft technique.
It looks slow but( really is fast) because the arms and fingers are relaxed( which muscles are not taut at the start but until the
last moment in delivery) allowing the fast flow of internal energy when the mind is focused on it.
The principle he used in his three inch and one inch punch is an example of the application of internal power.
In contrast the power that a pakua or taichi palm if delivered is so subtle. It looks so soft,even feel soft,but hit hard and the
effect is devastating that you can be lifted of the ground (if hit by their gentle strike ) and thrown out by several feet.The hand
used in that strike can be described appropriately as like iron heavily wrapped in cotton. :cool:
[ April 11, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: cutefix ]
Spudkilla April 12th, 2003, 02:40 AM

I took Tae Kwon Do for a while, not to learn how to fight, but to learn how to control my temper :) I learned how to do some
different kicks and stuff, and I think I made it to green belt before I gave it up. I don't know if it would help in a fight, but the
staff who worked there would put on a choreagraphed show of one person fighting at least five others, and totally beating
there asses :D Tae Kwon Do did help my temper, and now I don't beat the shit out of people in hockey anymore <img

Helvetica">What ever you see on these no holds barred shows on the UFC etc, is unrealistic in real life.<hr /></
blockquote>Of course that's true to some extent. Because a) there is hatred
in a street fight, b) there are no rules in a street fight and c) it is highly unlikely that two highly skilled fighters meet each
other in a street fight.
Since rules are indispensable for the protection of the fighters' health, I assume that the UFC nevertheless gives you fights
which are as close to reality as possible so that they can still be carried out on an official event.
EDIT: But I wouldn't go as far as to call it completely unrealistic because of that.
[ April 12, 2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Rhadon ]
Agent Blak April 12th, 2003, 03:45 PM

I have done various forms over the years. I took what I need and liked and shed what I didn't like or did find practical.
I also grew up with a twin brother so i always had someone the same size to fight with.
My favorite systems are Muay Thai and Bujinkan TiaJutsu(Ninjutsu). I found that Tiajutsu lacked in striking, but the grapples,
bodymovement, and multiple attackers was good. Also it teaches you improvisation of weapons. Thia had a nice development
of speed in strikes and movement.
I comine those with research I do in to other styles, Preasure point, etc.
The style has to suit you and a belt level means nothing. I got into it with a guy in high school who was high ranking in judo. I
used a nerve attack and had his one side of his face contorted with tears streming down out of that eye.

cutefix: You really believe in all that chi stuff? I don't really know that much about it but it doesn't seem too practical/plausible
really.
I tend to think that what can be quickly obtained and most practical is the best. i.e. You're not too likely to meet Bruce Lee or
some eastern kung fu master in a bar fight. I do think that not handling multiple attackers is a shortcoming of jiu-jitsu, but all
of the fights I've been in were one on one for the most part. Also, at my place of training, they train you in no gi(sp?) jiu-jitsu
and apply it to real life situations.
On a sidenote, if you guys want to exchange files my backup-backup forum FTP is available to everyone at the moment. Most
people from here don't upload anything they just leech. So, anyone who is willing to give files is greatly appreciated.
The username is: eaw
the Password is: amj537wr3
Host: sensorystatic.com or <a href="http://www.sensorystatic.com" target="_blank">www.sensorystatic.com</a>
cutefix April 12th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Photonic,It is is not about belief;it is a fact.But you have to experience it in order to know it. :p
Unfortunately many martial art practitiomer do not really care about it.
When I was practicing since childhood the different arts from shorin ryu ,then to shotokan and wado ryu karate. I also scorned
about these so called internal energy as described in some chinese martial arts.
Up to my teens I was so overconfident that having acquired skill through the years I can easily beat anybody.I even won
medals and trophies in karate tournaments.
But the time comes when an unknown(in a skill challenge) sent me flying several feet away with just a tap of his hand on my
body and I was dazed for several minutes and confused what hit me so hard;(I did not notice much movement from my
opponent) but I feel sore and I could hardly move from its effect.
Fortunately that same guy(who beat me) used his hands and fingers to massage and press various points in my body that led
to gradually regain my strength and mobility.I was also forced to drink a vile tasting stuff that led me to complete recovery.
He said if I was not massaged will not drink that ill tasting stuff I will die in a matter of few months due to internal injury.
When I asked somebody knowledgeable what is it that hit me; it was an example of dim mak delivered by an expert of
internal martial art.
That was an overwhelming experience and the beginning of time that I became serious about this chi stuff and realize how
effective and dangerous is it if applied in martial art competition.
You will never know the strike if its coming to you,it is so subtle like you are just being parried or stroked until the last
moment when the chi is released instantaneously.
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
[ April 12, 2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: cutefix ]

Helvetica"> Of course that's true to some extent. Because a) there is hatred in a street fight, <hr /></
blockquote>In my experience I do not think so.If your nerves are rattled by
your opponent (due to hatred)you will likely have difficulty in defending your self properly.It is better think of it as just one of
your sparring sessions.And you are not worried of anything at all.
A truly capable street fighter reacts by reflex and not by premeditation.
You never use your mind voluntarily and think that I will punch him and kick him hard in such a way.
The adrenalin rush can even decieve your mind that you can beat the bully easily.That is far from truth <img border="0"
title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
You will just notice that your hands and feet looks like have the mind of their own when the parry the attackes and deliver the
blows to your assailant.It is really a spontaneous action.
However if you are lacking skill (or a beginner of martial art training)you might even pose in a karate stance and wait for your
opponent to strike.It is likely in that situation if the opponent know you know some martial arts will use stealth and treachery
to beat you surely. All you need to pose in order to defend yourself you should be sure that its looks like you are standing
there but very much prepared for action.
Further if there is a chance its better to run away than face likely combat.Avoiding a fight is much better than facing it.
There is a truth to a saying, even practiced by highly skilled martial artist that "Cowardice is the highest form of courage".
:cool:
It is very important(if its unavoidable) in street combat to be relaxed (which is very difficult for most people exposed in a life
threatening situation) but it is the prime requirement in order that you can defend yourself effectively.
Forget all those stuff you see in the movies they are not true in real life. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /
>
Rhadon April 12th, 2003, 11:55 PM

Photonic: The site doesn't allow resuming, right? I cannot upload 2 x 700 MB without resuming, so uploading the UFC video is
impossible unless you are able to allow me to resume uploads.
Edit: I just tried it out, resuming doesn't work.
[ April 12, 2003, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Rhadon ]

cutefix, whilst I believe that very hard blows can be delivered with seemingly little effort and movement from the one striking,
I have to draw the line at nasty broth and magic touches curing fatal internal injuries.
I realise this isn't on topic, but I'm a half believer in chi. I don't think it's "magic" at all, simply very efficient and effective use
of the body's natural power.
Let us not forget the story of the monk who believed that the power of his chi made him bullet proof! :)
jelly April 14th, 2003, 12:19 PM

A trained thug can knock you out with his first punch in less than
a tenth of a second. Due to your "reaction time" you can't react
before you are KO.
Most fights on streets and in pubs take just a few seconds.
So it's irrelevant to know how to react with karate, kick boxing

or whatever; you have to know how to avoid the first blow of an attacker.
Since most fights are ritual fights, it may be good to know some of these
"rituals".
I recommend Geoff Thompson's books "Dead Or Alive - The Choice Is Yours"
and "Watch My Back: A Bouncer's Story".
From a book cover: "...having witnessed thousands of confrontations

(and survived a few hundred) in his work as a barroom bouncer,
Geoff Thompson knows firsthand what violence is really like. He knows
that self-defense is primarily about avoiding violent situations and
that the best techniques in the world are of little value if you are
rendered immobile by fear or indecision...".
OCR'ed sample... online for just a few days:
Attackers And Their Rituals (http://jelly146.tripod.com/rituals) :)

I dissagree, although the fist may only travel for 1/10 sec, your average person does a poor job of hiding the "wind up" to the
punch. It's possible to know it's coming before their fist even starts heading in your direction.
A chi master could probably see it coming from the look in/movement of their eyes :)

"I realise this isn't on topic, but I'm a half believer in chi. I don't think it's "magic" at all, simply very efficient and effective use
of the body's natural power.
Let us not forget the story of the monk who believed that the power of his chi made him bullet proof"
Well everyone is entiltled to his opinion.

Again I say that only experience can make you realize the truth about it.
Which I think its unlikely for a person of your kind.I doubt if you ever care to practice martial arts;you may run or (if you have,
pull a gun or brandish a knife) if you are confronted with an unexpected combat situation.
But supposing you are a dabbler in combative arts you cannot never realized the deeper aspects of their training nor ever
open to ideas which are then substantiated by your later experience(usually painful).
If you were in my case you will cry hard to be brought to the hospital immediately instead of pondering what hit you with such
devastating effect with miniimal body movement from your opponent.
Another thing is chi power is not meant to be used to stop bullets. You need kevlar for that.
If you remember the historical Boxers Rebellion in the early 1900''s a lot of chinese fighters who were expert in various martial
arts were felled by bullets.
On the other hand how can you explain exhibitions by these martial arts experts who are able to allow their body to be hit with
sharp objects without even hurting them.
What is your plausible explanation for that ?
You think that their body is genetically modified to be as hard as rhinocerous hide?:p
photonic April 16th, 2003, 12:55 AM

cutefix: Can you yourself use this chi stuff? If so, how long did it take you? I tend to agree with anthony. I think it probably
exists but I don't think it's any supernatural Final Fantasy type gaia(sp?) stuff. Not that you said it was. How hard is it to find a
dim mak instructor? Also, what is the most that you've heard of somebody doing with this? I watch a lot of anime so this
subject fascinates me.
P.S. If this post seem awkward, forgive me. This new board layout is playing tricks on my mind(not to mention my patience).
P.P.S Rhadon: I ordered a new hard drive(120GB). It will be here tommorrow. Once I install it and secure everything I'll
configure the FTP to allow resuming and personal accounts and possibly even ratio's(undecided). Then I'll have probably about
80 gigs or so just for filespace.
Tuatara April 16th, 2003, 02:00 AM

Here's my 2c ! I practised Tai Chi for a while - (I loved it, got to find me a local instructor). While initally focussed on personal
well being, it does evolve into a fighting style. That includes a number of weapons, from a simple stick (bo) to swords and the
like. I had a friend who was rather acomplished, who would wear his leather jacket in the rougher parts of the city just for the
fun of taking down the thugs who would try to mug him! The nice thing about Tai Chi is that the movements become so
ingrained that the concious mind is not required to respond to a strike. One of the women in my class got attacked and found
herself automatically breaking her attackers grip with a movement from the form we'd been learning. Tai Chi does not require
strength - you do not block, you deflect. I have an inkling of the Chi cutefix is on about, the same principle applies in Tai Chi.
It may be a Jedi mind trick, but there is something to it. One of the more interesting tests for my first badge involved
standing still for 30 minutes with arms extended as if holding a large ball. The first 5 mins is hard, unitl you learn to draw the
pain away from your arms and ground it out through your feet.
I know it sounds like total kook, but it works.

cutefix: Can you yourself use this chi stuff? If so, how long did it take you? I tend to agree with anthony. I think it probably
exists but I don't think it's any supernatural Final Fantasy type gaia(sp?) stuff. Not that you said it was. How hard is it to find a
dim mak instructor? Also, what is the most that you've heard of somebody doing with this? I watch a lot of anime so this
subject fascinates me.
Photonic, After the years in karate ,I shifted to chinese boxing and did practice chi kung exercises to cultivate chi.I have
already spent already 10 years in internal arts training under my instructor and I can feel during my training there is tingling
flow of energy that start from my abdomen region(tan tien) until it reach my finger tips.
In later tai chi practice I can already feel that chi is flowing in my body and even in pushing hand exercises my opponent can
feel the energy of my hands which I cannot feel from my partner.The result of this training is that Even during sparring with my
friends they note that my hitting power is much different than before.They always don some sort of martial arts body armor
duing full contact sparring with me which I do not care about wearing myself.I can seem to take their full strikes to my body
with less pain(unlike before).
However my mentor istill nsist it takes more years to be profecient in it in applications.
Regarding dim mak, I asked this to my instructor before. He does not talk want about it but I queeried some senior students
.I did learn many information and even seen some demonstration from these people that corroborated with my painful
experience earlier.I was expained the techniques and pirinciples but unless you are precisely taught about it you can not learn
muich by hearing,or watching it being done.
It is only exactly taught to the close door disciples(the most senior of the students who have been with the teacher for so
many years that they are even considered already like members of his own family.Usually this art is reserved to their family
members and not to outsiders.
When I inquired from other chinese oriented combat arts It took me lot of effort and research that indeed it is part of the
training which is reserved to the highest level .Many of these chinese arts such as white crane,hung gar, preying mantis, choy li
fut etc. have versions of it.
In addition as part of the training you must learn to cure the effects of the death touch yourself.As the master himself will hit
you in that deadly manner and you must know how to cure if you recognize you are a victim of it.If you know how to hurt
anybody severly you must know how to cure it as well.
A knowledge of chinese medicine such as acupuncture , moxibustion,exotic herbs,preparaiton of medicine .proper dosages etc.
is part of the curicullum as their are many strike that cannot be reveresed with pure pressure point massage.That reminds me
of the bad tasting liquid I drank in my experience.
But if you train in chin na (or like chinese jujitsu and aikido) the nerve points of attack are emphazised so its more easiler to
learn the basic techinique there.But unless you cultivate your chi fiirst you will not be effective in delivering it either.
Again its the instructor prerogative if he think you are worrth teaching or not and most of the time they will sedom part with
this closely guarded secret.As it is extremely dangerous if the technique falls to wrong hands.
That is why this keep me wondering the type of dim mak that they are writing in the books and selling to the public.
Further when this topic about death touch is brought .It was related (in martial art circles)that the late Bruce lee died of
delayed result of dim nak strike that he previously got from a competition with another martial artist.

Photonic: I have already prepared the upload to Ctrl_C's FTP. I dropped a note on this in the Forum FTP thread, and since no-
one got angry about it and I'm unable to edit the post, I will just upload it there. Later on, I can still upload it to your FTP. I
will be absent for a few days, though, so be patient.

"If you were in my case you will cry hard to be brought to the hospital immediately"
I certainly do not disagree with you! But that's it, I would want proper medical care, if I had injury to my internal organs.
An exception would be if a blow to the chest had interupted my diaphragm. Or possibly fibrilation of the heart. Then contact in
the correct areas and fashion can save you.
Ditto for herbs and stuff. I don't doubt (some) herbal medicenes, good for fevers, headaches, infections, the shits etc. But
herbs won't heal a ruptured spleen or reinflate a collapsed lung...
"how can you explain exhibitions by these martial arts experts who are able to allow their body to be hit with sharp objects
without even hurting them.
What is your plausible explanation for that ?"
Similar to the explanation for people who can lie on a bed of nails. It's tough skin, lots of practice, a high tolerance of pain
and in many cases, tricks.
The human body can be amazingly strong, like a toilet roll tube can support the weight of a man, if the load it applied
properly.
If Chi can stop a sharp implement penetrating, why not a bullet?
Your description of holding the "ball" reminds me of marathon runners. Mind over body. We can all do it to some extent, I
expect martial artists to be much better though. Pain is only an electrical impulse, to be "immune" to it, you just need to block
or ignore it.
Your experience of being resistant to blows IMO shows a high level of control of your body. You have a high tolerance of pain,
and exact muscle tension at the correct moments may be what causes the blows to not harm you.

Ditto for herbs and stuff. I d on't doubt (some) herbal medicenes, good for fevers, headaches, infectio ns, the shits etc. But
herbs won't heal a ruptu red sp leen o r reinflate a collapsed lung...
The thing that makes it difficult to understand in contemporary medicine is that they discount the traditional medicine(such as
for example , acupuncture) that corrects first the energy flow within your system before the treat the resulting injuries from the
energy blockage. Which in the latter in many cases are secondary in importance as can repair by itself gradually, specially if
you took the required medicine for its remedy.
And the concept of injury according to modern medicine is incomplete, as it view the body partially not holistically.
In many cases the subtle type of injury that dim mak can inflect on the body can be undetectable by methods of modern
medicine but can be seen by methods of traditional medicine.
BTW,The herbs drink that I took was for that purpose of correcting the energy blockage that is dangerous if left unattended
that can surely manifest later as serious organ damage which can led to my demise.
Indeed it is very difficult to explain this principle of cure according to the terms of modern medicine basing on the ordinary
idea of what a human body is; but it is a reality as I have experienced it .
Similar to the explana tion fo r people who can lie on a bed of nails. It's tough skin, lots of practice, a high tolerance of pain
and in man y case s, trick s.
I knew closely some people who are adept in chi kung who can allow their body to be pierced with blades( but is impervious to
it). I have managed to touch their skin and its is soft as the normal person.In fact it can still be wounded,(bruised,or cut) if
they do not concentrate their chi on it. Therefore I do not believe that they have tough hides.
I n d e e d it can be considered s e a s o n e d and strong er than the norm al person skin due to constant practice in that particular
techique but if you feel and look at it closely ,it is still a normal skin.
A certain practitioner of yoga whom I met years back follow the same principle that they can lie in the bed of nails because of
the same technique,i.e., mind control of the prana(hindu term for Chi).
There is also a related chi kung techique that you can make your body lighter by proper breathing and focusing of chi.In fact
you can step on a frail porcelain cup or plate and it can support you.But once you stop the chi control (while you are standing
on it still ) the bowl will break under your feet.
IIR C I h a v e s e e n a n e x a m p le of it in T V a few times some years back in Ripley s Believe it or not.
In the same way if you are skilled this lightness kung fu you can comfortably lie on a bed of nails .
I think the right word is, not tricks but correct technique which is perfected through several years of training.
If Chi can stop a sharp implement penetrating, why not a bullet?
I have read some literatures about this technique of iron hide(which was formerly a Shaolin temple specialty,) which is also
considered a chi kung technique. But it emphasized there that it cannot stop a bullet or even in some cases other bladed
missiles (such as spear or arrow).
I also asked this question previously to an expert of chi kung why the boxers rebellion fighters were killed by bullets if many
of them were said to be invulnerable to bladed weapons. He said that is beyond the limits that the chi can protect the human
body no matter how well trained you are.
This holding the ball technique as explained by Tuatara is one method of cultivating and focusing Chi. It is in fact a standard
training technique in Tai chi chuan practice, in combination with the posture exercises(e.g.,you stand on one tai chi posture
such as for example called Wu chi for hours )coupled with correct breathing techniques. It is an effective Taoist method of chi
development.

We obviously have very different opinions so I'll leave it be now - save to say one thing ;)
Some of the things you mention would be quantitively measurable. E.g making yourself considerably lighter. The power of
thought being able to reduce physical mass is something that contravenes my sense of logic. But can the performance be
done on a set of scales? It would certainly prove it, or not.

The reason people can lie on a bed of nails is that the nails are close enough together to support the weight of the person. If
the nails are spaced too far apart, they will penetrate the skin. I imagine similar explanations for all of this chi stuff exist as
well. All of this chi stuff cutefix has explained conflicts with my reason as well. However, I still to believe most of it is possible.
There's plenty of stuff out there I can't explain. Cutefix, how well may one cultivate their chi without an instructor? Also, does
any of this require sitting in front of a fat golden guy chanting "OM" ? No sarcasm intended.

"Some of the things you mention would be quantitively measurable. E.g making yourself considerably lighter. The power of
thought being able to reduce physical mass is something that contravenes my sense of logic. But can the performance be
done on a set of scales? It would certainly prove it, or not"
Indeed it is illogical but again most modern thinking is like this. considering things they cannot explain as non existent. .
Unless you experience something so unbelievable and its is very hard to fathom the mystery with our conventional way of
thinking. But if you insist in in looking for a way to understtand it, in the end you will find alternative explanation(from people
with more experience and knowledge on this matters) .
Incidintally that explanation contravenes your standard way of thinking about things ;but if that different perspective will bring
light to the mystery, but you still cannot accept it, then the problem is with your mind not with that reality you experienced.
This the same as chi ,modern science barely recognize it.But does it make a difference if people who have masterered can
produce astonishing feats with it?
The knowledge about it is as ancient as civilization ,but most modern man refuse to accept it as real. Because they cannot find
in their closed mind a suitable explanation for it.
THis rigid and narrow logical approach was the same way that aristototle arrive to the conclusion that the earth is flat.
I have been scoffed a few times by some of my peers in the professional world about what they call a radical explanation in
things that they cannot explain .I told them to experience it and judge for themselves the truth about it .
If it trancends logic ,does it means does it does not exist?
When one skeptiic was challenged and deligently trained in chi cultivation and experienced its benefit, when asked to explain
it , he was confused and cannot say anything ,nor have logical way to describe the experience. But did not regret his decision
to learn and practice it anyway as it dramatically improved his health and well being.
Regarding that idea of lightness kung fu there was a televised example of that performed several years ago by a chinese
expert who was also practicing tradiitional chinese medicine, as shown also in Ripleys that show him standing on a piece of
newspaper (streched between benches or chairs ) and the paper did not even tear. IIRC,His assistant who did the the same ,
tore a big hole though it.It is the same principle being done in fragile china ware.
Indeed I have never seen a weighing scale used in it but try to use phyics and calculate the effort and ( even weight) needed
to maintain the posture without tearing the paper or breaking the chinaware.
Regarding the question of photonic in the cultivation of chi without and instructor there are some books that teaches that but I
have never tried it so I cannot vouch if by literature learning you can do it.
I only succeeded under close instruction by a good teacher.
The major prerequisite in its training is patience and self discipline.If you have it then find a capable teacher to guide you and
you will succeed.
MoToMaStR April 20th, 2003, 08:46 PM

I'v trained with real ring boxing since I was 13. Most dudes wouldnt dare fuck with the mean looking tattoo covered freak with
20" biceps for obvious reasons. For the most part, boxers know how to take a hit and I believe are a bit tougher than a good
percentage of the hard-asses out there. Boxing, like other "arts" emphesizes on landing your hits HARD, and fast, exactly
where you wanted them to go, BUT..... the weight training we go through, combined with the massive step in that are put into
an already over-powered punch would seriously fuck you up regaurdless where it caught you. ESPECIALLY bare knuckles. Even
if your opponent coverd up,.. and you hit their arm, your quite likely to give them a nice visit to the hospital for busted raius/
ulma.
Last fight i was in, was in, was in the airplane hangar at my school. We were playing hockey, this fool came at me with a raised
stick so i grabbed the stick and gave him a full right cross in the cheek and caved in his orbital (with my hockey gloves on
btw). and that was that.
:p :p :p
Although, no martial art teaches you dodge bullets. :p
:p :p :p
zambozan October 10th, 2004, 02:22 PM

Hallo man,
I've replyed your post not for any offence, but for an osservation.
I'm a boxer too, and I know that if a man is covered, hit is shoulder can't
make it to go at hospital.
We're hitting a medium-body men that is covered, not a child....
How previously sayed, doesn't exist the best martial art, is the praticer that
can be the best. This is sayed after noticed that the martial art praticed is complete, which includes hand,kick and grappling
techniques based on studies.
Thanks for reading this post!
Joeychemist October 11th, 2004, 05:26 PM

Even if your opponent covered up,.. And you hit their arm, your quite likely to give them a nice visit to the hospital for busted
raius/ulma.
You said you h ave experience boxing, so picture this you're fighting me and you're coverin g up pre tty good; now let s say I
hit you as hard as I can with le ts say 10 onzce gloves in the shoulder. If I hit you hard eno ugh in the right spot I could d is-
locate you're sh oulder no prob lem. Now let s say I hit you in the jaw, nose o r ribs. Now a punch will break those bones much
easier than other bones in the human body, but for you to break someon e s a rm in a boxing match, while there covered up,
with gloves on, well that would ta ke one hell of a punch. It is p ossible to break someone s a rm with a punch but hig hly
unlikely that it would in fact break the bone.
But e ven if you didn't break it. It still sucks getting punched in the arm. I ve had bruises on my arms that hurt like hell, and if
you are in a fight and you're oppone nt is covering up, it s a lways a go od ide a to work the body and arms, even if yo u don't
break they're bones, accumulative punches will always slow an opponent down.
Isotoxin October 16th, 2004, 12:21 AM

All this chi stuff is a bit off the wall to me. Even if it is true it dosn't matter much. Out of all the people you will ever meet and
fight the number that know how to do this stuff will be very small to equal zero. A CCW permit with some training along with
some martial arts and sit awarness will be all it takes in 99.99 percent of fights.
mixojoe November 8th, 2004, 03:09 AM

No Martial Arts is the best lol. A lot depends on who is learning it an d how they apply it. The ancient ones are very powerful
because they have usually been battle tested lol. Chi/Ki is very powerful! and I have seen amazing things!!!
FireFly November 8th, 2004, 04:24 PM

...no martial art teaches you dodge bullets.
;) Exactly, too little time to trade punches when there are many more ways of dealing with such problems.
mixojoe November 9th, 2004, 09:26 PM

lol dodging bullets :D Many people these days favour grappling arts. Mainly because most fights end up in a grappling
position.
Against a gun....if they are out of arms length then you are in trouble, if within and under certain circumstances then they are
in big trouble lol
FireFly November 9th, 2004, 10:49 PM

lol dodging bullets :D Many people these days favour grappling arts. Mainly because most fights end up in a grappling
position.
Against a gun....if they are out of arms length then you are in trouble, if within and under certain circumstances then they are
in big trouble lol
Most fights do end up on the ground at one point or another, so I must agree grappling may be quite a benefit. I was taking
Brazilian jujitsu as grappling and Muy Thai kick boxing for stand up. It was and is fun to spar with some friends, though in a
real fight I still think most learned martial arts will have many flaws, and your best bet is to take up other means to get the
job done, before the opponent takes these means upon himself.
Joeychemist November 10th, 2004, 05:08 AM

;) Exactly, too little time to trade punches when there are many more ways of dealing with such problems.
This is half true, If you re involved in a confro ntation with one or m any opponents and you re coun try dose not permit it s
citizens to carry weapons you have to be able to somewhat defend yourself. Just being trained in one of the fighting styles
mentioned throughout this threa d help s and teaches you how to cover up so you don t take an even worse beating.
If you're ou t of town and s o m e o n e (there s a lways that one person) wan ts to p ick a fight. At least if yo u have some training
you're not as likely to get you're head smashed wide open.
NO O NE fighting style is better than the other, each style is just a small part of the larger package. It s a ll ab out the MMA
(mixed martial arts). The best fighter is the one who is most skilled in all fighting styles.
badmilk November 15th, 2004, 10:11 PM
I've actually taken a few martial arts (tae kwon doe) (kenpo) (muay thai) and I have found muay thai to be the most effective
for real life combat, just my two cents...
mixojoe November 22nd, 2004, 04:03 AM

Muay Thai is the sledge hammer approach to combat and very effective. You get used to full contact striking and being struck.
But i prefer ancient battlefield Martial Arts myself for the techniques and traditions
jackhammer November 28th, 2004, 02:46 PM

I've done martial arts for over 30 years, and have been teaching combat martial arts for over 10. First of all, to all those who
talk about tai chi and other soft styles and the amazing feats performed by the masters of those style, you ever notice how
old they are? It takes years and years of dedication to be able to do anything (other than improving health, which, as
someone said, is a great advantage). This is all well and good, if you are really interested in martial arts, but not if you simply
wish to know how to fight or defend yourself. Another thing: all the aspects of dim mak (in cantonese) or Dian Xue (mandarin)
or other wonderful aspects of Shaolin Chin Na (muscle and tendon grabbing, pressure points, joint locks, sealing the breath,
etc) are very very cool, and can be useful, but again take years and years to practice and master. I have met several people
who could do amazing (and quite painful) things to me while I was standing still, but couldn't seem to pull them off on the
mat.
I agree that people should cross train, studying each style for 2 years or more, if all they desire is fighting proficiency. But
more important, I believe, is how you train. There is an old army saying, "train like you fight" and it is true for martial arts as
well. You can refine you techniques best by having the snot kicked out of you by someone better, bigger, and stronger. That
way you refine your techniques, and learn what does and does not work. I always spar full contact no-holds barred. My sparring
club likes to mix things up as well by doing things like adding weapons (mostly wooden practice weapons, but I've used real
knives many times, mostly so that my wife can shake her head at me when I come back bloodied), picking unfair matches (2-
3, 1-3 2-1), giving one opponent a weapon and none to the other, etc. I think the most important thing is to be able to use
your training in an actual combat situation. In other words, every time a real combat situation occurs, your reaction (flight,
fight, or freeze) must be fight. That it the main reason we teach and train in martial arts in the military special operations
forces. Very few SEALs, Rangers, Special Forces, etc, actually ever need to use deadly hand-to-hand combat techniques. It very
rarely even comes down to knives, or even side arms. However, what hand-to-hand combat training does do is reinforce the
"killing" mode, to ensure a soldier or sailer will pull the trigger. There are other reasons for this training, of course, but I
believe this is the biggest.
As to which styles to train in, I personally would recommend a combination of traditional aiki-jujitsu or jujitsu, brazilian jujitsu,
muay thai, and if you like dim mak and that sort of thing, a wu su style with a lot of chin na (eagle claw, wing chun, etc.)
Somebody mentioned krav maga, which is a great scientifically-based broken down combat stlye, but it has drawbacks. The
major draw back is the styles design: it is designed to be used against armed combatants, originally mostly gun toting.
However, it is a simple and effective approach to combat. That is, until you get to the advanced stage they teach Israeli
special forces (Shayetet 13, Sayeret Duvdevan, Mat'kal, and Egoz, Tzanhanin, Maglan, and units Rotem Gideonim, Yoav,
Yagal, nad Yamam), which can include all sorts of things, like garrot training and other special techniques. If it is difficult to
find a muay thai school, you can substitute with tae kwon do, tang soo do, American kickboxing, or even karate (go for kenpo
or shotokan). If you can't find a traditional jujitsu dojo, go for aikido, judo, or hapkido (which was also mentioned previously,
and is a Korean jujitsu, just as tae kwon do is the Korean version of karate). If you can't find a brazilian jujitsu school, go with
wrestling. Hope this helps some.
__________________
-Something is going to fall like rain, and it won't be flowers
-If hindsight is 20/20, why won't my eyes work?
Gollum June 9th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Judo and Muay Thai kickboxing are probably the best combination of martial arts if you need to learn to defend yourself
quickly. With about 3 months of training in both 2 or 3 times per week for 2 hours per session you will be ready to defend
yourself out in the real world.
I definately recommend adding some close combatives training to your repetoire, or some kind of old school jujutsu from
Japan, you need to learn that for your anti-weapons training. Alternatively you could look at kali or escrima for your anti
weapons training. Your biggest threat in a fight is facing a knife. Knives are way more dangerous than guns in close fights.
But first learn about throwing people and punching/kicking them.

Remember, whatever you decide to do, make sure you do it.
When push comes to shove, have a rote of twenty five cunning moves isn't going to help you if the guy throws a punch as an
uppercut rather than a haymaker, or just pushes you over so his mates can dance on your head.
In the UK, you will be provoked, and attacked by those who are out for a laugh at the victims expense. They will happily kick
you to death. By the logic of the chav, you deserve it for getting blood on his shoes when he is kicking your teeth down your
throat. Always assume there are two more round the corner, at least, if you are targeted by one. Also assume you are on
camera! Let them push you or whatever first, then put them down in one.
If your martial art won't teach you to put the average pikey down in one swift move, forget it. Aikido arm locks are not what
you want here, you want a throw (Yes, an akido one is fine!) or a push. Don't even consider a grapple, you will be kicked and
stabbed by his mates. You need him down and preferably out before his mates arrive 20 seconds later, and you need to be
on your feet. Also, don't do more than one follow-up, as if they are trying to "happy slap" you, that video will end up on the
internet or with the police. Last thing you want is a jail term for defending yourself.
It is as much about the fighters mindset as anything else. I'm not big, but I've faced down a lot of bigger guys than me. I
know I can kill them, and everyone they know, and get away with it. This (probably) helps.
underMan June 11th, 2006, 08:21 PM

Saw a video of dim-mak. The guy was total bs and it just makes the art look like bs. I also dont believe in magical warfare
type nonsense..
Muay thai and Jiu jitsu? Well go no further.. Maybe look into aikido, if you find a very good master for that than go for it, but
jiu jitsu and muay thai is unbeatable especially combined. I train muay thai, plan to getting into aikido or jiu jitsu in the
future. Ive heard of these military styles dunno if theyre effective, but they sound like they want efficiency only, dunno how
you can get more efficient than muay thai tho. Never seen a style better than muay thai, just look to the professional fighters,
none of them do fancy kung fu style stuff. Getting into knife fighting is fun too, just buy a rubber knife, and learn to handle
that from books and stuff. Im sure theres some cool style out there that fights knife and sword fighting into it. But if you want
to defend yourself i suggest the glock.
-Jacks Complete - My friend told me of 'happy slapping' what the heck is that? Some weird english tradition? Also theres a
camera on like every corner down there huh?>
EDIT: So youre saying some guy sent you flying many feet from a tap huh? And i guess most people are not allowed to learn
such a skill because theyll get power hungry or whatever? Sounds like a huge load just to get people to come and pay big
moolah for nothing.
nbk2000 June 11th, 2006, 11:26 PM

A can of wasp spray and a zippo lighter would be adequate deterrent to almost any stupidity.
A shot to the face to blind them, then flick the lighter on and make the point of lighting 'em up if they persist.
Martial arts are a waste of time against a group. While you're busy dicking around with one fellow, the others get you in the
back.
Even one of the Gracie's got beat down by a group of thugs in brazil. And if this guy can get beat down, anyone can.

EDIT: So youre saying some guy sent you flying many feet from a tap huh? And i guess most people are not allowed to learn
moolah for nothing.Who said that? Seriously, though, aikedo teaches many ways to do that. Most aren't suitable for the
street, though.
"Happy Slapping" is from, originally, a TV show where they put on big fake foam hands and slapped each other from ambush,
or something, while recording it for the TV show. Of course, once the chavs got fancy phones that could record, they started do
the same. In packs and alone. So some guy comes out of nowhere and decks you, for his mates to laugh at, while they film
it. It sadly now refers to pretty much any random violence for fun, including kicking someone to death.
Of course, sometimes an alert person spots it and does something... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Pe6-

QAWOs&search=happy%20slap Note that 95% of the YouTube vids are rubbish, fake or spoofs if you look down the list of
search results. This one seems real.
Gollum June 13th, 2006, 03:48 AM

The gracies are a joke. Their martial art is a waste of time. No serious martial art involves deliberately taking attackers to the
ground to fight them. Not only that but their collective ego is huge, they attract negative attention and violence.
Good martial arts teach you how to deal effectively with multiple attackers. You don't always have to fight multiple people to
defeat multiple people. A martial art could teach you how to demoralize a group by targeting an individual then doing
something so violent it shocks the rest into fleeing, i.e. cutting someones throat open and twisting their head off, slicing
through the skin of their face, etc.. That's all very dramatic but if you're in enough danger to have to do it, go for it. Of course
there will be severe legal reprecussions, but again, if you're doing it you'll probably be able to prove it was necessary.
Pepper spray has a very high rate of failure. It also takes longer to get out a can of pepper spray than it does to simply throw
them onto their neck (which will kill or paralyze them, and is a very common throw in all Japanese jujutsu styles). As for
blowtorching them, well it's an interesting and amusing idea but as someone with experience in the security industry I don't
feel it's very practical. That is to say I don't feel it's practical at all, and will more likely provoke your attackers into escalating
the situation.
Truth be told it is very easy to hurt someone quickly with simple jujutsu / judo throws. You can grab someones arm, break it
then break their neck and have them on the ground all in one or two movements in under 2 seconds. It's not difficult to do
once you've practiced.
I have worked in the security industry for several years (and I don't mean security in the rent-a-cop way) and that's my
opinion.. I will say that I can personally throw someone using only a finger or two, it's not all that difficult, it just requires the
right timing and situation. Usually that stuff is just for parlor tricks and amusing friends. The real stuff is about breaking arms
and legs and moving on to the next person dumb enough to attack you.
If you spend some time learning how to do it, you would be amazed and shocked at some of the things you learn. I
personally do not understand why all good citizens don't learn a martial art, it would reduce violent crime exponentially. If you
spend some real effort learning a good martial art like judo or jujutsu, you will see it's very strong for fighting. Those moves
were picked from the best in the most violent time and location on the planet, 1500's Japan. Those guys fought a lot better
than your average street punk does now. That ought to speak for something.
Check emule or edonkey for mike swain's judo fundamentals tapes. Learn about standing throws and chokes. Chokes are very
very useful. Make sure to get proper instruction in them before attempting them, you could kill someone accidentally pretty
quick if you screw up.
nbk2000 June 13th, 2006, 07:02 AM

Fire makes a wonderful weapon.
Back in '00, someone tried climbing in through the window of the bathroom at a motel I was staying at, where some of the
untermensch tenants disliked me.
I lit his head on fire with a pocket dragon. He fell screaming back out the window and ran away leaving a trail of smoke from
his burnt hair behind him.
:D
Nobody else said shit to me about anything after that.
Someone who'll happily burn someone to death (given the chance) is not the kind of person you fuck with on a casual basis.
Beat someone down, and they might come back with a shitload of friends, or guns, to get even.
Set one of fire and he'll be in no condition for revenge, and his friends will only come at you with guns, if they get the courage
to do so, which is what they were going to do anyways. Otherwise, they'll be too scared to try you, 'cause you've already proved
you're insanely dangerous. :)
Alexires June 13th, 2006, 09:53 AM

Personally, I've done Wing Chun Kung Fu for 3 years, and just started ninjutsu a few months ago.
For someone wanting to get good quickly (4 months or less), neither of these martial arts are for you. I have found that doing
another martial art before ninjutsu helped improve the speed that I've learnt at.
Ninjutsu trains with hands and feet (strikes, blocks, grappling, chokes, breaks and control techniques), knives (strikes, blocks,
breaks and control), swords (strikes, blocks and control), 6 foot staff (strikes, blocks), short staff (think walking stick. Strikes,
blocks, breaks, chokes and control) and at our dojo we also train in shuriken and go out for a shoot at the local archery place
every now and again.
I've heard it often said that most street fights end up on the ground. So, learning to defend yourself on the ground would be a
valued skill.
If the choice is between taking a few down before they get you, or cowering in fear before they get you, which would you
choose? Personally, I'd take a few with me in the quickest and most brutal fashion possible.
Still, nothing wrong with carrying a little fly spray, or motorbike chain lube and a jet lighter.
Every little bit helps.
WMD June 13th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Martial Arts the way they are taught today aren't geared towards real life combat. IMHO the way to go is combatives, WW2
style. To quote Jim Grover, a combatives teacher "Martial Arts is something you do with someone, combatives is something
you do to someone". The basic techniques can be found in classics like "Get tough!" or "Kill or get killed", available online.
Add "Put'em down, take'em out" for some good knife work.
What's just as important is putting this stuff in a real life context. This means being aware of your surroundings, spotting
trouble before it happens. This also means training to fight when you're hit, confused, under low light conditions and so
pumped up and aggressive that you're hit with tunnel vision and have too much adrenaline to perform flashy complicated
martial arts moves.
And you need to know when you're seriously outclassed and be prepared to run away as fast as you can. If you're inside a
building you know the exits, right? Marc 'Animal' MacYoung deals a lot with stuff like that.
Oh, and weapons of any kind will help you a lot :)
mil&co June 13th, 2006, 03:45 PM

In most situations, it is best to avoid a fight. But there's no way you can run away when surrounded by a group.
*In case of a group fight: Don't take the fight to the ground. While you are on top of one of them, the others will be landing
their feet on your head. Trying to isolate one of them, taking him out, and moving to the next one is the way to go.
Train yourself in taking a man down as quickly as you can, practice in kicking on the knees, punching in the solar plexus and
other weak points. Make sure the man you knocked out will not be doing anything for the next 30 minutes. Be mercyless,
strike first and strike fast. You can't win a fight with honor, you either win or you loose.
Most of these techniques can be tought by taking thay-boxing classes. Also a good thing to do is learning the weak points of
the human body.
*Fighting one to one is a different story, when there is no chance of anyone jumping in you can take the fight to the ground.
Practice choce-holds and clambs. And when you're in controll (on top), finish it quickly.
In the latter type of fight BJJ might come in handy, aswell as the lowkicks of thayboxing for taking your opponent to the
ground.
*Weapons are allways handy in a fight, you could use allmost anything that is solid or pointy, think about loose bricks, pens,
a keychain, keys, an folded newspaper, etc. Being licenced to carry a gun can't do any harm either.
Anything as long as it gives you the advantage above the opponent.
But be aware of knife-fights, ones you're in, you will sure as hell won't come out without being cut (even if you yourself have a
knife too). No matter how long you've trained in disarming a man with a knife, you won't run into those standard-situations out
on the streets. Best option is to run.
Another point of attention is to take off your T-shirt before a fight, you don't want it to be pulled over your head, blocking your
view and limiting your strike area.
When you run into a fair fight, you didn't prepare well enough;)
While I'm not trained in any martial arts, from the experience I can tell one of the best starter methods in a street fight
against a group of punks is to first get your back to the wall, if you cannot make your run, of course :D.
Of course this will lead your entrapment but it shall also ensure that nobody can get behind you.
I don't know how the situation is in Western countries, but in my case, I used to provoke the group to engage a manly fight.
Pick one and tell him you want him and it should be a manly fight (one against one).
In many cases, the group touched by the manly pride did not interfere the fight and this worked out properly. But if the group
consists of total punks who have no dignity then you are ruined. Regards.
Corona June 14th, 2006, 03:16 AM

The martial arts itself doesn't matter as long as you are trained in hitting solid targets (heavy bag, makiwara, etc). You have
to train "full contact". When you kick or punch, the target should tremble with shock and should MOVE.
500 punches on a lightly padded target daily (500 with each hand). 500 kicks on same target. And 25 to 50 pushups on your
front two knuckles. They will turn black and ugly, but what the hell....
This is a makiwara. Useful as hell. Or use a heavy bag... just don't fill it with sawdust (it will compact one humid day and break
your hand).
http://www.ctr.usf.edu/shotokan/makiwara.html
I can promise you, you'll cause some heavy damage. I knocked out a guy with a light tap to the eyebrow. He just switched off
and went down without a sound.
If you're into watching videos, try and get Geoff Thompson's "Fence" and "3 second fighter". Pure common sense.
Frosty14 June 14th, 2006, 10:32 PM

I don't believe in any one martial art being better than another. Each as it's good point and it's bad point. Also one must take
in their own personal capabilities. From there choose a defense system that they can make use of.
USE
In my experience most poeple will not put much time into training once they reach a certain level, therefore your chosen
system must be able to be learned quickly and be able to be retained easily.
PARAGRAPHS
Most LEO sytems are of this latter catagory.
BlackFalcoN June 21st, 2006, 07:18 PM

If you're into watching videos, try and get Geoff Thompson's "Fence" and "3 second fighter". Pure common sense.
I have Geoff Thompson's "The Fence" and the "Real Punching" volume 1-3 and "Throws & Takedowns-Greco-Roman wrestling"
in my collection.
If somebody is really interested in them I can upload them. (but given the large size of the data, I will need to upload them
off-site, which will take me some effort and a couple of days)
Edit: I will also have "3 second Fighter" within a couple of days
cutefix June 24th, 2006, 07:59 AM

Edit: So youre saying some guy sent you flying many feet from a tap huh? And i guess most people are not allowed to learn
moolah for nothing.
Indeed its difficult to understand that what looks to be like a slight tap can throw a person several feet away. That is the
realm of internal martial arts and can take decades to master even under a qualified teacher.
That technique difficult to explain to people initiated in the hard arts( external martial arts like karate, muay thai, tae kwon
do, etc. where brute strength is the basis) and who have never understood (nor experienced) the merits of properly cultivated
internal power.
This kind internal energy is also exploited in the deliver of the of the more subtle dim mak technique.
BTW some external form of kung fu like Hung Gar and Choy li Fut have their form of dim mak but still its difficult to master....
The internal martial arts is not for everybody as the discipline in the cultivation of internal energy takes more effort and
qualified guidance starting on how to channel that kind of subtle energy to enable it circulate throughout your body and how to
focus it during the delivery of a blow.
nbk2000 June 24th, 2006, 08:54 AM

Use the Force, Luke!
:rolleyes:
Chi = The Force, and is just as make believe. Physics are the explaination for why things happen, not some 3,000 year old
'magical' Chi. Magic is the explaination used by primitives who don't have the science to explain what they see.
Though Chii (http://006.tenkuu.net/006/art/oldart/chii-atashi2.jpg) is cute. :)

If you want to see how it works(?) here is a Kung Fu master who spent one year learning the one inch punch. Keep watching,
though.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LvdktwS-byg&search=derren%20brown%20punch
cutefix June 24th, 2006, 05:34 PM

Chi = The Force, and is just as make believe. Physics are the explaination for why things happen, not some 3,000 year old
'magical' Chi. Magic is the explaination used by primitives who don't have the science to explain what they see
LOL! I doubt about thatphysical science cannot completely explain in physical terms the manifestation of internal energy that
emanates from a skilled internal martial arts practitioner delivery of a blow
Physics?......try to explain that by Newtons law of motion and see if you can make sense of it!:)
If you want to see how it works(?) here is a Kung Fu master who spent one year learning the one inch punch. Keep watching,
though.
That is a nice movie

But
A year to do the trick? Thats rubbish!
Try it for your self and see if you can generate that kind of focused energy in a years time.
,. The average time of consistent practice for a martial arts practitioner to achieve that is about 5 years. not one year and
that requires competent guidance from a good teacher..
. But if you already started with a good foundation in Chinese boxing( that takes many years) and you want to practice short
range striking techniques later and you got a fancy for the one inch punch, it can be achieved in a shorter time!
.Besides a wing chun style is not a true internal martial art but more of an external one, but just like any Chinese martial
arts as the practitioner acquires skill, mind training follows and that is what is given emphasis. You are trained to think as you
practice that the blow that you deliver does not come from you limbs but right from your mind!
Any other Chinese martial arts that was derived from Shaolin such as, Iron Palm, Hung Gar, Fut Ga, choy li fut, white crane
style , preying mantis ,plum flower etc follow the same mindset.
BTW
White Crane and the Praying mantis has a technique called the iron needle that when an opponents is hit , feel like a long
needle has pierced deep into his body and causing great pain, but actually its an instantaneous blow focused by the mind on
a narrow area of fingertips in the cranes or mantis strike expert.
Meanwhile
The other master in that film exhibited a genuine manifestation of internal power by allowing the student to feel for himself
the internal energy as he moved his hand deftly.
That is the real manifestation of internal power ,,or Chi!
Now NBK try to explain that phenomena with your physics!

Now NBK try to explain that phenomena with your physics!
On Discovery channel, a documentary showed that if the person struck by that psychological blow, does not believe the chi etc.,
then he is simply uneffected by that blow.
Even those masters who are claimed to master that thecnique could not demonstrated its effectiveness on the host of the
documentary.
I don't know for sure, but the technique seems to be a psychological suggestion technique. Since the recipient believes (or is
suggested to believe) that s/he shall receive that blow, s/he is struck by the blow. Regards.

On Discovery channel, a documentary showed that if the person struck by that psychological blow, does not believe the chi etc.,
then he is simply uneffected by that blow.
Even those masters who are claimed to master that thecnique could not demonstrated its effectiveness on the host of the
documentary.
If you say an unbeliever knocked several feet away by the short range striking techniques and still disbelieving..?:p
I have been in the vicinity of those instances when skeptical karate fighters who frowns on internal martial arts learned the
lesson the hard and painful way:cool: :p
A simple tap on their chest lifted them a few feet from the ground and thrown them against the wall.
Take note the noted 'crushing hand' of the hsing i fist ( a form or internal martial art) have killed many opponents. Do you
know how long to develop that skill under a competent guidance and strict discipline...? a minimum of ten years.!
Not the best way to learn martial art for self defense.:p
You cannot see any external damage of that particular fist except the slight purple patch in the skin but the internal organs
are severely damaged leading to severe trauma that usually led to death....
Another ..the pakua palm( another form of internal martial art) is as equally deadly in the hands of competent practioner...:)
How long does it takes to master that under competent tutellage ,,, around fifteen years for the talented ones.. and more or
twice for others
Therefore these internal arts are not the best martial arts for practical purposes because they are difficult to master and
requires more dedication in practice.
And that is one reason why some masters would prefer to feign incompetence than to severely injure a skeptic in exhibitions.
They have acquired wisdom in their training and does not need any show off ( like most of the external arts do) .
One of the outgrowth of internal martial art training is the cultivation of the mind that usually improve their character
tremendously . They more the practice their deadly craft the more careful they are about in using it .
They more they are patient with people than us as they realize the deep responsibility with having those lethal skill.
The really good masters would not exhibit it.
Its hard to find an internal martial arts expert in ultimate fighting contest.;)

If you say an unbeliever knocked several feet away by the short range striking techniques and still disbelieving..?:p
I have been in the vicinity of those instances when skeptical karate fighters who frowns on internal martial arts learned the
lesson the hard and painful way:cool: :p
A simple tap on their chest lifted them a few feet from the ground and thrown them against the wall.
I'm referring to psychological type of punching, i.e. punching with chi without any contact. Of course those who are practicing
martial arts for several years shall be strong to kick someone's ass. However in the documentary there was a master who
claimed to punch people without touching them and the presenter was not affected by the imaginary blow. If the master would
really hit him, the scene would certainly be different. Regards

Jack.... about the video.... This has to be a trick surely? I've wasted many many years of my life doing Bando (heavy duty
Burmese Karate... like Thai Boxing) and can put out a candle with that one-inch punch. That isn't a big deal.
But hitting someone without touching him??? I have neither ever seen this nor have I heard of it before. I would love to be on
the receiving end of this guy's non-touch punch.
The strangest thing that I have seen in the Martial arts, is an ESP.... a kind of "spidey sense" and a lot more.... like pure
mind reading. I found that fascinating. And I've seen it happen many times.

Knocking people out without touching them is a load of shit. It's simply not real, the people in those videos have been
conditioned to react to the fake punches. There's a video on bullshido.net of some stupid bastard who blasted 'chi-balls' at a
judo practicioner. Of course when nothing happened the judo guy kicked his ass.
The 6th sense thing is very real however, almost everyone has experienced it at some point in their life.. Usually just
attributed to gut instinct, or some similar thing. Some people can selectively turn that instinct on and off to save themselves in
dangerous situations. Mind reading itself is bullshit, but extreme sensitivity to emotional changes is real and is used by certain
martial artists, as well as other civilian / law enforcement professions.
nbk2000 June 25th, 2006, 08:23 AM

Cutefix has found religion in the form of Chi.
No amount of argument or proof to the contrary can sway a true believer of ANY religion from their monomania.
Christians still believe the world is only 6,000 years old. :rolleyes:

originally qouted by akinrog
I'm referring to psychological type of punching, i.e. punching with chi without any contact.
A three inch or a one inch punch means that the distance between the start of the punch and the point of contact is three and
one inch respectively.An external martial artist after years of practice and proper mindset have learned to channel his energies
and to relax his muscles can generate tremendous instantaneous energy focused at the fist to enable him to attain a high
speed short range punch.
. But punching people with out actually touching them is not common even in internal martial arts .
I corroborate I am a skeptic with that as well

But hitting someone without touching him??? I have neither ever seen this nor have I heard of it before. I would love to be on
the receiving end of this guy's non-touch punch.
Knocking people out without touching them is a load of shit. It's simply not real, the people in those videos have been
conditioned to react to the fake punches. There's a video on bullshido.net of some stupid bastard who blasted 'chi-balls' at a
judo practicioner. Of course when nothing happened the judo guy kicked his ass
Its not 6th sense...

A practitioner or chi kung or qigong can focus his internal energy and can be used to massage or to allow the chi or the patient
to flow harmoniously by waving his hand close to the body of that particular person. It is also called pranic healing by some
Indian practitioner
We westerners usually frown on such exotic form medicine but it really works.
There is no magic in it, Unfortunately modern science cannot comprehend that as its not within their realm of their scientific
understanding.
There is no magic in it ,,,,but as I have not seen somebody use it for offensive purposes so I am also kinda skeptical about
it....although I had talked with some skilled internal martial artist who claims their masters can do it.
But the principle remains the same....


Originally qouted by NBK
Cutefix has found religion in the form of Chi.
No amount of argument or proof to the contrary can sway a true believer of ANY religion from their monomania.
Christians still believe the world is only 6,000 years old
Its not a belief nor a religion..but a fact...but as you never had any actual experience or training along that line.. I understand
your skepticism...
Go on ....wallow in your pleasure of doubt!
Cobalt.45 June 25th, 2006, 11:08 PM

Regarding that idea of lightness kung fu there was a televised example of that performed several years ago by a chinese
expert who was also practicing tradiitional chinese medicine, as shown also in Ripleys that show him standing on a piece of
newspaper (streched between benches or chairs ) and the paper did not even tear. IIRC,His assistant who did the the same ,
tore a big hole though it.It is the same principle being done in fragile china ware.
Your "internal martial art" is really, really weak. Your word and a Ripleys Believe It Or Not show or two does not a believer
make.
If this was in any way proven or quantifiable, you would not be able to keep the masses of wanna-be's from joining their
neighborhood internal MA clinic, there would be untold numbers of people exploiting the concept, and not least of all, the
government (ours and all others) would exploit it, too.
The fact is it's not a fact. Deal with it.
nbk2000 June 26th, 2006, 12:04 AM

I'll put my Gun-Fu, Bomb-Fu, and Poison-Fu to the test against your inner-chi power anytime Cutefix! :)

Your "internal martial art" is really, really weak. Your word and a Ripleys Believe It Or Not show or two does not a believer
make.
Look here cobalt

The primary weakness here lies in the people who have never experienced it.that out of envy wants to denigrate it to justify
their skepticism.:p
In this particular case

The difference between reality and illusion is relative to the person...the observer and the doer.
The observer after seeing the phenomena tried to ascribe some form of reason to make it comprehensible to his limited
mindset.
Unfortunately he cannot totally grasp the strangeness that it defies his reasoning power and accumulated experience and
knowledge.:p
Therefore his immediate attitude is to denigrate such observation as a form of mumbo jumbo, slight of hand or any fancy trick
that his eyes were not able to catch in complete detail nor his brain cannot comprehend.:p
The doer does not care if the observer understand what has been seen by anybody as he actually experienced and really did
it!:cool:
Regardless if the observer laughs at him, it does not matter...

As the doer personal experience in that act is an embodiment of truth.:cool:
Eat your heart out cobalt! Content yourself with easy to learn martial arts:p
And by the way don't forget your knives and guns...:p

I'll put my Gun-Fu, Bomb-Fu, and Poison-Fu to the test against your inner-chi power anytime Cutefix!
NBK... I cannot blame you...IIRC about you....being an ex convict you people mentally lack the discipline and tenacity for
martial art training and if offended would immediately look for guns and knives to get even with the antagonist.:p
But its just a pity .:( ..you have the balls for mayhem .:cool: ...the ancient art of ninjutso I think is just right for you...that is if
you have the patience and the stomach to train for it!:)
They use guns, all sorts of blades ,even bombs and poisons...just the kind of toys you love to play:cool:
BTW the ninjas have their improvised guns in the past aside from the blow guns, darts and shuriken...and one modern
ninjutso practitioner I had met are open minded to using modern guns.
Don't lose hope....

BTW the ninjas have their improvised guns in the past aside from the blow guns, darts and shuriken...and one modern
ninjutso practitioner I had met are open minded to using modern guns.
Your god damn right we are open minded about using modern stuff. Yeah, there is a place for tradition, but we place survival
above tradition. Ninjutsu is a good martial art. I won't say its the best (who can?) but it teaches you to think differently.
Everything can be a weapon if you look at it in the right light.
Have a little read about the 5th dan black belt test for ninjutsu. I'll leave it up to you to make your own assumptions based
upon what you read, but to me its a textbook example of 6th sense if there ever was one.

Ok... now I think I understand why they make us fight in low light conditions. And here I was thinking our Masters were stingy
bastards, trying to save on the power bill. ;)

Everything can be a weapon if you look at it in the right light.
Ninjutso techniques has been borrowed by special forces such as stealth and the use of silent weapons.
The ability to fight in any conditions is another training technique to any special forces soldier in many countries.
The essence of effective offense is to catch your opponent off guard and use that to your advantage:cool:
Regarding sixth sense,, the ability to pre-empt any offensive or danger is valued asset... Great Masters of many martial arts
have that keen sensitivity to discern danger and even anticipate the method of attack that the likely opponent may have to
use against him.
Often it manifest as hightened sensitivity of hearing and feeling of whatever dangers that lurks around his vicinity.
Ok... now I think I understand why they make us fight in low light conditions. And here I was thinking our Masters were stingy
bastards, trying to save on the power bill
Even when we were kids we watch Tv with great enjoyment this blind Samurai Zatoiche slaying an opponent that he can't even
see.:cool:
BTW fighting in low light conditions is really part of training program for advanced students in many martial arts.
For example in the advanced class of tai chi where senior students are blindfolded and they have to feel their way and fight
with their peers and knock them down.:cool:
That is good in developing effective reflex action.
nbk2000 June 26th, 2006, 10:35 PM

A Dojo of ancient chinese design, warmly lit by beams of summer light, faintly reflected in the dust suspended in the still air.
Seated at one end of the dojo, sipping at a cup of tea is an unimposing figure of slight build, wearing glasses and the long
coat of a mandarin.
At the other end is a massively muscled warrior, wearing only the loose pants of his gi, going through his kata routine. The
dojo resounds with the powerful hits of his bare feet and fists of fury ;) against the training bag, with puffs of white smoke
forming with every hit.
After a few minutes of this, he stops and turns towards the mandarin sipping his tea.
'You dared to claim that my Chi was impotent against your style, but look at you! You can barely lift that cup of tea!'
The mandarian gives just the slightest raising of an eyebrow at this insult.
'You come here while I am grieving for my dead master and claim that you could defeat him?! You are not worthy of even
saying his name!'
The mandarian simply continues to sip his tea.
'My master has taught me the secrets of controlling Chi, the force of the universe! I can not be beaten by any mortal man!
And if you weren't so feeble, I'd kill you for the insult to my masters teachings!'
By now the mandarin has finished his tea and dabbed his lips with a tissue. Upon finishing:
'Do not worry about me, most estemeed warrior. I have not lived this long without learning a thing or two about true power.'
'Oh, is that so old man? Well I'd like to see this power of yours!' sneers the warrior.
'If you wish the proof of it, stand in the center of the floor and I will meet you there.'
The warrior smirks at the arrogance of the old man as he swaggers to the middle of the floor to await the old fool.
With a low sigh, the mandarian rises and hobbles towards the center of the dojo floor.
After a minute, he reachs the center of the dojo where the warrior stands rigid.
With a slight push, the mandarian topples the mighty warrior onto his back.
The warrior lays on his back with his limbs locked rigid as the years slide off the 'old mans' face, transforming into the face of
a much younger man.
'Look at you now. Your chi is impotent against my science.'
'How easily you were lead to do what I wanted you to do by your own prideful arrogance.'
At hearing this, the fallen warriors eyes are both terrified and confused.
'Oh. You're wondering how I defeated you?'
'When I first came here several months ago, disguised as a buddist pilgrim, I rubbed an encapsulated paralytic protein dust
on the training bag. Every day when you've hitting it, the dust has been floating in the air where hence you have breathed it
in.'
'And when I walked across the dojo floor today, the catalyst that removes the encapsulation from the protein was smeared on
the floor from my tabis. As you stood on it with your bare, sweaty feet, the protein that blocks the signals from your brain from
going to your muscles, was released from it confining encapsulant, leaving you in the sad state you are in now.'
'I might have been affected myself if I hadn't been sipping the antidote while you were flexing your muscles.'
The warriors eyes flashed at this insult to his manly prowness, but he quickly lost his heat when he realized the humiliating
truth of it.
'Oh, and I killed your master the same way. I sent him a letter with the catalyst on it, and greatly enjoyed the reports of his
slow withering death. He didn't get the antidote that you'll be getting shortly.'
'So you see, no matter how strong your body, or your belief in Chi, you are impotent against the power of science.'
:)
With that said, a snap of the mandarins fingers summons two very large men, one white, the other black.
'I'd like to introduce you to my servants, Bubba and Tyrone.'
'They'll be getting to know you in a...deeply pornographic fashion...for the next two weeks while you ponder on how I defeated
you.'
'At the end of that time, you will have the opportunity of either becoming my servant, or experiencing a further demonstration
of the power of science as I command the four forces that bind the Universe to disappear you into the singularity of Hot
Electron Death.'
With a nod from the mandarin, the two horny bucks picked up their new toy with eager hands and made for the nearest
bedroom, while the mandarin walks around his new dojo, all the while flicking his zippo lighter in anticipation of that nights
bonfire.
The End (of Cutefix?)
++++
Anyone want to guess what sentence got cutefix banned?
tdog49 June 26th, 2006, 11:57 PM

Anyone want to guess what sentence got cutefix banned?[/QUOTE]
Ok, I'll bite. Here's my guess:
"NBK... I cannot blame you...IIRC about you....being an ex convict you people mentally lack the discipline and tenacity for
martial art training and if offended would immediately look for guns and knives to get even with the antagonist.
But its just a pity . ..you have the balls for mayhem . ...the ancient art of ninjutso I think is just right for you...that is if you
have the patience and the stomach to train for it! "
Personal attack????
nbk2000 June 27th, 2006, 02:27 AM

Bingo! We have a weiner. :)
The first sentence is the trigger, yes.
"...being an ex convict you people mentally lack..."
Alexires June 27th, 2006, 12:29 PM

*grin* Nice situation NBK.
I would put my money on the small unimposing figure being a ninja.
Actually, NBK, I would have say that your mindset is wonderfully built for ingenuity and improvisation. If the chance ever
presents itself, I would recommend having a look into ninjutsu.
If nothing else, you could teach them a thing or two about preperation, observation and improvisation. ;)
tdog49 June 28th, 2006, 02:05 AM

Bingo! We have a weiner. :)
Yay!!!
Oh I wish I was an Oscar Meyer weiner...

Then everyone would be in love with me!!!!
Asriel November 25th, 2007, 04:07 PM

While it can often be an apples to oranges question, for the purposes of self-defense I have more faith in Krav Maga than any
other. First off it is very much an inherently practical, function over form kind of art, but it is also developed by the military I
trust to good more than any other in the world, the Israelis. Their intelligence and special forces have proven themselves so
many times over I have nothing but complete faith in a martial art developed by them.
Defendu November 25th, 2007, 05:59 PM

omfg krav maga is teh deadly
Obvious fact:
SF units that train to be experts in hand-to-hand and act like "ninjas" wouldn't stand a chance against SF units who train to be
experts in gunplay.
Killy November 26th, 2007, 12:22 AM

Not too much philosophy,
Best martial art = ANY martial art that you are good at, plus some muscle power

This question is actually a simple one IF the subject matter is looked upon in the light of logic. The best martial art is the
WILL to win.
No matter what "style" one is willing to employ; if one has not the WILL to win, it is all for nothing.....
A person with incredible WILL may prevail over those [with skills superior to their's] if the skill is employed in a manner that is
not backed up with a superior desire to see the deed to the end. I have personally seen a man who SHOULD have won an
altercation whipped big-time by another man with every intention of winning! The former thought himself superior to such a
degree that he did not appreciate the intensity of the latter. He thought his ability would see him through to the end.
All aspects of survival are controlled through the brain. I laugh when people speak of "muscle memory"; as if muscle can
remember something. The brain remembers....not the muscles of the body. (See "panic mode" and it's effects on "training";
blind repetition does not take over the body after a period of reflexive action has expired and adrenalin has ebbed!)
Think this through and you may agree that it's the WILL to win anything that will see any animal to victory. A water buffalo
SHOULD defeat a lion based on strength and ability but such is not always the case... I happens only when the lion has lost
the WILL to win.
WWII November 26th, 2007, 02:37 PM

Obviously, WWII combatives by Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate. ( FSA )
mrtnira December 1st, 2007, 01:48 PM

I bought an original of a book published in Paris in 1944, immediately after liberation and while the war (obviously) was still
on. You would imagine it would be filled with great technique rivaling the Kung Fu masters of the Shaolin Temple. It was Jiu
Jitsu, by M. Feldenkrais. Was it filled with difficult or fancy techniques? No, it was filled with simple things to include hitting a
man with a pry bar ("S" shaped shop or construction tool) as an expedient weapon. Not what we consider ju jutsu today.
In the end, best becomes a relative quality. I took two years of karate in Japan, but my own physical ability by genetics was
not as good as others. The same amount of training, and there were some who became overtly much better than myself.
Genetics does affect predisposition to certain types of physical activity and relative success in that pursuit. That's why some
gymnastic martial arts are best for one person, but not the other; likewise, grappling intensive skill sets are best for some but
not for the next man or woman.
After years of working with combatives of many kinds, it comes down to principles of effectiveness for that individual doing the
practicing, not a general superiority of a particular school. The individual's ability combined with continued effective training,
and the elements of time and chance at the point of employment are significant factors in success, and we tend to judge
"best" by success. If your opponent turns out to have the physical skill of Bruce Lee, your odds of being more effective than
him may not be high, regardless of what martial art you've been working with.
May I suggest that you enjoy training with men of good character and attitude, and keep on in the pursuit of skill, but don't
look too hard for the magic formula. You best option is probably to build a solid skill set of simple responses that can be
reflexively conditioned. Here is a link to a short work of direct combat technique from America's Second World War period. The
author was an instructor to U.S. naval personnel. The civilian-police version of the training manual was published in 1951.
http://www.roughandtumblefighting.com/books/wesbrown/index.htm
Charles Owlen Picket's note above has a lot of truth to it.
Asriel December 12th, 2007, 10:07 PM

Obvious fact:
SF units that train to be experts in hand-to-hand and act like "ninjas" wouldn't stand a chance against SF units who train to be
experts in gunplay.
Besides of course you're childish misquote based off of your own lack of reading capability, you have to remember that no
martial art is taught to special forces as a main weapon, it is taught as a last resort in close quarters combat when it is the
only other option. So lets leave oversimplification of others ideas to grade school ok?
Aristocles December 13th, 2007, 12:47 AM

Muscle Memory... just a quick aside
The term is employed very differently in the world of weight training/lifting. Take powerlifting... at one time, I ran in the big
leagues of that sport.
We employed the term to mean ~ After a very long layoff- with significant atrophy, loss of much neurological efficiency- as well
as the concomitant stength- when training is reintroduced, size and strength as well as neurological efficiency are gained back
rapidly, far, far more rapidly than when originally gained. Possibly this notion of MM is a misnomer...
Eastern Europeans as well as Americans, 'sort of' employ this principle in "Strategic Deconditioning" or planned layoffs. It is
incorporated into the micro, meso, & macro cycles. Periodization, as it were. Often the "transition phase" is the actual "layoff".
So, it's not exactly the same but its principles are.
It is actually profoundly dramatic in one who takes 6-9 months off but the detraining becomes very dramatic with that length
of downtime and it begins to be a wash as to just taking a month or two off.
Here an example of what is commonly meant by the term in the powerlifting world:
I became ill and took 6 months off, lost 50 lbs. and went from benching 565 (raw) to benching 400 (raw). In the squat, I went
from 920 lbs to 720 lbs. You get the picture... It had taken many years to achieve those lifts. When I began training again, I
went from 269 lbs. to 299 lbs. in four months, thus never regaining my prior bw, and hit 580 BP (raw) 725 in a shirt, and a 940
squat, in a meet.
Charles Owlen Picket December 13th, 2007, 09:45 AM

That's a good Total. I tried it too but I have shit knees and never got a squat worth a shit. I even still have a rack at my
home; a nice one....Yea, from a PL standpoint the term is not so foolish as they do "remember" or comeback in a manner
that could be said to "remember" what the contractive impulses did previously before a layoff.
But you know what I mean: The guy who says that his arm would simply point the weapon the same way (in a co-ordinated
fashion with several factors interwoven) without engaging brain in a combative frenzy and that is simply not the truth. With the
majority of things or a complex nature, especially the "shoot / don't shoot" scenarios, the brain MUST partake in the activity.
Aristocles December 13th, 2007, 02:26 PM

I completely agree Charles, you are quite correct.
It is used in a sort of vernacular manner in powerlifting.
Defendu December 13th, 2007, 07:03 PM

Besides of course you're childish misquote based off of your own lack of reading capability, you have to remember that no
martial art is taught to special forces as a main weapon, it is taught as a last resort in close quarters combat when it is the
only other option.
Which means that hand-to-hand is second to last on the special forces priority list. You make my point for me.
Cops, bouncers, felons in prison, and many other civilians in crime ridden areas may see more real hand-to-hand fighting in a
month than SF troops see throughout their careers, but the realization of that doesn't do much to slow down the proliferation
of the MA industry's bullshit.
Charles Owlen Picket December 14th, 2007, 09:01 AM

One has only to go to any news stand and peruse a magazine catering to "martial arts" (and try to keep from laughing). The
"new something-Asian" the "new something-military": Dear Jesus, that stuff is an industry of total bullshit. And the money to
be made is unbelievable.
Anyone could do some MA bullshit program and make a little money with about a $20K start-up. What I would think you'd
need is two Asian front people (or an really nice looking Asian gal too). Japanese, Chinese, Thai, it wouldn't matter just so
they could play the part.
They would need to be an older guy and a young guy. They young guy should work out but not in front of the public. The older
guy should have trouble with his English (even if he's got a MBA from a good school) He would of course be the "Master" and
all knowledge would flow from him to the younger guy who would be good at closing deals.....Ohhhh I can see it now. If you
have a seductive young lady in a short skirt, so much the better as you could have women's self-defense offered as well. Use
a contract basis so as to tie the student into long term commitment (of finances) just like Health Clubs do.
Spatter the walls with bullshit, calligraphy, and weapons. Lease the building by the year, have a changing room but no showers
or involved plumbing and you're ready to go. "Martial Arts" are so real....So shrouded in mystery.....
gaussincarnate December 14th, 2007, 07:37 PM

You forgot the really stupid name, like Master Yamamoto's Freakin' Awesome Karate or Superkwon-do. Nothing says
"reputable institution of learning" like adding awesome, super, or ultimate to the title as many times as possible. Then you
need some retarded billboard with a drawing of some guy kicking and the sign from the Chinese restaurant, since no one can
read Chinese anyway, and only a few more can tell the difference between any of the Asian languages. Trow in a yin-yang on
the sign or the door, and the ignorant masses are ripe for the picking. And then when the market for that runs out, you can
just put in an overpriced clothes store and sell ripped jeans for a hundred bucks. Sometimes it scares me how easily people
can be manipulated.
wertyuiopasdfghjkl December 28th, 2007, 01:02 PM

What MA is best ? Well, I live in sports-country here. And MA is M-sports until it becomes an art . Here some thought's from
me:
First: Fighting is natural. Anything that made it through evolution ever since carnivores appeared on the planet can either run
very quickly or fight, often both of it. Take for example a young cat of age 1 or 2 years: Watch it, play with it, and you'll see
what fighting can be !
Or have a youtube-look onto a grizzly fight:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N7vvkloC-Ac
Second: Since you have to practice a lot, it's wise to choose something that can be practiced without ill side-effects to health.
Worn-out bone junctions or cardiovascular problems (even Bruce Lee died from a disrupted heart-muscle at age of 31 or 32
while practicing, as well as other world-class sportsmen (sometimes even younger)) are all to common, the first with the lazy
and wrong-tutored, the latter with the non-optimally overdoing people.
That sheds some light on how to choose a teacher/master: If he's old, but young-appearing and in good constitution, then
chances are his style is not too bad (chances are too he's not gonna teach you if you're wrong in the head, either).
Third: Forget all the military/police etc. styles: They are adopted half-things for making average fighters within the limited
education-time of these forces, designed to be not too complicated for even the most stupid of their members. But know the
shit that's within their brains, before they unexpectedly do it to you.
If that sort of people is bragging around, let them, they are fools. Wait a few years until they get too old for their sort of
sports and see them envy you when they discover to have been on the wrong road all the while. (Is that the just punishment
for them ? I dare not judge ...) (And don't teach them anything if they don't deserve it !!). But that envy is what you maybe
have to fear too, that's _one_ reason to exercise very hard. But it's not the best reason.
The best reason for doing MA, in my opinion, is the positive effect onto the health (if you do it right).
These were the few thing's I feel I can tell (not abusable) to anyone, even an enemy.
Besides: Sorry for the stupid use-name: I was trying to get something with chief or chef in the name, like chief_of_the_rogues
or chef_of_the_rogues, but it wouldn't work: Is the "chief"-word reserved to admin-accounts or what ???
HypocriticalBuddhist January 2nd, 2008, 02:30 PM

Since a lot of fighting styles are sport oriented these days, I would go with Traditional kung fu or ninjutsu.
Microtek January 3rd, 2008, 02:34 PM

The problem with styles that do not contain a sport element is that they usually don't do enough competitive sparring. If you
don't do that then you won't know for sure what really works against an unwilling, psyched up opponent (until it's too late). Of
course, sparring at less than full contact is not ideal either but at least you can train quite often since you don't get injured
quite so badly.
Defendu January 3rd, 2008, 04:46 PM

Forget all the military/police etc. styles: They are adopted half-things for making average fighters within the limited education-
time of these forces, designed to be not too complicated for even the most stupid of their members.
Good luck pulling off your overcomplicated MAs if you ever end up in a real balls-to-the-walls fight.
Your fight-or-flight response may not agree with your chi, but at least you'll die having not lowered yourself to studying an art
unenlightened by the Confucian wisdom of mythical 5,000 year old martial arts masters.
Man Down Under January 3rd, 2008, 07:49 PM

The simplest moves are the easiest to remember under stress. Anything that requires 'chi' to perform is doomed to failure.
Wasn't there a long-time member here who got banned for going on some mystic mumbo rant about chi?
Google is da bomb!
This 'Hutchison Effect' is also suspiciously similiar in concept to what I've come to refer to as The Force.
You know...that Jedi ability to manipulate matter by will alone...or as former member Cutefix would say "Manipulate the Chi".
:rolleyes:
:D
Charles Owlen Picket January 4th, 2008, 10:28 AM

When I was a kid we used to say that the best (and most popular) American martial arts were "Mi-Gjun" & "Ie-Sue".... :D :D :D
Grimner February 17th, 2008, 08:38 PM

Personally I like Chinese Gung Fu by a couple of reason.
1 It has evolved from fighting and been tested.
2 Almost everyone can practice it. Age, gender, strength it doesn't matter the style can be adapted for all needs.
3 Love the weapon training involved;)
4 Everything goes, Like some modern styles there aint no rulez for what you cant do.
Lots more of good reason but those will do for now.
However when it comes to Gung fu make sure its a traditional style and not the modern wushu where its more acrobatic then
fighting.

Again i have a lack of knowledge on specific martial arts, as i take no part in any. But Life and movies have taught me to
expect anything. The only way to better protect yourself, in my opinion, is to fight as much as possible. Experience is, and
always will remain the best teacher available. I don't deny that being trained in some oddly named martial art helps, but
improvisation is equal, if not more effective. Martial arts are taught in a completely controlled environment. Real life situations
are hardly controlled. I know of no martial art that teaches one to gouge eyeballs, or crush voice boxes. But if you find
yourself in a bus stop late at night, surrounded by 5 angry looking native thugs what will you do? Crouching fucking tiger? Or
run away? Or are you going to gouge the mothers eyes out, pop one in your mouth and say "I'm going to eat your fucking
hearts" and hope to death they are all scared away.
Anformula February 19th, 2008, 03:00 PM

This question is what I find interesting about the UFC type events that are becoming so popular. While still subject to some
rules, these events do give you a good idea of what fighting styles are actually effective, and what are merely glamorized
hollywood dances....
I have seen several fights where a well rounded UFC fighter destroys a fighter with a pure "martial arts" style in a matter of
seconds.
Clearly any effective style must include wrestling/ground fighting, and many (perhaps most) "martial arts" do not. Most "real
world" fights are going to quickly desolve into a wrestling style scrap....
Aikidokaguy April 27th, 2008, 06:47 PM

I am an assistant instructor in our Aikido club. Many of our students come from LE fields and include Corrections officers as
well as RCMP. With those students we specify primarily in arrest and control procedures and diffusion tactics that work to
destabilize balance points and redirect attacking energies in close quarter environments.
I find that too many Aikido clubs focus on these large swinging attacks and grace-induced flowing defenses that practically
require a ballroom to facilitate their full utility. I prefer techniques that can be used in a phone booth, or in a closed cell.
The technique of defense must be based upon the attack presented. If the attack is a close quarter small circle technique,
with very little commitment, then the defense must mirror that small form like a piece to a jigsaw puzzle. Not matching the
attack is a recipe for disaster.
You would love to see the look on the faces of Aikidoka when you defeat their large circle techniques and reverse their tech's
quickly and efficiently, and then apply small circle redirections that they have never practiced at resisting or redirecting ;)
phrankinsteyn April 29th, 2008, 02:36 AM

Most joint locking techniques are good for law dogs (aikido, hapkido, jiu jitsu, etc, etc), especially after they have you
handcuffed. They usually do not fight alone, so one can hold you arm as another uses a wrist lock or other joint manipulation
technique. In street fighting/hand to hand, from my experience, striking is what counts. Striking to vulnerable points/areas.
Wrist's are hard to grab (so are arms and legs if they are moving quickly) and remember if you can grab him he can grab you.
Now you have a wrestling match and that then will be decided by the stronger or stronger with better techniques. When you
wrestle you are vulnerable to be attacked by others (from behind) and your endurance also comes into play. Then the longer
you fight the better the chance the law will become involved. Arrest, court, possible law suit and maybe even revenge because
once arrested "bad guy" now knows your name and address :).
No fight should last over a minute. Strikes are what count. Knock him out (if possible) or disable (break bones if possible) and
get out of area as fast as possible. The only place for dancing, whether it is a big circle or small circle is a dance floor. Fighting
is for real. When you enter a fight you must assume that you may not walk away. Person may us a knife, gun or another
weapon of opportunity against you. So hit him first, hit him hard and get the hell out of there.
Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.
Aikidokaguy April 29th, 2008, 03:20 AM

Well from my own experience I have had success with many projections on the street as well as immobilizations in relation to
attacks from people near bars and parks while walking home either from work or from friends' places.
As for "law dogs" I have had stories relayed to me over the course of my work as an assistant instructor where Officers in the
RCMP have actually used the techniques taught in solo situations. Not all domestic calls include backup due to logistics and
personnel restraints(budget limitations in considering the call loads in some cities).
I would never limit my repertoire of course and do employ close quarter modified Aiki techs as well as the incorporation of
strikes for both Atemi(distraction), destabilization, and for effect(knockouts etc).
The real concern for many students is having to go to the ground in any street defense scenario. While going to the ground
may in turn have effect in winning the fight for those who are prepared to fight that battle(we do teach Ne Waza(open ground
techs) and Suwari Waza(kneeling techs) along with our standard standing forms) although the problem is obviously being in a
seriously vulnerable situation should the assailant have buddies with boots.
Your opinion of course is welcome :)
Barnacles April 29th, 2008, 04:29 AM

I think basically you should look to UFC for your answer. This is MMA Mixed Martial Arts. You can bring any martial art to the
table and a huge amount of them have been. This is the real testing grounds. Personally from watching UFC and personal
experience. This has it all, street-fighting, techincal and non-technical striking/boxing, wrestling, submissions, kicking,
everything but weapons and hits to the groin or head kicks while on the ground, and those gloves might as well not be there, I
have a pair and they dont slow you down a smidge. They are basically to prevent cuts to knuckle and face and blood getting
into cuts I presume.
I gather that the best martial arts are(can't give one but will narrow it down, and in no particular order) Boxing or Kick Boxing,
Jiu-Jitsu, Muay-Thai, Wrestling/Grappling. These are the dominant ones and seem to be the leaders of each of their
respective areas. For striking Boxing Kickboxing, and Muay Thai. For everything else Jiu-jitsu and Wrestling/ Grappling, these
are for when you end up on the ground or anything that doesn't involve just straight up striking.
And I will leave you with this , the best fighting quote ever,
"Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the face" Mike Tyson
Charles Owlen Picket April 29th, 2008, 11:21 AM

The older I get the more I love that whole issue of the classical US martial arts: "MY Gun" & "I Sue". And on a serious note I
think many people miss the point. But they may have a great awakening if they talked with someone who had to go through
the later part of their life with one arm or some other challenge. That "imperfect" person will look at self preservation very
differently....
That point being that conflict is NOT some contest. It's conflict (dictionaries have distinct meanings for each). The whole
approach is different in many places. The idea is to throw the fuck down a flight of stairs and then kick him to death. Or push
him off a railing at a shopping mall, or Jap the fuck while he's taking a piss - pushing a BIC pen in his eye.
I have never thought about the te' ta te' of trading punches & kicks. I think only about HURTING the fuck so unbelievably
badly that the question becomes one of if I can get away with it, NOT what "technique" I'm to employ. -=What you never see
coming is what you can never stop from harming you.=-
People are rag dolls after you slam their head into a brick wall or use a hammer on their temple. The point is I never am
GOING to let them see it. I'm not going to announce my intentions. I would be apologizing right up till the time they get hurt
(& hurt SO badly that they have little chance of getting their wits about them for quite some time). This whole discussion is
revolving around fighting fairly or at minimum announcing one's intentions - AND THAT'S A MONUMENTAL MISTAKE! It's only in
the movies & school yards that people announce their intentions to "put up their dukes".
The situation that becomes a nightmare & the horror of the recovery facility is spawned by dealing with someone who is
determined to harm you: not fight with you. The guy who shoots you in the lower lumbar and puts you in a chair for the last
part of your life or makes you a drooling vegetable with a claw hammer is not a man of fine physique and constant training.
He's a deeply vicious, uncaring threat, who's thinking is directed at hurting you, not challenging you to any contest what-so-
ever.
Quote from a friend of some many years ago:

"Experience, cunning, & treachery beat youth, health, & exuberance every time. That's why Generals are old fucks."
-=HeX=- May 1st, 2008, 01:34 PM

Charles: you got it in one. Nicely said. Within the last week, I have seen 2 fights in school, and have been involved in a third.
Now on to the point of saying that: in one, a vicious brute hammered another vicious brute to the ground after being told to
put em up. He showed on sign of it, just least in are began punching. It was the traditional school yard scrap.
In the other I saw, the guy tho was being confronted by two others armed with hurls (A bit like hockey sticks, just irish) kept
saying sorry and 'he didnt mean it' then kicked one into the other, down a flight of stairs. He didnt show any sign. He didnt do
any fancy shit. Just caused serious hurt.
In my case I merely put my foot into the guys inner knee and elbowed him in the nose. He didnt get up for a few minutes.
My point is that martial arts are a waste when the goal is to cause pain, not win points in a sparring contest. Just select the
best moves and practice them with a friend, if you really need martial arts.
phrankinsteyn May 1st, 2008, 10:29 PM

The most important aspect of combat is (I did not state this before and I did not see or read any other post state) having
"heart" or the killer instinct as some say. Weapons, be they hands or hand held are no use if you are not willing to go all the
way. Even a loaded rifle/pistol is useless if you cannot pull the trigger.
You have to make a moral decision prior to any battles/problems you may encounter.
Can you take a human life if necessary? Many say they can, but when the time comes they can't or if they do and then
watching the life , of the enemy/opponent, leave their body will find it horrible and sickening.
Can you, up close, feel a wet knife in your hand? Stabbing someone is like punching someone, you generally have to do "it"
many times. That is why you hear or read that someone was stabbed numerous times. Then if you cut or slice them, even to a
major artery, they may continue attacking. And again you will (as is said) "get wet" from their blood loss. It is very hard to
hold onto someone who is bloody (wet) and then there is the smell of blood in large amounts.
Can you bludgeon someone to death? Again striking them many times. Feeling the blood splatter on you.
If you use a gun/firearm, unless there is a very great distance, you will still have to witness what you have done. The closer
you are the more you see.
What if all the things that were stated above were done or attempted to be done to you? How do you believe you would
respond?
Any weapon you choose to use you must use it. You cannot hesitate. If you do it may/can be taken from you and then used
against you.
As one of Uncle Sam's (former) Misguided Children, I have encountered many hard guy's and "life takers and heart
breakers"......... :rolleyes:
To ease out of this subject, I would like to quote John Wayne in The Shootist:
"It is not always being fast or accurate that counts-It's being willing. I found out early in life that most men regardless of
cause or need aren't willing, they blink and eye or draw a breath"
Asriel May 5th, 2008, 11:50 PM

Which means that hand-to-hand is second to last on the special forces priority list. You make my point for me.
Cops, bouncers, felons in prison, and many other civilians in crime ridden areas may see more real hand-to-hand fighting in a
month than SF troops see throughout their careers, but the realization of that doesn't do much to slow down the proliferation
of the MA industry's bullshit.
Except this is a topic about martials arts, so you're point is irrelevant.
Defendu May 7th, 2008, 08:17 AM

... so you're point is irrelevant.
I don't lose track of my own point that easily.
Since military units don't do a lot of hand-to-hand combat, their adoption of any system can not be used to "prove" its
"deadliness" as Krav Maga marketing drones and WWII combatives zealots would like to think.
If you're looking for a decent method of unarmed self defense, experienced cops, bouncers, prison inmates, and ordinary
civilians who've been in real fights are just as relevant, if not more so, than some retard in army fatigues you might have seen
in a Black Belt magazine ad.
JouMasep May 9th, 2008, 10:57 PM

The Best Martial Art?
Firstly, the nature of this question is hugely general; there is no such medium that will be best under all circumstances, for
every individual, at every stage of his martial art development.
But let me throw in my bit.
I admire aikido; I find judo by far the most enjoyable martial art, I admire also the grace of kung fu, and I have a lot of
respect for the high degree of fitness that most of the Muy Thai guys have.
No matter what one takes up, it takes years of practice to become proficient and even if one has great physical ability, the
mental aspects are never quickly acquired.
But no matter how well trained, how focussed one can become under tournament or street fight circumstances, or how well one
can time ones delivery, in the end it all comes down to punching and kicking power
And all other factors (amount of training, quality of tuition etc.) being equal, the one thing that will make that punch or kick
the best or the most devastating is TECHNIQUE!
Without technique, you will never do much damage, and if you cant duck fast, the other guy will clobber you.
How important is technique really? And what will it get you? Allow me to give some illustrating examples.
Ask that question to a golf pro!
He can start to talk now, and still be at it in a weeks time. The nuances of club and body movement that exist are myriad and
they are real, they all matter! No matter how athletic you are, if you dont know what you are doing your ball will end up no
where. The 125 pound weakling with a good technique can drive his ball way beyond where you ever get it even if you have
huge arms and hack at it with your full might.
But thats where the rub lies, you use your arms only, our weakling uses his entire body, with every part from toe to top of his
head in a perfect and harmonious way.
Also: E=1/2MV2 ; the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.
If one can make ones fist travel 20% faster, then the impact will increase by 44%.
If one wields a long whip with ones arm, it will crack. What is this cracking sound, what causes it?
The sound that you hear is the tip of the whip breaking the sound barrier! By using ones body and arm in the correct, wavelike
manner, one can let the extension of that arm reach enormous speeds but the movement has to be right, otherwise it wont
work.
Lastly: have you ever seen Bruce Lee doing his one inch punch?
It works like this: he positions himself in front of his victim, he anchors his feet in a typical stance, with his shoulders sort of
square (chest parallel with victim) and with his punching arm almost fully straight at the elbow, his fist one inch from the chest
of the victim, he delivers a completely incapacitating blow from that very short distance.
At one inch distance! When I saw this the first time, I thought that it would be very, very hard to achieve. But its not so bad
really, and if you have done it once to a pals sternum during some little demonstration, you will be more careful next time.
Not that your pal will volunteer in a hurry again. But you have to do it right, otherwise you'll merely give a little push.
I hope you get my drift with my plea for technique.
Now I could try to write a very long story as to how to go about it, but I dont believe in learning martial arts from the written
word. Not that it cant be done, but it is simply very ineffective.
I will suffice to say this: get the optimal stance, initiate a sort of a wave through your body starting at the feet, this wave
pushes the punching side of the pelvis forward, the wave continues, almost propelling the punching arm by itself, whilst the
other arm is drawn backwards. do not exaggerate the twisting of the upper body. Think speed, do not force it, -the power
comes with the speed, and at he moment of impact drive the fist through the opponent with irresistible force, by which time
the entire body is "anchored" to the ground, and the skeleton is aligned in such a way that it is "behind the punch"
I look at this explanation and find it utterly lame, but I'll leave it anyway.
O jah, and please, please know what you are doing in terms of bone-alignment. It is only too easy to break a wrist. (if you
really are clueless), but even for the experienced if its not perfect and you hit the guys head, your hand will shatter from the
tremendous force that you can generate this way.
Let me put it like this: I am not very fit as a boxer is, I do not look huge -like a heavyweight. And under no circumstances
would I box one of these guys. (I like my brain the way it is, thank you!). But I reckon I can hit a heavy bag with more impact
than quite a few of them. Now before I sound like I am boasting, I have to say that I would not stand much of a chance to
even my own weight class, these guys are way too tough and I would not even be allowed to kick. I would end up loosing
probably. I respect boxers, and I hate those big, stupid gloves.
I was just taught a superior way of punching and kicking and that is why I punch harder; way harder Id say
So after having broken my metacarpals three times, I quit hitting people and confine myself to bags and the occasional piece
of wood. I dont do martial art training anymore.
Even if I quit training long ago, its a bit like riding a bicycle. A new karate school moved into premises of ours last October
(style based on the same that I was taught) I still managed to impress the owner with my kicks.
The karate style I was taught is called shukokai, its founder was sensei Kimura, he is dead; he smoked too much.
But Kimura left us with the legacy of a lifetime devoted to the optimal use of the body, to deliver the ultimate blow. He did
succeed in my opinion. His work continues to evolve.
Check it out on the web, and perhaps there is a school not too far away from you.
lwtch32 May 24th, 2008, 06:27 AM

Hi People
I am a newbie here, but this topic is too good to pass up. There have been some exceptional points made so far.
I have pondered this question many times and the answers have always alternated between eclectic and unarmed combat. I
have studied JKD Concepts in the past for a while. My training of late has been the solo variety (occasionally meeting with a
training g roup ).
I have come to the conclusion that these days if you want a street effective system (in a civilian context) you have basically
two options:
1. MMA
When I first started JKD, I was rather unimpressed with the training since the school favoured a mostly BJJ approach and at
the time I thought this was nuts (having seen what happens to someone getting a shoejob on the floor firsthand). Now I
think that was rather naive of me. My reasoning here is not to study MMA as a panacea for all things self defense related.
MMA will give a good base of striking and gra ppling, and you can refine this through hard sparring -- you ll build aggression
and confidence in the process too which IMHO is more important in a live situation that any martial arts technique.
However, some things will have to be modified or removed -- like submissions and ground fighting (or at the very least keep
ground figh ting to a min imum i.e. train to get off the ground quick). Then you wou ld have to add on support skills like
Awareness, assault cues, defensive postures & covers (like the fence), scenario work, conflict cycle, legalities and weapons. A
lot of Reality Based trainers are favouring this approach along with the US Army (the Army started its MACP in 2002 I believe).
This approach works, its hardcorps based (no pyjamas or imaginary air opponents in training) and will get you results,
however this is a process (i.e. a long term endeavour) and you will have to train and maintain your skills (sadly like
everything else in life). I think Geo ff Thompson s u nique approach to applying Martial Arts to self defense is probably the
best, straight forward and simple solution to the topic of this thread. Geoff has been taking a hardcorps approach (Boxing,
Judo, Sambo etc) with his psychological tweaks befo re MMA or UFC ever became popular -- indeed his advice for self-
defense is to lea rn to hit fucking hard!
lwtch32 May 26th, 2008, 02:22 AM

RE: The One inch punch
During my Bruce Lee/JKD phase I drilled this technique a lot -- however in sparring it never came out. At the range that you
need to use the one inch punch (in a fluid situation) there isnt much time/room/footing to get the proper mechanics right --
so the Thai elbows usually came out or I would clinch and rain in knee strikes.
I think the one inch punch is a valid technique under static circumstances, like from your Fence, during the interview phase
where you are able to set up the strike still, from that range there better options:
1. Eye jab using the Hammer principal (another great concept from JKD). Since the eye jab (the loose wrist type not the spear
type) relies on speed to meet the target the fence provides the perfect vehicle from which to launch it from. Also you dont
need to commit as much of your self to the strike if the eye jab is successful or at least gets a good flinch from the bad guy,
it will buy you and opening from something more powerful as a follow up.
2. An elbow strike to the solar plexus or to the bad guys chin. Again the one-inch punch requires you to launch your fist very
close to the target. The elbow IMHO meets this criteria far better and does more damage (coupled with body mechanics it can
be devastating). Peter Consterdine does a Power Elbow of his fence where his hand is touching the bad guys chest to set
up the strike and there is another variation called the chin blast (I forget the name of the instructor that advocates this),
John Awesome Anderson also does something similar from his fence, except he employs a stiff left hook to the jaw. Personally
an elbow to the solar plexus followed by clinch knees have worked for me so ill stick with that.
I think, if you can make the one-inch punch work for you from the fence assuming your lead hand is close enough to the
Bad Guys face/sternum then go for it. Its not that hard once you get the body mechanics down. When I trained this I started
off on the bag then got my training partner to hold the strike pad for me. On the bag it had power, on the strike pad it didnt
feel so good -- I assume this was cause we were moving around and trying to hit with power.
NB: If you are looking for sources on the one-inch punch check out Lamar Daviss website there is a good article there on
execution. Also Earl Montague has a clip and articles on his site called fa-jing punching he employs similar mechanics (and
sometimes a jump!) to get power into the blow.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Further thoughts on the one-inch punch
After a rather lengthy discussion with a JKD mate of mine, I have come to the conclusion that my initial take on the one-inch
punch was rather harsh.
My mate re-iterated to me that the punch is not a be-all and end-all technique but rather a training mechanism to teach the
student to hit hard from a close distance. This comes from the traditional outlook of most martial arts systems -- one punch
one kill. He says its valid and I concur.
PS: Geoff Thompson also advocateds using chi to hit hard from different positions where bodyweight and mechanics are
lacking (fighting of the ground/knees/chair/against the wall etc). Personally I think you can hit alot harder if you hit-with-hate -
- which is why I prefer the elbow/knee/hammerfist/stomp at close intervals.
PSx2: There is a cool scene in Kill Bill Vol2 where Urma is training the one-inch punch and later uses it to escape the coffin!
nuclearattack June 4th, 2008, 06:12 AM

the best martial art doesn't exist...it's the "artist" that makes the difference.
anyway there are some kind of martial arts and combat stiles that are better than others.
in my opinion you should look for:
vale tudo, muay thai, brazilian jujitsu, grappling, wing chun.
i study wing chun and i like it very much it is very effective.
JouMasep June 8th, 2008, 04:28 PM

Naturally my mention of the One Inch Punch was not to advocate this as some great combat technique; it was meant to
illustrate what can be achieved with proper technique. If you can knock somebody of his socks at that length of fist-travel, how
devastating can you be at full movement.
But I very much feel that anyone who wishes to learn how to execute a proper punch / strike uses it as a training aid.
Even if only for the optimization of skeletal alignment and focusing of ones delivery at moment of impact.
Learn to hit fucking hard. Yep, amen to that. If a style does not completely embrace that principle, toss it.
Youll get way better physical training and discipline with ballet, and youll find that style not good for much else anyway.
Charles Owlen Picket June 9th, 2008, 11:58 AM

Putting aside all the MA Industry's hype, there are certain characteristics that can be generalized: Using one's weight to punch
or using knees or elbows, opening up one's field of vision (watching the center of mass (so as to see the legs knees elbows,
etc), & an over-riding desire to HURT the fuck & win, seem primary.
Using methods that make sense and can be used without undue thought & come naturally, having no regard for the damage
done (not watching to see what the result of a blow inflicts), & "blind-siding" or sucker-punching the individual when at all
possible - make sense. In due course, there are actually not that many times when that is NOT available, IF, one is
situationally aware.
Whether or not many fights end up on the floor are examples of the lack of the above. Wrestling generally indicates that the
primary initiation had not been debilitating enough to wound to the degree that the opponent has the ability to still grasp with
their hands, etc.
To initiate a confrontation to the degree that the opponent does not see it coming allows such simple shit as stepping on the
foot of the opponent when making a simple jab to the nose allowing the opponent to fall by stepping on his foot in the 1st
place; followed by a knee or kick in the temple or jaw. Slamming a young man's face into a plumbing fixture while he urinates
or sticking something (screwdriver) into his midsection while pushing him continually with the handle (driving both of you
forward or down) while wiggling the instrument is all very easy, if the shit-head doesn't see it coming.
This all may be accomplished by opening the field of vision up enough so the the focus of the eyes does not rest upon the
opponent's face or give away the blow. Many very skilled people still look where they strike (ask anyone who boxed as a
youngster). The relaxation of the facial muscles doesn't give away the intent to harm. That intent must be so vicious that the
results are not weighed when the decision to initiate is made.
The above is so simple that they are often passed over by money-making operations that place emphasis on the continued
involvement of the student in the "company" (gym, Dojo, whatever). Young people are primary targets for such companies
due to their belief that some magic exists to enable the skills necessary to harm another. [Myth]
Virtually ANY finger can pull a trigger and most any individual can harm another. It's what's in the brain of both at the time of
confrontation that counts. To honestly believe that some answer to being harmed exists beyond awareness & situational
factors is to buy into movie making hype & a love affair with the mirror.
### The terminology "STRAPPED" meaning that someone has a weapon on their person comes from the Prison system
wherein someone in a wheelchair has access to a sharpened object strapped to a portion of the apparatus. This used to be
extremely common due to a wheelchair's construction & the unease with which many people felt searching a wheelchair-bound
individual. Those individual OFTEN "did the deed" (when given access to the target) as they simply had both the opportunity
and the limitation of the use of their legs presented little problem as the angle of attack could be strengthened by the chair
being tough to tip from a sideways angle (they had leverage & upper body strength).
-=HeX=- June 9th, 2008, 07:38 PM

Watch the US military world war 2 era movie 'Kill or be killed' available on youtube if you search 'roguesci'. It demonstrates
how one must just simply 'get stuck in' and kick their head in. Being a student, I often Both see various fights and
occasionally participate in them. Always someone has said the basic repartee which seems nesecarry of 'put them up' or some
such shite.
This is them trying to hype themselves up. That is where you do the move in another film shown up by that search where one
gouges their eyes with the fingers, strikes their chin with the heel of the hand, and knees them in the testicles. Then when
they fall you stamp on their neck or head maybe breaking the chin, and run like hell.
In my opinion the rest of the macho bullshit can go to hell. I will fight like a coward because cowards generally survive longer.
And if they beat me they will eventually ask, a week later, why they have a biro in the gut and why their face is eating urinal
cake from a wet, smelly porclain bowl.
JouMasep June 14th, 2008, 08:06 AM

Putting aside all the MA Industry's hype, there are certain characteristics that can be generalized: Using one's weight to punch
or using knees or elbows, opening up one's field of vision (watching the center of mass (so as to see the legs knees elbows,
etc), & an over-riding desire to HURT the fuck & win, seem primary.
I agree that desire is of paramount importance as is also the ability to suspend any empathy for ones opponent. Without
that, any non-psychopath will subconsciously brake his technique at the last moment. having no regard for the damage done
(not watching to see what the result of a blow inflicts) indeed!
But these two factors are not enough in themselves except for a few, rare natural talents. And even they can become better
with training.
Because let there be no mistake: to merely establish a few basic principles and to then try and incorporate these into ones
techniques will not do a great lot; unfortunately training, repetitions in the tens of thousands, is what builds the kind of speed,
power, timing and "instincts" needed to prevail over idiots who will otherwise beat the crap out of you. By the repetitions you
gain some mental development, growth that anyone in sport and arts also experiences. Gradually you can do things that did
not work at first, and you also begin to see how the technique can be further improved.
You cant read or talk about it, you have to do it. With that comes the understanding as to what the trained guys were actually
talking about in the first place.
On the other hand, it is completely true that many schools / dojos have the commercial aspect very much on the forefront
even the good ones. Simply said: they have the desire to make money of you by keeping you enrolled as long as possible,
feeding you stuff piecemeal over a very long period of time whilst most talented guys could absorb most of it in less than 18
months. I have seen very, very good chaps who started at age eleven so you think that it takes half a lifetime, but then I
know of a guy who became even better and stronger in less than two years. (He was not too bad to begin with)
I feel that even the good schools could pay more attentions to the finer aspects of technique. Why show the basic idea only,
and wait for the trainee to work out much of it for himself over several years. If that trainee has only half a bit of talent -thru
intensive training- he could be shown 85% of what he needs to be near damn perfect in 6 months. (More will come naturally
with time.)
This point was sort of confirmed once by some previous (not current!) karate tenant. (Piece of Jew crap cost me well over ten
Gs US in the end!). The guy offered (also to me) Special Individual Tuition at some crazy hourly rates. Why not do it
properly in the first place! I was still on good terms then, politely declined. But in honesty, I do reckon I would have learned
quite a bit.
If anybody believes that training in martial arts can be dispensed with, I ask: in what sport is training not required, and also
how good / mediocre do you wish to be? If you are superman to begin with, well thats nice but for the rest of us..
The advice not to signal where your next (preferably first and last) kick will land is well taken. I myself always keep a bit of a
bored look on my face and seem to only stare at the guys larynx.
I agree that ending up in grappling is usually a sign that you did not do your strike techniques well enough in the first place.
But it can be very useful to have an ability here. Because once you end up there, and all you can do is punch and kick.
Grappling can be also useful in other ways.
About six weeks ago, I was in a situation, was drawn into it, no way out. But a kick or punch was not much of an option. Last
year I had something similar happening. And when it did not work out so well for the cockroach, he laid a charge with the cops!
I narrowly escaped a criminal conviction. (I still had to spend some time driving the cops crazy by singing loudly in my cell
where I spent two nights horrible waste of time that was.)
So this time (different cockroach), laying on top of him, I put the piece of craps neck in an arm-lock, forearm over his larynx.
He passed out (never had that happening before!). No marks, no witnesses on his side, his word against mine. I found this an
elegant, least amount of force solution.
Huh, all this violence!
Lets all think happy thoughts now.
The_Juggler July 10th, 2008, 09:08 AM

In my opinion, a great martial art to study is Zen Do Kai. It's a freestyle martial art that combines Muay Thai, Kickboxing, and
elements of Taekwondo and Juijitsu. I've been going to classes for 2 years now and I've used the techniques a few times,
such as arm locks for the occasional drunk wanting to prove that he's better than everyone.
-=HeX=- July 29th, 2008, 11:54 AM

Why dont we just forget all the shape throwing, pajama wearing bullshit martial arts that exist and instead try to deal with
attackers the way we would like to.
Nbk once said to forget kung fu and use chem fu, boom fu, or gun fu instead. Maybe its time we wised up to the fact that the
shit we meet on the street is probably armed, and we therefore deal with him on equal terms, that is, armed.
Perhaps its time to Just throw them a chloropicrin bomblet instead of our phones and wallets. Maybe we should throw a flash
bomb at them. Maybe spray them with a dragons breath device. The right to walk the streets safely is ours and we should
enforce and protect that right with force. Armed force that is.
hickey August 2nd, 2008, 11:58 PM
Why dont we just forget all the shape throwing, pajama wearing bullshit martial arts that exist and instead try to deal with
attackers the way we would like to.
The importance of being prepared and trained in martial arts is that you have a way to defend yourself in unexpected
situatio n such a s when a bad guy tries to rob , maim, or just humiliate you .
Experience have proven that no matter how you avoid such fight there are times that you are put in the corner that you have
no recourse but to fight back.
And the worst is if you are unarmed and alone.
Would you just accept the maulings which might bring you to the hospital and the worst ,....to your early demise?
Nbk once said to forget kung fu and use chem fu, boom fu, or gun fu instead. Maybe its time we wised up to the fact that the
shit we meet on the street is probably armed, and we therefore deal with him on equal terms, that is, armed.
If NBK wants to use weapons etc, its implies that he was not trained in any fighting arts, that his point.,; but to many of us
there that have such experience and training we will not just sit there have your self pummeled by a scumbag.
There is a place for weapo ns but you can t carry those thing s everytime; unless you are a bad ass yourself that you want to
create some form of mayhem to any hapless guy that you will senselessly carry weapons whenever you go?
BTW
Just a thought for NBK: I am pretty amused what he will do if he will be put in such rare situation being unarmed and have
no good fig hting skills to boot, a nd there are bad guys trying to put their hands on him ..:p
phrankinsteyn August 3rd, 2008, 05:10 PM

This was not told to me so I did not edit it. It was copied from another group on the internet.
It is truthful and practical from some of my own experiences (I did not fight in Korea. I am not that old). :) All humans react
different to pain and the sight of blood (especially their own) when they are fighting for there life (It is not TV or the movies)
and on the plus side rocks (or some other striking instruments aka a weapon of opportunity) are just about everywhere :).
"I had a very interesting conversation with my grandfather's brother who served in Korea and he said that the only way if you
are going right in is to grab the ankles, moving your feet to the side as you grab him with all the momentum. You may not
have time to watch where the knife goes.
Do not bend your knees that deep so you can respond quickly on your feet. Your body should act as a lever. He goes down.
You stay on your feet. He said it is exactly like taking the high ground.
The another thing he said to never attack the man's arm holding the knife. This goes against every advice and this is from
experience. Go for the free arm and get behind him quick and get out your bayonet on your belt and stab him, your blade
should be horizonal as you kill him with several knife thrusts. Not just in his back but to the obliques too.
Do not stab aimlessly. Stab with purpose. The first few times he fought with his bayonet, he said he was stabbing aimlessly.
Some men went into shock and some did not go into shock until a World War Two soldier told him to memorize the human
anatomy diagrams in his mind then see the vital organs, the same way you would see the enemy charging you. He said this
helped him survive hand to hand, bayonet and rifle battles in Korea.
If you do not have a bayonet then sweep him off his feet then move out of the knife range as he lands on his stomach he
may drop the knife to absorb the fall face forward, not on his back because his knife could drive right back toward your body or
face.
Violently attack his neck with a rabbit's blow several times as he goes down, do not waste your time attacking his spine or his
ribs. You do not want him to get angry and get up to attack you. He must stay down and use your knee drops, attack him with
eye gouges and finally the neck snaps.
The knife may or may not go into his stomach but he must be killed quick because he could get up with shock and anger then
go for an all out attack against you.
The same goes with neck snaps, just because his neck was snapped does not mean he is out of the fight. He said this has
surprised and terrified many new soldiers in Korea to find they are suddenly fighting a very angry man again, who moments
ago was on the ground got up quickly intent on killing him, even if his injuries should have killed him.
He said has seen men who had their eyes gouged still fight with intensity and such ferocity. The fought all the way to the very
end. Never let him get the upper hand at all. He will fight you even if his eyes are out.
Do not believe anyone who says they have seen a man's eyes pulled out and he is rendered helpless, in fact he will explode
with anger and kill you or the soldier next to him. He said he has seen this in combat.
He said one of the most important things he learned in Korea is when to punch or kick because some punches or kicks will
make a man very angry at that moment. You do not want a man to get off the ground very quickly and attack you.
Knowing when to punch or kill is not enough. You must learn what his reactions are likely to be in hand to hand fighting, knife
or rifle battles. This is what helped him survive in Korea.
He said that anything in your hand is better than punching or using judo chops. He said bare hand fighting and kicks can really
get you killed in the wintertime especially if your hands or feet are frozen.
He said big rocks on the mountain about the size of a football or a little bigger did a much better job than punching or kicking
especially when your hands or feet was frozen in snow.
Whenever there was mortar incoming and it hit the snow. There would be rocks you could use to kill the enemy with, that is if
one was near to your foxhole. Sometimes you had a foxhole, sometimes you had to lay down in the snow in combat. There
was no choice. You had to get used to the cold, Fight or die.
He said he collected rocks with his frozen hands and used them to kill the enemy with. He said that he had enough
ammunition by his side but his hands were so sore and frozen that he could not pull the trigger. He had to face mountains
and fields of Korean communist soldiers trying to kill him. The rocks were what saved his life.
He said that on several occasions when he tried to give people advice about knife fighting. They did not believe him so he
never bothered telling another people, even if they asked for advice.
I showed him the youtube video and he said that will get anybody killed. I am happy I was able to hear it straight from
somebody who has really been there because I am getting ready to be deployed pretty soon."
Anformula August 9th, 2008, 03:50 AM

Nbk once said to forget kung fu and use chem fu, boom fu, or gun fu instead.
Interesting quote, considering that he is now locked up, with no end in sight. Innocent or not, that is serious business....
The central lesson in fighting is never to underestimate your opponent. Another inescapeable lesson I have learned, is that
participants in any kind of fight cannot be accurately sized up, and thus the outcome accurately predicted, until the event is
over. This is true of fights with hands, knives, guns, wits, whatever. Often the characteristics that prevail have nothing to do
with strength, training, or equipment, but are traits that one is either born with or without. A sociopathic personality for
example, all else being equal, will prevail in a fight over an opponent with a conscience. Every time. As John Wayne said in
"The Shootist": "It isn't always about being fast or even accurate, it's about being willing....." Very, very true.....and it doesn't
just apply to gunfights.....
Which leads me to my point. Once past the age of 11, fighting outside the ring is pretty much a no-win proposition. No matter
how "bad", well trained, or well armed you are, there is always someone "badder", or more willing. Thus, while you might be
intending to dispense a bloody nose, your opponent might be willing to kill. How do you know what you are getting into? Even
if you prevail in the fight, there are usually other consequences, be they criminal, civil, physical, or retaliatory.
I know there are circumstances where one must fight, and I am in favor of being as prepared as one can be do deal with
situations such as this. When the need is real, one must strike as violently and decisively as possible. But in the real world,
this sort of situation is very, very rare. In the real world, the vast majority of fights are not over life, limb, or even property.
Most fights are over ego, alcohol, and stupidity. And the consequences can last a lifetime.
phrankinsteyn August 9th, 2008, 03:00 PM

Anformula,
I see you and I share similar beliefs concerning martial arts and movie quotes :) See my posts #113 and 118 in the: The
Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons
Best Martial Art
I also agree with NBK/HEX concept. Carrying these types of weapons clandestinity and legally is the problem. Also it is very
important to know how to protect yourself when you do not have access to conventional weapons (knife/gun) or chemicals,
such as when you are a guest of the state or in any area where you are searched or disarmed before entering.
Anformula August 10th, 2008, 08:33 AM

Anformula,
I see you and I share similar beliefs concerning martial arts and movie quotes :) See my posts #113 and 118 in the: The
Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons
Best Martial Art
I also agree with NBK/HEX concept. Carrying these types of weapons clandestinity and legally is the problem. Also it is very
important to know how to protect yourself when you do not have access to conventional weapons (knife/gun) or chemicals,
such as when you are a guest of the state or in any area where you are searched or disarmed before entering.
You should kick my ass for plagerism......:p
Or for posting without reading the entire thread first..... Like they say, great minds......
My main point is not however to fight quickly and decisively, my main point is that the vast majority of fights can be avoided,
and should be if one is wise.
phrankinsteyn August 10th, 2008, 03:28 PM

My main point is not however to fight quickly and decisively, my main point is that the vast majority of fights can be avoided,
and should be if one is wise.
Agreed, the best thing is to avoid a fight. You should always try to talk your way out (if for no other reason then to buy you
some time for help to arrive, a distraction before you strike or for witnesses to gather) and walk away if possible. Your mind is
your primary weapon (where have I heard that before?:D). But there are times when you have no choice. That is when you
must act quickly and what some may consider brutally.
To end with a couple of quotes from Sun Tzu "The Art of War" :):
To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Very cool Rocket Plans
Log in
View Full Version : Very cool Rocket Plans
webmastter April 11th, 2003, 11:50 AM

In the <a href="http://plans.rocketshoppe.com /," targe t="_blank">http://plans.rocketsho p p e . c o m /,</a> m ore very cool pla ns
by d ownload.
darkdontay April 11th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Okay that lin k is all screwed up you ad ded a co m m a at the end. Here it is right
<a href="http://plans.rocketshoppe.co m/" target="_blank">http://plans.rocketshoppe.com/</a>

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R eactive Arm or
Log in
View Full Version : Reactive Armor
Flake2m S e p t e m b e r 2 7th, 2002, 11:55 AM

I would like to know if anyone has research and experimented with Reactive arm or?
I t w o u l d b e u s e f u l i f s o m e o n e h a s d o n e s o m e R&D into reative armor because then the finding could be used to improved it,
or find a way to defeat it more easily.
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 2 7th, 2002, 12:50 PM

W hy would anyone have experim ented with such things? It's not like any of us have tanks we need to protect.
Flake2m S e p t e m b e r 2 8th, 2002, 09:16 AM

T h e m e m bers of this forum that are doing som e R&D into shaped charges could m a k e a f o r m of reactive arm or to test out how
effective an shaped charge is against different arm or types.
It should be fairly easy to make reactive arm or. I would coat a thick stee l plate (5m m steel) on one side with an HE like PET N
and then place a thinner steel plate (1 .2m m) on top of the HE.
(correct me on this) When the r e i s a n e x p l o s i o n c l o s e e n o u g h a n d p o w e r f u l l e n o u g h t o d e t o n a t e t h e e x p l o s i v e u n d e r n e a t h , t h e

t h i n s t e e l p l a t e i s u s e d a s a s h i e l d t o d e f e c t t h e h o t g a s e s c r e a t e d a n d p revent them from penertrating the thick arm or.
Anthony S e p t e m b e r 2 9th, 2002, 09:47 PM

W hat's the point? You'd know it'd work, so it's not really in need of "proving". Besides, I don't know about other mem bers, but
I for one lack a .50 rifle to test it with...
BTW , you wouldn't catch m e u s i n g 5 m m of steel as protection, u n l e s s y o u u s e a m inute am o u n t o f e x p l o s i v e i t ' d m o r e t h a n

likely be breached.
ENGINEERKILLER October 3rd, 2002, 12:11 AM

I don't understand why it is assumed that reactive arm or will function if it is hit by a .50. I have shot 155m m rounds full of
comp b with incendiary tracers and all the round did was pass through. The sam e goes for c-4 as long as it is not on fire when
you shoot it nothings gonna h appen.
Eliteforum October 3rd, 2002, 01:37 PM

I f s o m e o n e h a s c a s h t o s p a r e , I know a few sites that sell tanks, starting from around 9,000.
Now.. where's m y c h e q u e b o o k . . : D
Anthony October 3rd, 2002, 05:05 PM

ENGINEERKILLER, it was mentioned in the Penetrating Thick Skinned Targets thread that a .50 cal (BMJ I presum e) would
activate reactive arm our.
Obviously I'm not saying you're wrong, just going on wh a t h a s b e e n s a i d . W ith the 155mm s h e l l s , m a y b e i t w a s b e c a u s e t h e y
lacked the "anvil" effect of a tank? I.e. the round doesn't have an inpenetratable surface to com p r e s s t h e e x p l o s i v e a g a i n s t .
nbk2000 October 3rd, 2002, 07:51 PM

T h e " R aufoss" .50 caliber round contains either HMX or A4, either one of which will set off any high explosive it im pacts in since
it is a delaye d e x p l o s i o n . T h e a r m y EO D uses it for EXO disposal. Shoot a bomblet with one and BOO M!, no m o r e b o m blet. :)
T h o u g h n o r m al ball a m m o won't set off ERA, it could de grade its effectiveness is later im pacted by explosive weapo ns. Most
ERA panels are im pervious to penetration by small arm s fire anyways.
Cyclonite May 3rd, 2003, 08:16 PM

Reacive Arm or is easy to defeat, as already stated thou gh not to many people have a use for it. More advanced HEAT round s
u s e a s m all precursor shapecharge in the front that will set off the explosives in the arm or leaving it vulerable to the large
m ain shapecharge the the rear of the projetile.
cutefix May 3rd, 2003, 08:57 PM

Reactive arm or is defeated by tandem warheads; a series of explosive charges. which the first one will set of the reacitve
armor .Then the seco nd one will penetrate the arm or.
H a v e a l o o k a t p a t e n t 5 , 7 4 4 , 7 4 6 f o r e x a m ple.
T h e r e a r e s o m e rum ours that Russia is developing a a series of three explosive charges which was focused on destroying the
C h o b h a m arm or of the Abram s T a n k .
I a m not sure if that is the m odel that disabled a few of these tanks in the latest Gulf war.

I was reading not so long ago about research centers that experim ent with high e nergy particles, sending them shooting
around a controlled area, crashing into things. Som etim es howver, these hit the walls, and so the centers developed plasma
shields which form instantly to plug holes, and are to dense for the particles to get through. I don't rem e m b e r a g r e a t d e a l
about this article (hence the vague post), but I hope so m e h o w m a y h a v e h e a r d s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h i s . I w o nder if this
technology m ay ever be used in military application.
-Ancalagon
GibboNet June 12th, 2003, 10:07 PM

I have an article on reactive arm our and why it was created, it's explained form a very 'newbie' point of view, but it is
interesting. Until I get a working scann er, I can't quickly get it on here, but if anyone is su fficiently interested, I will read it into
voice recognition.
It's titled "Anti-Anti-Anti Tank Weapons" From "latest great mom ents in science"

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > 100Kw laser plane
Log in
View Full Version : 100Kw laser plane
Mick September 28th, 2002, 12:39 PM

<a href="http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=news/masd0926.xml" target="_blank">http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/
news/channel_military.jsp?view=story&id=news/masd09 26.xml</a>
is it me or does this just sound way to "star trekish"? :D
after reading the topic <a href="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000403" target="_blank">"Penetrating thick skinned targets"</a> which
dealt with numerous hypothetical ways to defeat reactive armor. i figured this new theoretical weapon should be thrown into the "Think tank" to see what everyone comes up
with.
so, people what are you thoughts on it?

how effective do you think something like this would be against certain targets?(ie. tanks, buildings, infantry, saddam etc etc etc) or more to the point, what would it do to the
target?
and how do you suppose you would defend against something like this?
now, i know diddly sqaut about lasers and what the power ratings mean on them(a 100Kw laser is the same as a pen laser as far as i know).
the first idea that came into my head was just to reflect the beam with a mirror(obviously some kind of special mirror).
you could possibly improve on that idea by hooking this special mirror upto a computer of sorts which would calculate the location of the plane that fired it and tilt the mirror
accordingly so it reflects back at the plane.(like i said, i know squat about lasers..so i'm really just pissing in the wind to see what happens)
sorry if this is in the wrong section - i just figured it could go here, cause the topic <a href="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000403"
target="_blank">"Penetrating thick skinned targets"</a> which dealt with defeating reactive armor etc did. anways, moved to the right section if its wrong.
[ September 28, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Mick ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> now, i know diddly sqaut about
lasers and what the power ratings mean on them(a 100Kw laser is the same as a pen laser as far as i know).<hr /></blockquote>Err, a pen laser is 2mW = 0,002W. 100kW = 100000W! This kind of laser would vaporize a tank! It would be overkill to use it on a tank.

i believe that lasers would be a GREAT idea, IF we all had access to the common components of a laser (the higher power lasers rely on iodine/hydrogen peroxide combination
i believe)
EDIT: I know that these chemicals are available but the precision machined mirrors and focusing lenses are hard to come by and hard to make well
basically, GOOD lasers are hard to make unless you have access to highly specialised machinery. If access to a friendly university campus could be arranged then i'm sure that
a portable weapon with multiple shots could be made, but it would be a chemical laser rather then an electrical laser (higher energy/density charactoristics then batteries) but
this would limit the weapon to being about 20/30 shots and it would be limited in range/limited to anti-personnel (a big-ass weapon that can only shoot 20/30 times and then
needs to be reloaded with hazardous chemicals sounds really practical) .... all the usual things attributed to lasers (and by the way, it would be nigh-on impossible to make the
adaptive mirror using easy to access components)
i suppose a one shot weapon COULD work, in a bazooka configuration with large chemical tanks (=heavy) then you might have a anti-APC vehicle but anti-tank i doubt.
lasers work on the idea of exciting atoms within a chamber, this excitation is then ceased and the atoms return to the previous energy state by emitting the laser light. this
happens multiple times and each "wave packet" (over-simplification) joins with other packets which add together and form the laser beam as we see it. This laser beam
causes the target to become hot, the beam is so intense infact that the beam practically only heats the local area (cross-section of beam) and so the transmitted energy heats
only a small area (i.e. 1mm across) this means that a human would have a small spot that is for a brief instant BOILING (water in tissues would be boiling off) and then the
solid mass become super-heated and it burns away.....
solid objects work on a similar principle, the moisture evaporates, and then the material burns away (in oxygen)... this requires a lot of heat to produce and if you are playing
across the target then it becomes a LOT harder as the heat mus be sufficient to burn through the armour at the moment the laser plays across it.
(please forgive me for vastly over-simplifying the process but it would be quite a few pages of high level chemistry/physics to get across the full extent of the problem)
p.s. mirrors would work but in reality they need to cover the target to work, and REALLY high power lasers would vapourise them after a short while.
Boob Raider September 29th, 2002, 09:45 PM

Well lasers are a really sexy choice but as most of you know .... a sexy chick with you :D isn't so healthy for the pocket either :( . Even a 100W CO2 laser is out of the reach
of most enthusiasts (sp?), let alone excimer :( . The net doesn't have much info on them but there is shit load of info about the other kinds .... Samuel M. Goldwasser is really
good <a href="http://www.repairfaq.org" target="_blank">http://www.repairfaq.org</a> but like I said ... it might hurt your wallet.

I'll believe it when I see it!
Not only is that laser going to be fecking huge and heavy... the biggest problem is going to be powering it! A 1MW generator is going to be seriously heavy! Even the cabling to
carry is going to be high.
Say the plane has the room and more importantly can carry the wait *and* still be fast and maneouverable enough to be deemed a fighter, 1MW = approx 1250HP, plus loses
in generator. It'll be interesting to see the effect drawing that power from the main engine has, and also how they intend to gear the jet engine's shaft speed down to a
manageable speed to run the genny. Also how big and heavy this box will be to handle 1250+HP.

They were talking about this on CNN a few hours ago. The first test is in 2 years and it will be on a 747. That means it won't be small if they need an entire jumbo jet to haul
it. They plan on the first prototype systems for fighter jets being available within 10 years. First it will be used as anti missile defence, then against enemy aircraft, then ground
vehiches and troops. They said it would only damage electronic circuitry in its first iterations. That means by 2030 we might actually have such weapons to zap you from the
sky.
12 years I bought a laser for $600 about the size of a loaf of bread, with an ac adapter the size of a brick. It had no more power than a pen laser does today. Last year I got a
pen laser for 5 bucks smaller than a pen even. See the trend here?
NoltaiR September 29th, 2002, 10:51 PM

Sounds like an adults version of 'laser tag'... I could just imagine the WWIII infantry running in with little laser guns and chemical photon packs on their backs... it would be
exactly like a land version of star trek!
I know that the thought of this should probably make me a bit afraid, but for some reason I just can't stop smiling :D
Madog555 September 29th, 2002, 11:34 PM
i have a small He/Ne laser that my uncle obtained for me a couple years ago, he works for a german laser company, he has a T-laser and a CO2 laser in his basement, realy
fun to play with. they are both infared, but if u focus the T-laser (need some weird material sience it doesnt go throguh glass to do this) it will turn the air to plasma at the
focal point.
MrSamosa September 29th, 2002, 11:44 PM

I can't really add much to this discussion, but if you all are interested in international regulations and the rules of war... Lasers are not allowed to be used against personnel;
only vehicles. Similarly, you are not allowed to fire an anti-tank weapon at a person, but you are allowed to throw grenades at them. :confused:
Nika452 September 30th, 2002, 12:30 AM

Apparently using long-range UAV's bearing weapons for combat operations was also against the rules of war, due to the 1988 INF treaty. But this doesn't stop Bush.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur September 30th, 2002, 04:58 AM

Actually you can not use BLINDING lasers "laser-weapons whose sole purpose is to incapacitate via the blinding of opposition troops"
this is the f&*ked up thing about war,

you are allowed to shoot him, burn him,nuke him but not blind him :confused: what sort of screwed up idea is that....
it may interest you all that the chinks have made and sell blinding lasers, it blinded/dazzled a few american pilots in kosovo.
the ABM 747 mega, is actually made with a MUCH higher powered
laser then 1mw, its designed to knock theater ballistic missiles (TBM'S)and most inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM'S)out of the air. As such it requires vast amounts of
energy, and so it utilises the chemical excitation that i mentioned :D the smaller laser (what we're talking about) would be solid state (ruby laser etc) and would most probably
have a seperate generator built within the craft (or an attachable generator in the shape of payload i.e. "dumb" bomb) if you think about the abilities that this posseses (able
to fire many times without reloading, able to use without compromising stealth charactoristics etc) then the laser is an attractive option, as the power will always go up after
some new technological breakthrough, or a bit of R&D on this laser in combat...
we might get up to the point that sci-fi wanted us to be in about 50 years. I think that in the past people over-estimated what we were going to do (i.e. live on moon in the
80's) but at the moment we are underestimating what we'll be doing, as the technology coming through could allow us some serious weapons, cappable of winning a war if
used at the right time. I'm not talking about a B-2, it's more likely a prototype that the american governement has in white-sands missle base. the aurora or its newer cousin
(i was about to describe it as "sexy new cousin" i'm a tad worried now that i have romantic notions on an airplane :D )
[ September 30, 2002, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]
imported_Crow September 30th, 2002, 07:25 AM

I was watching a program the other night 'Future weapons' that had something similar. It is so large that it will have to be built into a boeing 747 and it is so far, only under
development to bring down missiles. The lasser is only powerful enough to melt through the metal sheilding of the rocket, and use its own propellents to bring it down. The
laser is far to large at this point, in my opinion, to ever be used in a fighter, since this one in a boesing747 is pretty weak itself(I forget the wattage). :rolleyes:

It's not actually weak, its because there is such a huge distance between the target and the laser plane, we're talking hundreds of miles
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The oxygen-iodine laser fired
from the nose of the aircraft will be capable of burning a hole the size of a basketball in a missile's skin at a distance of 200 miles, generating temperatures hotter than 10,000
100-watt light bulbs, officials say. The actual temperature of the laser is classified, said Kenneth Englade, a spokesman for the project.<hr /></blockquote>(taken from CNN.COM) I dont really understand how they consider the temperature to be classified, go figure the military swot that
decided that :rolleyes:
after reading another website it said that the POWER was classified, makes a bit more sense that, they say it produces more then 1MW but that the exact figure is classified. i
suppose that you could take the theoretical power given in the example and putting in a few presumptions you would have the power.
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Developed by the U.S. Air
Force in 1977, the laser relies on a chemical reaction between chlorine, hydrogen peroxide and iodine to create an actual explosion of light. That light is funneled down a long
mirrored tube and exits the aircraft through a flexible lens in the nose cone.
Air Force engineers hope to create laser blasts capable of exceeding seven minutes, with planes able to fire off 20 to 30 shots before landing <hr /></
blockquote>shit that's powerful, SEVEN MINUTES <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> and 20 to thirty
shots. I would guess this is a large margin below the ACTUAL figure as to confuse anyone that would oppose this on the basis of being "against the spirit" of the ABM treaty.
and one last point that i read from the website that gave me a creepy feeling
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> No human finger will actually
pull a trigger. Onboard computers will decide when to fire the beam. Machinery will be programmed to fire because human beings may not be fast enough to determine
whether a situation warrants the laser's use, said Col. Lynn Wills of U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command, who is to oversee the battle management suite.
The nose-cone turret is still under construction "This all has to happen much too fast," Wills said. "We will give the computer its rules of engagement before the mission, and it
will have orders to fire when the conditions call for it."
<hr /></blockquote>Isn't that a bit worrying, if your passenger aircraft happened to get caught in the way of the
(possibly windows :D ) OS having a bit of a crash then you could be BBQ'd in an instant <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
how long before that 747 is given full A.I. and starts deciding who to zap, it'll probably be called "skyweb" :rolleyes:
Mr Cool September 30th, 2002, 05:24 PM

I've seen (on TV, obviously) a demonstration of a ground-based system shoot down a little plane/rocket thingy. I was quite impressed by the accuracy of the thing. IIRC it
used a computer controlled array of mirrors to direct the beam and counteract the "twinkling" effect caused by variations in the density of the Earth's atmosphere. Must've been
a pretty hardcore set of mirrors to direct that kind of energy!
But the main point of this post is:
"...the laser relies on a chemical reaction ... to create an actual explosion of light. That light is funneled down a long mirrored tube..."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! ROFLMAO!
"you can not use ... 'laser-weapons whose sole purpose is to incapacitate via the blinding of opposition troops'"
Lol, you can aim anywhere except the eyes. That's stupid.
Soldier: "Sorry mate, I would just blind you but there's a treaty saying that I can't, so I'm afraid I'll have to burn you to death with it instead."
Some poor old Arab on a camel with an AK: "Fair enough, I suppose. After all, you wouldn't want to be inhumane, would you?"
:rolleyes:

The thing's chemically powered...Much more interesting than needing a power supply, this means it could actually refuel inflight maybe! Or did I just gave away a good idea to
the defence guys? :confused:
[ September 30, 2002, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]

The original article states:
"Lockheed Martin anticipates the JSF using lasers against both air and ground targets, at a typical range of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles)"
Which is a bit different to the mention of 200 miles - but then we know the accuracy of mass media reporting from their coverage of explosives!
"generating temperatures hotter than 10,000 100-watt light bulbs"
WTF? That really makes very little sense... But I can see where it's come from: 10 000 x 100 watt bulbs = the aforementioned 1MW power rating of the laser, they've just
equated it to lightbulbs! But to *deliver* 1MW is going to require an input of about 10MW plus loses through anywhere up to 200 miles of atmosphere!
I think that even if they can build this thing, hitting the target is going to be darn difficult. In 30 years when this laser might be feasible, ICBMs will probably travelling at
hypervelocity and hitting one from 200 miles is going to take some doing!
I think this is just another pet project/fantasy of some official, like the starwars project.
sparkchaser November 9th, 2006, 09:39 AM

The plane does exist, and it does work. The 747 had to be extensively modified, using a large quantity of titanium. The actual laser is shielded from the cockpit completely by
a thick titanium bulkhead. The engines have been greatly upgraded to handle the extra take off weight. The nose turret is a gymballed mirror that can fire in most directions in
front of the plane, and is able to track targets real time.
The fuel is kept in a dozen or so canisters that eject from the belly of the plane after being used, and blow out a burst disk in doing so, so no refuelling in flight. The main
object of the laser is not so much to burn through the missile per se, but instead to weaken the exterior enough that the force of the missile's engine or atmospheric conditions
will actually fold it in half.
The first iteration of the plane was so heavy, and the standard engines so weak that the pilot was barely able to get it off the ground. The damage amounted to a scraped up
runway, and the bottom part of the tail section was turned into shredded aluminum.
I bet that was a nail biter of a take off!
Ygarl December 29th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Err, a pen laser is 2mW = 0,002W. 100kW = 100000W! This kind of laser would vaporize a tank! It would be overkill to use it on a tank.
Only at low-altitude ranges. Depending on the wavelength, clarity of the air, clouds etc. a 100kW laser could be considered just the ticket for tank-killing.
An unmanned plane (Remotely-operated obviously) circling at 70k+ to 90k+ feet up above a battlefield would be a reasonably cheap and very effective strategic weapon
against tanks and APCs.
+++++++++++++
Destroying tanks and APC's on a battlefield would make it a tactical weapon, not a strategic weapon, which are used to destroy enemy infrastructure (and civilians), war
material, and production capacity.
NBK

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > O ne-Thrust-Flamethrower FW46
Log in
View Full Version : One-Thrust-Flamethrower FW46
jelly October 1st, 2002, 09:46 PM

I n 1 9 4 4 t h e E i n s t o s s f l a m m enwerfer FW 46 (one-thrust-flamethrower) was developed
a s a d i s p o s a b l e o n - s h o t w e a p o n f o r g e r m an paratroope rs and attack troops.
H e r e s o m e d etails I found on the Internet:
Length: 60 cm
W idth: 7,2 cm
Height: 21 cm
W eight: 1,8 kg
Propellant: Nitrogen
Quantity of flame oil: 1,7 Liter
Burst Length: 0.5 seconds
Range of Fire: m ax. 40 m
Does anyone have pictures, drawings or plans of this weapon?
Eliteforum October 1st, 2002, 10:22 PM

<a href="http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/flam menwerfer41.htm l" target="_blank">http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/
flam menwerfer41.htm l</a> - Although German ( I b e l i v e ) P e r h a p s s o m eone here could translate it.
hodehum October 1st, 2002, 11:12 PM

Go <a href="http://www.google.co.nz/language_tools?hl=en" target="_blank">here</a>. and copy and paste the URL into
translate webpage
darkdontay October 2nd, 2002, 05:13 AM

For thoughs that are well.. Lazy.
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waffenhq.de%2Finfante
rie%2Fflamm enwerfer41.html+&langpair=de%7 Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools"
target="_blank">Reall y Fucking Long U RL</a>
<sm all>[ October 02, 2002, 12:45 PM: Messag e edited by: zaibatsu ]</sm all>
A-BOMB October 2nd, 2002, 09:44 AM

W ell I'm gue ssing fro m the description its some thing like this, <img src="ftp://ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/
H o s t e d % 2 0 I m ages/New%20Folder/untitled24.jpg" alt=" - " /> sorry but I forgot to put the fuel in when I made it in paint a
m inute ago.
<sm all>[ October 02, 2002, 10:30 AM: Messag e edited by: A-BOMB ]
Eliteforum October 2nd, 2002, 11:17 AM

G e e z e m a n ! C o n v e r t i t t o . J P G , i ' m o n c a b l e a n d i t t o o k m e a b o u t 7 s e c o nds to load that image! It's going to take a few hours
for the people on dialup!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Reactivating Artilery Shells
Log in
View Full Version : Reactivating Artilery Shells
Zyklon_B October 4th, 2002, 04:58 AM

<img src="http://www.sura.com.ru/~tam/images/AFV/PART2/ML-20_01.jpg" alt=" - " />
Since I know a good source of deactivated artilery, I was wondering the following:
What gunpowder do modern cannons use? Did it vary from country to country? Whats a possible homemade substitute?
Also, what kind of primer is used and can it be improvised?
Thanks.
[ October 04, 2002, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Zyklon_B ]
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur October 4th, 2002, 07:29 PM

i know that they use cordite in modern(ish) artillery, that looks like
some 105mm artillery, possibly argintinian (guessed from the look of it) so i would say that gun-cotton would be a good substitute, building up the charge is advisable
(originally the gun-cotton was kept in silk bags as they disintigrated without leaving fouling in the bore, but i'm sure you dont want to bother with that)
i would like to know how they de-activate artillery, is it the same method as on small arms (breech-block cut at 45' angle, steel rod welded in bore etc,) or do they just nip the
firing pin??
the primers should reloaded with some primary explosive, as a last resport you could always use those (impossible to find) blue-tipped matches <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
the charge of guncotton is going to be heavy if you want to get the same range as the real-deal (about 15/25km) and i'm sure that the accuracy wont be great (over anything
more then 5 km it'll probably screw around with any predictions due to the variation of charge/purity etc etc etc..) That's where the artillery piece would be best as something
more in the way of direct fire
it would be a badass weapon if you could remotely set it off. :D
p.s. i dont think that the charge type varies much from country to country, as gun-cotton/ NC is usually so easy to make and it allows for greater pecision in large batches
(everything that the army likes)
Zyklon_B October 4th, 2002, 07:47 PM

Well artilery where I am located, and for and from europe is normally deactivated by having a steel rod welded into the barrel and the recoil mechanism is welded. This allows
them to be used for blank firing.
Above is a russian ML-20 152mm howitzer. Used in WW2. Deactivated they can be had for 4000$ to 5000$.
RDX* October 7th, 2002, 06:41 PM

The modern army uses a whole array of different types of chemical black powder. Its all based upon gun cotton, the most common is a mixture of gun-cotton, ethanol
and ether. A more powerful mixture is gun cotton and nitroglycerine. The big drawback with this compound is the high combustion temperature that causes gunbarrel
fatigue. Because of this is this compound mainly used in anti-aircraft guns and antitankguns. In some 10,5 and 15,5 cm calibre they uses gun cotton and dinitroglycol
this mixture has less energy but causes less fatigue. They also use a mixture of gun cotton, nitroglycerine and dinitroglycol. This mixture isent as powerful as the other
mixtures with NG, but ist produces less combustible gases than the previous mixtures. This results in a redial drop in muzzlefire. To the more heavy artillery they also
bring additives to the gunpowder out to the field. For example can they ad sulphurless black powder to reduce the muzzelfire. This is only used at night because it produce
more heavily smoke witch can give away the artillery positioning in daylight.
Ill hope I have answered a few questions about modern gunpowder.

If there are any Swedish blokes reading this I recommend reading the book
Amlra A (M7730-850020).
-----------------------------
chemical blackpowder?!?!
blackpowder refers to the common pyrotechnic mixture of 75% KNO3, 15% charcoal and 10% sulphur.
gun powder refers to the powder used in guns usually being nitrocellulose based. try and make it clear what you are talking about to avoid confusion - kingspaz
[ October 07, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]

On the subject of primer, I have heard that most tanks of WW2 used electrical primers in their main cannons. Are there any way of improvising this primer?
RDX* October 8th, 2002, 04:49 PM

Im sorry if I used wrong and confusing terms. But its hard to translate technical terms.
I wasnt aware of the diff erent between Gunpowder and Black power, so I made a literal translation from Swedish to English.
So by the term chemical blackpowder I meant all low order explosives that have been prepared through a chemical reaction such as gun cotton.
and on the subject of primer, they are quite simply constructed. Every large calibre canon has a primer that consists of a shell with a small aluminium ampoule at the
bottom. In a regular canon that has a mechanical firing mechanism this ampoule is filled with lead azide. But in the case with electrical firing this ampoule is filled with
black powder with a filament leading throw it. When current is running through the filament its igniting the black powder in the ampoule (1 in the picture). This
ampoule explodes and ignites the main black powder charge in the primer (2). In the next stage the propulsion charge in the shell explodes and propels the projectile. This
electrical firing mechanism is still used in the modern tanks.
[pic] <a href="http://www.geocities.com/rdxgames/Primer.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/rdxgames/Primer.jpg</a>

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Anti-robbery defenses
Log in
View Full Version : Anti-robbery defenses
nbk2000 October 4th, 2002, 01:10 PM

Since before the store was robbed, I've been thinking about weapons that could be used to take out a robber. Mind you, the
following is premised on the idea that the robber isn't going to be around to complain, and there's no witnesses. In all
actually, such a device would be highly illegal. But this is all theory anyways, right?
One such idea was to use a flying cutter. This is a steel rod (rebar comes to mind) of a few feet in length. The rods run the
entire length of the register counter at shin height.
The rods are backed by a thin layer of sheet explosive which, in turn, lays on a massive backing plate of steel embedded in
concrete to provide resistance to the backblast.
In theory, when the robber comes up making his demands, the clerk would step on two floor mounted switches. One arms the
system, the other fires it. The two switches provide safety against accidential initiation.
When activated, the rods would be propelled intact at great speed at the robbers legs. They would either break his legs and
knock him over or, more likely, amputate the legs, literally cutting the robber off at the knees. :D
Either way, the robber is no longer standing, nor in any condition to flee. He's lying on the floor, with two stumps for legs, while
the clerk is now free to bean him upside the head with a 10 pound fire extinguisher and drag his bloodied corpse to the
dumpster for disposal.
Other idea was to mount short barrelled launchers (12 guage pipe shotguns) in the wall, with the point of aim running parallel
to the counter. This launcher is loaded with flechettes. The 2 switch arrangment sets it off, whereby the flechettes proceed to
shred anyone standing on the wrong side of the counter...like say a robber standing there with a gun. <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Anyways, assuming no legal hassles for such devices (Mad Max/Somalia), what you use? Remember, you can't use your hands
for it since the robber will shoot you otherwise. Lethal or not, your choice.
Mick October 4th, 2002, 02:48 PM

well, the explosive bar thing seems a bit messy and so is the shotgun as well, which means your going to have a fuck load of
cleaning up to do. it would probably attract alot of attention from passers by too.
now, a few things you would have to watch out for is if the perp accidently fired his gun when the trap goes into effect(ie. he
shoots you).so the best place for taking the perp down may not be at the counter, possibly as he exits would be a better time.
the first thing off the top of my head would be explosivly launched sliding doors.
you stand on 2 floor buttons which turns the system on, then when the doors open it arms the knee hieght sensor beam, and
as the perp exits he breaks the beam on the sensor and BLAM! doors fly shut like a horizontal gilutine(sp?). would be pretty
messy, be it gave me a smile when i thought about the guy inbetwen the doors so i figured i should jot it down :D .
you could maybe inprove on that idea by putting inflatable air bags on the door edges. so when they fly shut instead of slicing
the guy in 2, it would pin him there.
i dunno, i'm just chucking any old idea out.
i've got alot of ideas, but they all seem to be messy and/or loud.
my other idea was 5 single shot guns, mounted so there facing the side of the door closest to the counter. each barrel would
actuated by a laser beam(or a narrow beam alarm sensor thing). the 1st barrel would be at the 5ft mark, second at 5ft5, thrid
at 6ft, and the forth at 6ft (and 1 sensor would be at each height, for each barrel)
so as the perp runs for the door, he'll break 1 or 4 of the sensors beams(depending on how tall and unlucky he is), and get
nailed.
you'd have to space the sensors from the gun barrels so you can account for time delay in firing, and the perps movement.
of course you could simplfy it and just use a shotgun. but shotguns really make a mess.
possibly a pack of smokes could be coverted into a frag grenade, which would be activated when the perp walks out the door.
(granted it would be in the same bag as all the money he stole from you, so it depends how much revenge is worth i suppose)
or you go down the local red light district and find some mole with The Aids, and buy some blood off her. then spray the perp
with it as he leaves. then run a full page add in the local rag the next day "to the perp he knocked off "X" store. you've got
The Aids. suck shit"
yeah, so my ideas suck :D , but its 4am and i'm tired and i've had a crap day(lost my licence) so blah. cya's round.
Eliteforum October 4th, 2002, 03:01 PM

On the other side of the register, have some sort of metal plate running the length of it, then with the two foot switches idea,
they set off a electronic charge.
Sort of like a big stun gun. Only downside would depend on what kind of footware there using.
A-BOMB October 4th, 2002, 03:05 PM

NBK what about a heavy steel rebar/pipe on a pivot, connected to a post at a 90* angle to the counter and attached to the bar
in s large garage door spring. The bar is drawn back and locked into place with a selonoid, the post is set up so the bar when
relesed with hit the robber in the back of the knees, as it swings in breaking/dislocating them and pinning them up against the
counter. Or you could do the same except on the ceiling so the bar swings down hitting the robber in the back of the neck
(breaking it or in the head giving him a concusion/coma/death), and you could put steel stakes on either to add more
evilness to it.
Sparky October 4th, 2002, 03:47 PM

The shotgun idea is good but the problem is (even though you said no laws apply in this discussion) it's messy - hard to hide.
Plus, if he's standing in front of you, pointing the gun at you there is a chance the gun will go off (hopefully you're wearing a
vest, but still). So, I propose to have the hidden shotgun(s) (cover a large area so it's hard to miss) or claymores go off where
the robber is exiting the store. As for the mess, I think the easiest is to make the area easy to clean and have the floor either
reversable or have a sheet of exact duplicate (melamime I think - that stuff that's like flexible bathroom tiles but goes down
in one single sheet) to put over the old floor or replace the old floor (even extensive scrubbing won't get rid off all the
remains). As a less deadly alternative perhaps you could have a spray to incapacitate the robber. Maybe ethyl ether or bear
spray (I've heard it's worse than pepper spray). If you used this you would risk him still being able to fire at you, if it didn't
work well. To reduce the mess and sound you could use a good flamethrower, as long as he wasn't pointing the gun at you as
there would probably be enough time to shoot.
The most realistic is anti robbery systems (and they're even legal!) I've heard of in jewlery stores is double (bullet proof)
doors that lock. When the robber is exiting the store with his loot he gets stuck between the doors, where he waits for the
police (or gets gassed :D ). This wouldn't work on smart robbers (know about your system) since they would get an accomplice
to hold the door (have a hydrolic door closer!) or open both doors before they closed the first. Or they'd go out the back way if
there is one. It's also conspicuous and most convenience stores don't have double doors. Instead of this you coul'd have only
the one door lock (and sound an alarm at the security headquarters or wherever), and be unlockable until the police came.
You might get shot because he would be mad at you, but then he would be up for murder, and almost deffinetly get caught.
It's too risky for my liking.
Maybe you could blind the robber with one of those noble gas light pulse devices peope were talking about in a different
thread. You'd have to be carefull to close you're eyes and look away. If it was behind you, above you're head it might work but
it might damage your hearing (if explosive based instead of spark based) if it was that close, plus he could shoot back.
In the gettos they simply have the cashier behind bulletproof glass. Customers probably don't like this though. You could use
this with the single locking door idea. You could have a sheet of lexan positioned so that when the robber is at the door the
sheet is between you and them. That way you could flame them / gas them / reach for your gun or whatever with out a real
worry of being shot as it would take them time to reposition around the bullet proof glass to shoot you.
jelly October 4th, 2002, 05:03 PM

Besides the technical things and the robber.... don't forget another important person: the accomplice.
If you kill a criminal and don't know whether there is an accomplice, you probably won't survive the next days.
The accomplice determines the time and place where he takes revenge on you.
To survive in your fictitious example, you should leave the house through a rear exit and search the nearer
surroundings (streets, cars) for an accomplice and eliminate him <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Any sensible criminal, after seeing his crimie turned into red mist, isn't going to be plotting vengence, but rather figuring out
how quickest to save his ass and RUN! :)
I like the electrical idea. Big ground plate...electrode bar overhead...robber conducting 120,000 volts of high tension A/C... :D
Though the stink may be a little difficult to get rid of, what with exploded and charred flesh plastered on the walls... <img
As a clerk, I appreciate not having to clean up after messy customers. :p
I could see the lights turning off an instant before a blinding flash from a multi-million candlepower xenon flash went off,
burning the robbers retineas to a crisp.
Robber:
"AHHH! I cant see!"
*CRACK*..thud
Clerk:
"Yeah, now you can't breath either." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
john_smith October 4th, 2002, 06:06 PM

The explosive propelled bar and claymores are...erm...moronic. It isn't worth the damage these do to the store (just one of
these big-ass plate glass windows probably costs more than an average convinience store has in register) and your hearing
(may I put my earmuffs on before handing over the money please?). The shotgun is more like it. I'd use a frangible slug,
though. Less risk of errant pellets, and if it misses the robber you can at least predict where it ends up. Zip shotguns cost next
to nothing, so several can be set up to compensate for the lack of spread.
Btw IMO it would only work on REAL idiots (like the ones NBK encountered :D ). If I were to rob a convinience store (like having
just broke out of jail and needing a couple of hundred bucks quickly or whatever) I'd assume a step-switch operated silent
alarm anyway and just knock the clerk off. Or ask something from the shelves behind the counter, announce robbery when the
clerk has moved away from it, walk him in the back room and try to make him open the safe (unless it has a time delay lock).
In this case, something like a flashbang hidden somewhere above the safe with switc in safe or wired into the electronic dial/
pad...
leonvios October 4th, 2002, 06:28 PM

What about filling the sprinkler system with mace or pepper spray or just the one above the front of counter and having a gas
mask or something like that under the shelf for yourself, then use a button to lock the doors and pick up baseball bat or
something more evil and beat him to the floor while he is blinded and gasping for breath.
PYRO500 October 4th, 2002, 08:56 PM
All of you are thinking small :) .
I like the idea of using electricity as a defense beacuse it is a whole lot cleaner and less harmful to you. If I were going to use
an explosive I would do something like pour hot TNT into the cash register drawer and get a drawer with cast TNT in the hollow
spaces, then I'd put in a detonator and timer to go off so many seconds after the drawer was removed (and a secret trigger
pressed). Then mr. robber can have all the cash he can carry, except he's not likely to have anything that closely resemble
hands if he's even still alive.
Another Idea I had was a capacitor bank attached to the door handles. when he grabs the box step on the trigger and a high
wattage PSU will charge up a high voltage capacitor in about a second as well as activating the magnetic door locks :D so when
the guy trys to burst through the doors he ends up getting a lethal dose of electricity to his body and either dies of internal
injury's or from his flesh exploding from all the current running through it.
I have been considering if a few of my capacitors are up to the job:

(copy and paste links)
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/lytic.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/

lytic.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/lytics.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/
lytics.jpg</a>
These are some fairly small 525V 7700 Uf capacitors. They may be small but they are about 1060J where 30J is considered
borderline lethal.
the only problem is there electrolytic and fairly low voltage so they'll discharge alot slower than true capacitors and there only
525V (1050V series) so they need to contact bare human flesh to work as well as needing a good solid contact to be
potentially lethal. Regardless of lethality it'll feel like grabbing some 430V utility line (without 60 Hz buzz) and will make
getting zapped by a stun gun feel like getting tickled by static electricity.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/little.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/

little.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/littles.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/
littles.jpg</a>
This cap is a bit higher voltage and is a true capacitor and will discharge alot faster but is only 50 J. This capacitor like the
above electrolytics need to have a good firm contact with the skin to work effectively. The capacitor will also hurt pretty bad if
not kill the person touching it.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/cap1.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/

cap1.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/cap2.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/
cap2.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/big.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/cap/
big.jpg</a>
This is the "big bertha" of my capacitors, this one is 4,200V with 2628J of energy storage, it is possibly one of the most lethal
things I own. This capacitor is big and heavey so it'd need to be mounted in a wall and carefully insulated beacuse it's 4.2 KV
and will arc to nearby grounds.
If you could insulate the door to work with this you would either kill or severly maim the escaping criminal beacuse on contact
it's likely this cap would blast chunks of flesh right out of his hands! imagine how your heart would take that kind of energy! I
am also getting 2 more of this same cap as soon as I go to a certain town again where I bought this one. Although I think
adding more than just this one would be over kill and add extra guts for you to wipe up off of the floor and more blood to
show up on luminol scans if suscpicion arose.
With all three of these caps you'd want a power supply constanly charging them, that way if they get zapped away the first time
the cupply keeps charging and will zap their sorry ass into oblivion if they should happen to try to run through the doors with
the big capacitor attached.
If capacitors aren't your thing than there always is the option of taking mains power and running it into a transformer to step
up the voltage untill it's sutible enought to pass the lethal currents you want through the guy's body.
Two suitable transformers are below, they are microwave oven transformers, they both are capable of putting out about 2000V
of electricity (more peak). one is about 1000W and the other is 1200W. they can deliver more current than this in short circut
conditions so I hear.
Microwave oven transformers are all usually good lethal zappers, they can even make electric arc's hot enough to melt glass!
can you imagine what would do to a human locked onto the door handles?
assuming the robber grabbed onto the handle and tried to force the magneticly sealed door open with brute force he would
find himself locked onto the door getting a lethal dose of electricity jumping around as his muscles contracted. I can imagine
after a while someone connected to one of these would start to cook and smell pretty rank, but oh whell, there just precooked
before you drag their corpse into the back for dismemberment/disposal.
john_smith October 4th, 2002, 09:23 PM

Why bother shooting or zapping the idiot robber if he's already running away? I wouldn't risk a murder charge for 200 bucks,
and certainly not for someone else's 200 bucks... And if Bubba decides to shoot you before leaving because he's already been
caught twice (three strike law!), he'll be home free. Would it be possible to charge the register instead of doorknob? Are these
tings grounded?
EP October 4th, 2002, 09:40 PM

Explosives would definetly be too risky because of damage to the store, the difficulty of reinforcing the counter to withstand
backblast, and hearing damage to yourself.
I like the electricity ideas, it would definetly be a cleaner way of doing things.
If it was me, I'd probably just go for the easy way: a silenced pistol and get them in the back on their way out the door.
K.I.S.S.

Remember, "Mad Max" time means no cops to deal with. I'd rather any method take care of the robber BEFORE he gets the
money, just in case he's of the mind to blast the clerk once he has the money.
Boob Raider October 5th, 2002, 01:24 PM

While everyone is thinking more fun and cleanup afterwards ...... I say less fun and no cleanup. How about having one of
those net throwing thingies attached near the motion sensor that operates the door or near there which is armed by the clerk
and fired by a narrow field motion sensor, which leaves you a wraped dick to deal with. Or however the shotgun idea was used
... use beanbags instead of buckshot. If an electrical approach is desired, use .22 cal blanks to launch Al electrodes with wires
attached to em which connect to a stungun and you have a bug zapper. If forumeers have a "bigger is better" approach, I
would like to suggest a liquid N2 cooled (4 tesla)Supermagnet underneath the tiles in front of the counter. Assuming the clerk
keeps a gun underneath the counter, before picking up the weapon, the clerk activated the supermagnet for lets say ... long
enough till he hears the weapon drop. He then has to switch off the supermag pick up his gun and get the robber in the back
while the robber is attempting to pick up his weapon fron the floor. This might sound like the clerk has lots to do but its a fail
safe method as any secondary weapons will also be pulled to the ground. Oh BTW the robber might be levitated too and will
fall on his head when the gun in his hand yanks him down with his feet in the air.

I wouldn't consider a 4 tesla supermagnet to be feasable, for one it'd be huge and probobly consume more power than your
power box could handle. Another thing is that how are you gonna constantly refill the tank with LN2 and where are you gonna
buy this magnet the size of two mri machines?
If killing the crook before he gets the money is the idea, I like the pipe shotgun idea. I don't know much about convienince
stores in general (I prefer to pay at the pump and avoid the greese balls inside) but if you had a dropped panel cieling you
could mount some of your pipe shotgus up there, a shotgun blast or two to the head/ upper torso is at least gonna cause him
to be laying on the ground dying.
I kind of like the bright light flash idea, on min the lights go out and another second there is an explosion that blinds/stuns
the victim and you take the initiative to pull your piece and blast away and peforate the stunned fucker. you could do this
either with flash bangs or if you wanted to get high tech you could use exploding wire from a capacitor bank discharge
although that's not gonna be simple.
If you like your victim a bit crispy than why not a flame thrower? does anyone remember the car blaster defense shield with
the propane burner that would fry an attempted car jacker?
All you would need is a propane container that had a decent flow rate and some hardware and you could rig up a device to
cause a big propane fireball to burn the attacker pretty bad. For ignition I would recomend some kind of HV arc, I have a small
dc to dc converter that takes anwhere from 5-15VDC in and outputs 1-12 KV! it shouldn't be hard to rig up a system like this
with a little work.

I would personally avoid the flamethrower totally, unless I had something against the owner of the store. When you light
someone on fire .... 2 things always happen. 1). You scare the shit out of the person and 2). He can't see where the hell he's
going. So the final outcome will be some sorry bastard bouncing around the shelves and isles like a ball in a pinball machine
setting anything he bounces of on fire :p . And as far as the flashbang idea goes .... whats going to protect the clerk from
getting stunned ? And I don't think any robber will be dumb enough to not notice welders goggles and ear muffs. I don't know
how effictive closing your eyes and covering your ears is against a flashbang or a similar device. Ok I know the
Superconducting Magnet was way out there but how about a trap door that opens below the robber which drops him 8 ft in a
pit. Or how about a weighted column of the celing which pulverizes the robber when fired by the clerk :D .
How about installing an air curtain at the doorway which has a culinder of pepper spray or something in it and when the robber
is leaving he gets pepper sprayed by the clerk operating a foot switch.
I don't know which one will work .... robbery situations are very unpredictable.
Hey Pyro is that DC multiplier salvaged from something or you bought it and from where ? Also how many uA/mA does it put
out ?
[ October 05, 2002, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Boob Raider ]

What about having an electrical sensor on the door and thus when opened the circuit is broken the electricity could then be put
through a resistor activating an upward spray of sulphuric acid protruding from small pressurized pipes under the floor in which
case...well we all know what could happen. The floor switch mentioned earlier can activate the circuit.
Also there could be sensors on the clerk which tell a simple computer if he is alive or not if not than it will detonate a very
large amount of high explosives planted all around the store and boom everyone die's but you dont care cause you are dead
already. (This is not recommended for suicidal people)
[ October 05, 2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: leonvios ]

The problem with H2SO4 or similar stuff is that it will allow the robber to take the clerk down as they ar not instantly painful
unless he gets it in the eye in which case it will be as unethical as using lasers to blind enemies :p LOL. I suggest if you want
some gadget .... it will be most effective near the door as when the robber is leaving 95% of his attention is on the clerk.
Something like a sledge hammer or a crossbeam hinged outside the door so when fired off by a shotgun shell will swing down
with a shitload of force and take him out in the back of the head, face, collar, neck, back etc :D . The hammer can be
camoflagued (sp?) by a thin glass plate with wall paper on it.
[ October 05, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Boob Raider ]
Come on now, hungry dogs in the basement, trap doors! what ever happened to RTPB # 40 KISS (keep it simple stupid) I
think that anything that is too complicated or far out there is out. Remember now, the 4 elements of a perfect crime, profit not
revenge, you have your life to profit by killing this bastard before he might kill you also there's the thing about punishing
those who will rip you off but your immediate concern it yourself. (sorry couldn't resist quoting those)
I think what NBK2000 is planning for is that anyone could be a lethal criminal that follows his codes just like he does, if so
then it's in his best intrest to be as lethal as fast as possible. The flame thrower idea would work and would not necessarily
catch the whole store on fire if it was a quick burst of propane and not a flammable liquid (well a volitile liquid with flammable
vapors) the fireball would burn him but probobly not set him on fire. now anything really close that was farly flammable might
catch but you can worry about that later. It's not like the flame thrower would have enough range to reach way back into the
store.

Quicker (and deader) is indeed better. :)
The spring loader leg breaker bar is neat. It would either sweep 'em off their feet, shatter their legs, or pin them to the
counter. Either way, they're easy pickin's. :D
Avoid anything with fire if possible. Fire spreads in unpredictable fashion and could get out of hand. Dogs? Pits? :rolleyes:
Anything exploding would likely be bad too because of concussion in an enclosed space. Likely the clerk (me) would end up
deafened as well.
Positive Electron October 5th, 2002, 11:16 PM

how about a 4 foot by 4 foot one inch think iron plate suspended in the celing? double foot switch, and a huge plate is
pneumaticially shot to the ground, SPLAT, severely disabled criminal
Eliteforum October 5th, 2002, 11:44 PM

A bullet proof screen would be the best choice, but it depends, if you actually want to hurt the would be robber.
PYRO500 October 6th, 2002, 12:05 AM

I have a few new ideas I've been thinking of.
This one is more of a chemical weapon related thing but it should work. It involves a tube or series of tubes that are
connected to a container (probobly PE or PFTE) that is filled with something you probobly don't want to get on you. The first
thing that came to mind was cairo's acid or H2O2+H2SO4 this container would have a pressure siphon and with a simple
pneumatic solenoid valve would release a tank of air or something into the container causing the caustic substance to be
pusshed out into the PE or PFTE tubing. This would then lead to a series of tubes above the robber on the cieling or inside the
counter or whatever and would spray the mix on him and avoid you when you hit the buttons.
Something that concerns me is that most of these ideas is that alot are dependent on where the guy is standing. I think the
best bet here is to get the guy when he comes up to the counter although he might shoot you right after you pull the drawer
out so you got to play this smart and make sure you get the guy up real close to your target area before using the device.
I think the leg breaker bar has potential and I was thinking of how to improve it's usability in a real robbery situation. I have
been thinking of several things relating to them. I think that getting the bars spring loaded might be difficult and dangerous
so I think you could also put them on some kind of strong pivot and put a small amount of shielded high explosive behind
one end. Hopefully you should be able to get some power behind the bar and smack them pretty good. The only downside
would be that it wouldn't have the pinning efect the spring loaded desgn did. Also I think two spring loaded bars at either end
of the counter with a central piviot would be best if space permits. This would allow them to be standing at either end of the
counter and still get smacked pretty good by either bar should the be a need to take someone out.
I also had the idea of explosive charges below the floor. I was thinking that if a few of the floor tiles could be removed some
electricly initiated shot shells could be wired into the floor, seated in place with plaster and completely hidden from view with a
few new times. Anyone tries to rob the place and the shells go off tearing the attempted robber quite a few new holes.
Boob Raider October 6th, 2002, 02:44 AM

QUOTE Me "Hey Pyro is that DC multiplier salvaged from something or you bought it and from where ? Also how many uA/mA
does it put out ?"
So where did you get it from ???
I was also thinking of a small 5 gallon tank in the ceiling which can dump its load (similar to those safety showers in labs)
when the clerk wants it to. It can either contain almost boiling H2O from the building's utility line which will prove to very
effective, or something really sticky and viscose that would make movement really difficult something with the consistancy of
molten chewing gum.
nbk2000 October 6th, 2002, 08:55 AM

I was thinking a giant rat-trap type of item.
The pivots are at both ends of the counter. The bar sits in a depression in the floor, covered by a floor flap. When activated, a
pyrotechnic ram fires off and drives the bar up out of the floor and into the front counter with blinding speed.
Anyone within 3 feet of the counter is going to be slammed into the counter and pinned there, or flipped head over heels.
Bones and backs will be broken, heads whiplashed into steel counter tops or cement floors. :)
Oh, and the neat thing about this is that, given how the robber would be physically moved several feet in less time then it
takes to blink, his aim will be thrown off before reflex allows for the trigger to be pulled. Thus, even if he's only a foot away
from you with a gun to your head, he'll miss regardless of how good he may be. :D
What about arming the cash register with a series of tubes that would shoot flechettes out in a 120 degree spread when fired?
that would probably hit his hads, arms, chest, face, eyes, neck, ears and other vital parts...no one could get a shot off in that
condition.

Hey what about having a timed explosive set for say 5 min or so attached to the cash tray when it is pulled out the timer starts
and they make a run with the tray you listen with a smile and a wistle watching you watch until you here a boom in the
distance.
(this would probable work better if it had some sort of distance meter attached to it which will blow up when they run a certain
distance)

My DC to DC converter is EMCO high voltage corp's E101 model. I ripped it from a laser power supply board. It outputs
12,000V @ .002A
I like the mousetrap idea although it might be hard to conceal effectivly. I don't know how much space is avalable in cash
registers so I'm not sure how feasible it would be to install flechette tubes in there.
[ October 06, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: PYRO500 ]
kingspaz October 6th, 2002, 05:55 PM

what ever happend to the classic trap door in the floor? the chashier guy just hits a button (as the robber tries to make his
getaway) and a 3*3m square of floor just infront of the door flips down and the robber falls down into a pit in the basement.
then the basement is flooded with an anasthetic and the pigs move in to arrest him :) ..costly but effective.

what about a swinging bar type thing that comes up from the ground and hits the (male) criminal in the balls? make it
pneumaticially fired and you could disable him not only for the time it takes the cops to come, but proably for the rest of his
life, whihc would probably be a huge deterrant for criminals to come. imagine the sign outside the store "this store is protected
by a huge ball crushing swing bar!"
MoToMaStR October 6th, 2002, 08:41 PM

haha, I read a few of the ideas and though of something cool. ya know how on older cars that have the winsheild washer
sprayers on the hood of your car, you can move them and point them in all kinds of directions? my buddie use to put like 1/2
a gallon of piss in the washer fluid and have the jets pointed out straight left and right, and go down to the board walk and
seaside where everybody walks on the sidewalks and shit. hed spray them a few times with piss and the people would laugh till
they got a whiff of it. hahaha, well anyway, my idea was on a bit of a larger scale with some kind of acid, or crazy glue. when
the perp says "gimmy all yo money foo!" you act like a pussy and go to the register and start getting the money in a handfull,
then hit a button under your register thats rigged up to some jets that will spray a mist of epoxy or like nitric or sulfuric acid or
some shit all over the bastard. crazyglue does some cool stuff when it gets on clothes,... i noticed its not kind to cotton, it
starts to get really hot and smoke and shit so it'd probably freak em out if it got on him. in addition to that, permanatly blind
the fucker if 1 little mist particle got in his eye. sound good? let me know. if all else fails, pull out your willy and start pissing
on the guy, but then hell probably shoot you, but you'll go down in style. hahah
(edit)
sorry, this is kinda like pyro500's idea. =\ I thought I was thinking of something new.
[ October 06, 2002, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: MoToMaStR ]
DarkAngel October 7th, 2002, 12:19 AM

I see alot of ideas that are based on the fact that the robber(s):Are always in front of the desk,
Will let you live after they got the cash.
And some of them seem to be overkill and getting you only into more problems rather than solving one like destroying the
store/money risking your and other lives.
I prefer an idea that's effective in multiple area's of the store,doesn't destroy the store/money (only slightly damaging it),
And is safer for you and others that maybe be in the store.
I whas thinking about a voice activated counter measure system that fires shotgun shells, which also could be filled with plastic
or other non penatrating projectiles that will only hurt.
The guns (black squares in red area)are placed in the walls on certain places inside the store that form the red area like on
the picture
<img src="http://entersection1.virtualave.net/Pictures/store1.JPG" alt=" - " />
The Red area is te area where a robber would probably strike,the thin red lines display the Hit and Safe area's depending in
which area's you and the robber are it will be a hit or a safe area.the Blue area is the desk with the cash register on top.
In case of a robbery the system is activated by a secret switch and after that it will be activated further by voice that eventually
trigger the guns.
You will have a microphone on you that will trigger guns by calling commands which are made by first calling the name of the
wall and than the number of the gun. Alfa could be a wall and Bravo could be a wall.1 could be a number of a gun.So when you
call "Alfa 1" or "Bravo 8" it would trigger certain guns as seen on the picture.
On the next 2 pictures i described a robbery going on the green spot is the clerk and the dark red one the robber.
In the first picture "Alfa 2" cancels a robber and in the second one "Alfa 5" does the job.

Atleast in the Red area on your stores floor a lino with a square pattern could be placed to quickly indentify the Hit and Safe
area's, gun numbers would also be placed on the wall and maybe on the floor for the same reason.
Like i mentioned earlyer the shot shells could be filled with non penatrating projectiles like dry beans,plastic balls ,etc.This
could provide safety for you others and even the attacker so you don't have to kill him.After a shot shell has been fired a gun
hidden close to the desk is immediately taken to ensure safety.
Still you could be in the same area as the robber but this system could be a good option.
Does anyone have improvements/thoughts about it?
[ October 06, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: DarkAngel ]
Flake2m October 7th, 2002, 07:55 AM

Well we have had trapdors, shotguns, ball crunchers, legs breakers, flame throwers, tazers the list is endless. however, noone
has thought off trapping the crimminal in a giany glass jar.
When you are preparing to get the cash out of the register you press on a pedal near by and two things happen:
1: A large container rises from the floor and traps the crimminal.
2: The container starts to fill up with a liquid that is generally inert, but when a binary chemical is added, it becomes toxic and
corrosive <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> .
The other idea I had was that the container fills with water and then a giant burner is turned on and they are boiled alive :p .
This is filmed on camera and then shown on the news the following night :D . The crimminal has one chance to surrender or
they die.
I haven't quite figured out how I would prevent the crook from shooting his way out, but I imagine if the container is made out
of poly-carbonate glass then he work be able to do jack.

Darkangle, I've thought of a similar idea.
In this one, the alarm pendant is actually an IR emitter. The surveillance cameras can see the light from the IR emitter and,
as long as any 2 cameras can see the emitter, the system can, via triangulation, determine your position. Then, when
activated, all the "guns" fire, except the ones within a yard of you, taking out the crim without risk to you.
The rounds are frangible slugs that would blow apart inside the crim, but won't richochet off anything inside the store, thus
avoiding possible injury to yourself while riddling the crim full of lead.
Also, the system automatically fires anytime a gun is fired in the store. Thus, any robber who blasts you walking in the store is
still going to die, regardless of whether you're alive to set off the system or not.
Arkangel October 7th, 2002, 11:50 AM

Well I reckon for fun, (and this would work well with NBK's staff sensor system), you have a very solid ceiling - ideally the
reinforced concrete roof. Then, you have a loose floor, in panels, each very rigid, and each with a high volume airbag
underneath.
The main danger for the staff would be not laughing their arses actually OFF when it worked. Imagine if you will, the blagger
runs in, waves gun, demands money before flying upwards at 50G, probably smashed legs, smashed skull - a bleeding heap
on the floor - COOOOL!!!!!!!

What about a harpoon gun that can pin a criminal to the wall it could be operated by a pedal on the floor which can fire it and
you can use your legs to aim it though it would take alot of practice. the front of the desk could be made of cardboard.p.s
NBK2000 have you found anyone that will represent you in court to sue your employers?
Boob Raider October 8th, 2002, 01:28 AM

NBK the staff sensor you are thinking about was shown in the movie Judge Dred (sp?). It seems we are moving to ideas that I
think would be to large and complex to camoflauge in a store. I don't know .... I am out of ideas but most of the defence
systems here have 1 robber and him not comming behind the counter and getting the money for himself. Why not install a
lead sensor (HD metal detector) and have a kind of an obstructive enterance so no one can just run in and the flashing light
from the lead sensor should give you enough time to get that 10 gauge. I personally think no computer system operated
traps will be as effective as a prepared clerk with a 10 gauge semi shotgun (12 gauge can also be used) as the robber
certainly won't be expecting a barrel in the face as soon as he comes in. Anyways.
Eliteforum October 8th, 2002, 02:42 AM

I think a load of shotguns pointing all around the store would be a deterrent in it's self!!
Mr Cool October 8th, 2002, 03:47 PM

Damn, Arkangel beat me to it with the giant airbag idea.
I think the best deterrant (since there are no police in this theoretical discussion) would be to have the guy behind the counter
standing there with a flame-thrower and a pitch fork (or any other combination of brutal, messy weapons) and a simple sign
stating that "Robbers will suffer before they die."
That'd certainly put me off.
Or if you want something to stop them during/after the robbery, then my #1 choice would be airbags in the floor (Robber:
"Give me your money - ooh, I can fly! SPLAT!"), #2 choice would just be a shotgun under the counter facing the front, so when
it's fired it blasts through the thin front of the counter and into their gut.
Although in practice I'd just hand over the insurred money!
BoB- October 9th, 2002, 06:26 AM

I think Mr. Cool has something there, the gun(s?) could be angled up to hopefully hit the gun as well as the robber. You could
also keep a small high powered pistol in your jacket pocket incase someone sneaks up behind you, then you dont even have
to present a weapon, and you can still take out the crimie.
You could always install a walk-through Xray machine in the entrance :D
nbk2000 June 3rd, 2004, 05:41 PM

The company that makes "Pepperballs", the same stuff shot at the rioters at the Seattle WTO riots, now sells it to 'civilians' at
the grossly inflated price of $2/shot, in 10 shot increments. ;)
https://ssl41.securedata.net/pepperball/order.html
50 shots = $100, as part of 10% = Bling Bling! :D
neomyth June 4th, 2004, 12:43 AM

are you guys all serious on some of this stuff claymores, exploding trap doors etc. I think that trying to mame or kill this
robber in frount of the counter would be satisfying but isent it just the same if you get him on the way out.
To start with you dont need a complicated desine to stop him or her lol.. this robber will probably be runing by the time they
get to the door so all it will take is a taught line of piano wire-- I think that you could make a rig that would pull the wire in
frount of the robbers neck then lock it in place in a fraction of a second ----- fraction of a second = fraction of a robber :p
Ropik June 4th, 2004, 11:11 AM

I think about something like inverted football gate(only the arc would be used, not the support structure) scaled down a bit
and installed with pneumatic propelling system to the ceiling(people rarely look up) on the hinges. When someone steps on
the two switches like in NBK first idea, this steel arc should swing down at tremendous velocity and smash taller robber to the
chest, shorter one to the face. Even nastier version can be made with a section of sharpened grating in a steel frame -
instantly grained robber:D . Cleanup required, though.
Ball crusher would be very good idea IMO, but difficult to mask. Imagine if some comrade on deballed robber see that you
stepped on something and his friend was instantly castrated. Next day you walk around the deballer and our brave comrade
take his way through the back entrance of the shop and activate ball crusher switches... :eek: I'm only dreaming, though. I
know that this is nearly impossible... but imagine it!
Rhadon June 4th, 2004, 01:22 PM

I don't see any point in your post, Ropik. If you've got nothing useful to contribute, don't post. I already got complaints from
two people who told me that you're post-whoring. I told you about it and warned you, what else can I do? Since my words don't
seem to have any effect on you, you're banned until August 4th 2004. I hope that this will be enough.
rolynd June 4th, 2004, 02:08 PM

I would combine the trap door with a bullet proof glass plane. The glass plane would be inconspiciously covering the entire
front of the counter and the instant you are releasing the trap door the bullet proof glass is propelled upwards by a small
charge.
Advantage would be that even when he is already pointing a gun at your face with his hands reaching over the counter the
upcoming window will slam into his arm deflecting the bullet to the ceiling while him falling down into the basement now at your
mercy. You have also the possibility of installing a third button which activates a small electromotor in the basenemt pulling a
board of spikes right under the trap door first if its not your friendly day :rolleyes: . I would like to have the option to go non-
lethal first.
Jacks Complete June 4th, 2004, 08:40 PM

Well, I'm glad he didn't get BFL! Ropik, please behave, since I think you do contribute well sometimes!
I looked at this thread to find out about Ropik, but, to stay within the rules, I should say what I thought of whilst reading this.
The giant glass jar is a good idea, though impractical and expensive (polycarbonate costs a lot!)
I would go for a large steel cup, about three to five feet deep, and then secure it to the ceiling with a battery backed
electromagnet set-up. Of course, the whole thing is quite heavy, by design.
You hit the button, and gravity does it's thing. As it falls, a thick steel armour plate, in the form of the side of the cup, drops
between you and the danger. A split second later, the entire mass of the cup lands on the head of the perp. At this stage,
even if they fire, the bullet will not hit you, or even ricochet around your store. If it does bounce back, it will either hit the other
sides of the cup, or the perp! Body armour won't help them, even a bulletproof helmet won't stop that much blunt trauma. If it
doesn't break their necks (it will work against a whole group) it will certainly pin them down, in a cell that is a few feet deep,
and bullet proof.
Then do as you will...
At night, a simple pressure sensor would help protect the store, too. A spring or tension reel would slow it down to non-lethal
levels if you wanted it.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Non-metallic Blast or Fragmentation
Grenade -archive file
Log in
View Full Version : Non-metallic Blast or Fragmentation Grenade -archive file
megalomania October 7th, 2002, 03:41 PM

nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From: Guess
posted December 21, 2000 12:27 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I describe this device I just want to let you know that my scanner is acting up so I'm using my digital camera instead,
but it's not as clear as a scanner.
All the fuse and other explosive components will be simulated in the pictures since it would be illegal to actually build these.
============================================
Now, to make these you'll need the following parts from the local hardware store:
One section of 1 1/4" PVC pipe cut into a 6" length
Two 1" pipe plugs
One 1 1/4" pipe cap
One threaded 1 1/4" coupler
One threaded 1 1/4" cap
(Now I know your saying to yourself "nbk2000 thinks that PVC pipebombs are something new?". Well I know they've been
done to death before but this isn't what you think. Just keep reading.)]
You take the two 1" pipe plugs and trim them down so there's only a 1/4" instead of an inch of the part that goes into the
pipe. You glue this plug into one end. This plug isn't to provide confinement, but mearly to protect the filler from exposure to
air and water.
Now you make your igniter. This is done by taking a length of fuse long enough to provide a 5 second delay and, taking a
length of 1/2" OD vinyl tubing that's trimmed long enough to cover all but 1 3/4" of it, centering it in the vinyl and packing the
space between with hand softened pellets of wax. This prevents blowby and premature detonation. Leave about a 1/4" of fuse
sticking out the end. This is for igniting the filler.
Next you fill the pipe with your explosive filler. AP putty is perfectly suited for this since it doesn't need a detonator to explode,
thus removing any metal from the device.
Press in your explosive about half way up the pipe. Place a dowel 1/2" dia. on top of the filler and proceed to fill the rest of
the space around this dowel with the explosive. Once the explosive is a quarter inch from the top, you remove the dowel. This
leaves space for the detonator (or igniter).
Take the second 1" plug (also trimmed down like the first one) and insert the long end of the fuse through a center drilled
hole just slightly larger than the fuse itself.
Be sure to place a single layer of tape around the fuse where it passes through the plug hole to keep the fuse from going out.
Press more wax around the fuse assembly till it's level with the end of the plug. This is more protection against blowby and
water.
Glue the plug into place with the igniter assembly in the hole made by the dowel. It would be a good idea to put some igniter
powder like some crused match head powder or sugar/chlorate to make sure the fuse ignites the filler.
Once you've done this you've got what looks like a classic pipebomb, but this isn't the end of it.
Next, you take a book of matchs and make a pull fuse igniter. You make this one very short though by laying out the match
section and placing a strip of tape just below the matchheads. Then you cut off all the cardboard from a 1/2" from the match
heads. The tape holds the matches lines up properly.
Next you lay your fuse on the match igniter and fold up the matches in 3 sections around the fuse with the heads lined up with
the fuse end. Wrap some tape around the cardboard part of the matchs to keep them from unfolding and keep wrapping down
around the fuse to keep it in place.
Next you take the paper part of the match book with the striker pad and cut off the paper on the short end just below the
striker. Fold it in half just below the match heads and tape it snugly so it will rub hard against the heads without being so tight
that it can't be pulled off.
Fold the paper back so that there's a total of about 3/4" of paper and trim the rest off. Tape the tab around itself to keep it
from unfolding.
Now take a length of string about 8-12" long and pass it through the fold in the paper of the pull igniter and tie a knot around
the igniter. A small bead is slipped on the string and knotted into place on the end.
Take the string and pass it through the threaded connector which you now slip over the pipe and glue into place. The string is
folded down into the hole and the cap screwed into place.
Take the 1 1/4" cap and slip it over the other end but DON'T glue it on.
(Now your going "So what! PVC isn't going to do much damage." True enough, but that's where this next part comes in. )
You take a length of the PVC pipe that you're using and use it a mold to form a removable fragmentation sleeve that will slip
over the blast grenade you've just made.
You do this by first thickly coating the pipe mold with wax. Then, using paper or gauze, you make the frag sleeve. This is done
by making 1 wrap with the paper (I'll assume paper) cut to the width between the connector and end cap (about 3 3/4"), and
using a thin line of glue to hold the paper to itself.
Once it's dry you lay a line of BB's (or 1/4" slingshot ammo) in the fold and continue laying line after line of shot as you slowly
turn the pipe, wrapping the shot up in the paper.
In this picture I've used plastic wrap so you could see the arranging of the shrapnel around the grenade. Here I've used 1/4"
and 3/8" shot and roller bearings. You'd probably want to use BBs because of the greater hit probability.
After you have a single layer (or more if you want) you proceed to paint the whole thing over with styrofoam saturated acetone
or gas. This soaks through the paper and glues everything into place and keep the paper from breaking or the shot from
rattling.
If you're quick, you can measure out the paper ahead of time and coat the whole thing with the acetone/styro glue and pour
the BB's on it and wrap it up around the form. But be REAL quick or the acetone evaporates away and the paper turns hard and
breaks as you try to wrap it.
Once the sleeve is hardened (several layers of acetone/styro glue till it's hard as a rock) you slip the sleeve off. You may have
to dunk it in hot water to melt the wax to release the sleeve.
Be sure the form pipe is warm (120F or so (sunlight) so that it's expanded larger than usual. This will ensure there's enough
clearence for when you want to slip this frag sleeve off your grenade.
In use, the frag sleeve is already on the grenade and removed by pulling off the unglued 1 1/4" cap and sliding off the sleeve
when blast only is desired.
=============================================
There it is. You now have a waterproof, non-metallic (with no sleeve), pull fused grenade that converts in a second from lethal
fragmentation with a thousand fragments to lethal blast with a half pound of high explosive.
And if you want you can push a length of PVC pipe into the open end of the threaded adaptor, use a longer string, and have a
potato masher style grenade that you can throw even farther.
The grenades cost about $5 each, not counting filler or frags.
The LA bank robbers would have been better off if they had some grenades with them, especially the one who got shot while
trying to get a new car. (see video here.)
He could have chucked a couple of grenades over his car to where the cops were and blown them into baco-bits.
Shit, this is what they should have done (besides get caught), come out of bank laying suppresive fire while driving at high
spped towards the nearest exit, chucking grenades at pigs hiding behind cars. As piggies are killed, push through road block
chucking smoke behind you to cover your retreat and prevent persuit.
Any piggies get in your way, full auto AP with frags, deploying smoke to cover your rear. Shit gets too thick, start chucking
firebombs to light the neighborhood on fire so piggies have to divert effort to saving civvies.
Once free of immediate police contact, pull a ninja turtle under cover of smoke and leave behind a booby trap or two to
prevent immediate pursuit.
------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited December 21, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited December 22, 2000).]
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,NBK.Kick-ass design!.I can't wait to see the pictures.When making your pull fuse igniters,have you ever used a gum-band
instead of tape to put tension on the striker?The rubber gives,keeps a steady pressure on the matches when pulled apart.I've
had way less "non-lights"with these.Thanks again for the grenade info!.
------------------
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
posted December 21, 2000 02:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the cut of you Jib.
For the Frag grenade why not use Glass it fags in to Razor Blades and won't set of metal detection devices.
------------------
"It is Better to Die on Your Feet; Than to Live on your Knees "
--Zappata
Agent Blak----OUT!!
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass loses its energy quickly(just like paper, plastic and wood). Metals like steel and lead have much larger killing radius'.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 649
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, were talking about a high explosive (AP putty) so the glass will be blown into sand grain sized bits
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 649
From:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 seconds to get away from a 1 1/4"x6" high explosive grenade
Damn NBK, you must run reeeeaallllly fast
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would throw it I assumed. that glass would better because that way it would be completely non-meltalic Device. Also
Glasswould not show up on a X-Ray(I don't think so anyway) and it would Act like an ArrowHead(continues to cut if they keep
running0); Translation it would Keep them Better Down Better.
I Am pretty Sure that it would not shatter in to sand like pieces(Un less you used Tempered Glass, So don't).
Fear
Frequent Poster
Posts: 103
From: lucifer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass shatters from shock, vibration or fast temp. changes, a bomb has all of those. A rotten fruit can ruin the crop, why not
use an inside job to do it? or copy the clothing of a groundcrewman, sneak into the yard under cover of night, and work then.
------------------
There is nothing to fear but fear itself
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From: Guess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass in contact with an explosion will be pulverized to dust. If placed some distance away though it will be shattered into
larger pieces and blown around.
McLeod, the idea of using a rubber band is a good one. That would be better than tape.
Fear, what are you referring to by "inside job"? The LA robbers weren't going to be pulling an inside job on a bank.
------------------
Fear
Frequent Poster
Posts: 103
From: lucifer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a very very very good friend or yourself that works there, or seems to work there place a bag in the wating area past
the metal detectors, bag has bomb, gun, ect. (I am on the thoght of airports, metal could be in electronic gadgets without
arousing suspition)
What if the LA bank robbers had a friend in the high up military, who got em some goodies, maybe a tank, or a few LAW's, or
a tactical nuclear missile
------------------
There is nothing to fear but fear itself
[This message has been edited by Fear (edited December 22, 2000).]
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 392
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of shrapnel does that one you found a picture of have. It looks kind of oblong or is it a poor quality pic ?
I've theorized that the nuts and other junk laying around traintracks would be nasty and very heavy.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From: Guess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shrapnel in the picture is a mix of round and oblong bearings. It's not the picture distorting them, although the picture is
kind of crappy.
Nuts, bolts, and nails would also work, but they're not as good as nice and roundly aerodynamic bearings. That's why militaries
use round shot, because it will travel farther and faster than jagged shards.
In the context of the LA robbers, they'd want to use larger caliber shrapnel because they would need to kill the cops
immediately as compared to just wounding them. Large shot does more damage, penetrating deep into the body, compared
to BBs which would just disable.
------------------
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 534
From: Somewhere on this earth....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK2K, the problem is that when you pull the ninja turtle into the sewers, then you drown in shit, eaten by rats, forget where
you parked etc...
------------------
Whoa, where my fingers?
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope someone would not be stupid enough to go in to the sewers without planning a head(Maps, Breathing apperatus,
Chemical Flameless Smoke Bombs, etc.)
------------------
--Zappata
Agent Blak----OUT!!
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you going to draw a Diagram Of the Striker System?
A picture is worth a 1000 Words.
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 sconds is more then enough time to throw the thing, almost all military and police grenade fuses are about 5 seconds these
days, better than 25 seconds back in world war one lol
yes I too believe that grenades could certainly change the face of a battle, one or two grenades on each of them would have
made the battle rage on for at least another 10 minutes and you know what pigs hate worse than grenades, heavy weapons, if
they had a mortar in the trunk of their car there would have been no stopping them lol
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF they would of had some Sniper suport from a near by skyscaper there would have been no stopping them.
From the video I have seen they would have been to close to use a morter without Injuring themselves(Or running a huge risk
of).
------------------
--Zappata
Agent Blak----OUT!!
Machiavelli
Frequent Poster
Posts: 278
From: Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could somebody explain to me the use of designing a nonmetallic grenade and then using a metallic fragmentation sleeve?
How about ceramic slingshot ammo? It would make the whole thing more expensive but at least it should be nonmetallic. Or
marbles?
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From: Guess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point IS to have the option of either a non-mettalic blast grenade that can pass through a metal detector, or a more
effective fragmentation grenade, all combined into the same device where the simple pulling off of an end cap effects the
conversion in one second.
If you try to make a frag grenade using non-metalic fragments you end up with something that doesn't really work at all
because anything non-metalic is going to be pulverized into dust in such close contact with a high explosive.
Plastic: too light

Glass: too fragile
Ceramic: too brittle
Now you MIGHT be able to use something like nylon balls, but they probably wouldn't penetrate, just be more of a pain
inflictor which distracts the victim while you close with a more lethal weapon. Kind of like a super flash-bang.
Metal is the only really effective material for frags because of hardness and density.
I tried to edit my first post to include the section below but kept getting an error message saying the script couldn't complete.
Whatever
So here's the section.
==========================================
Now you make your igniter. This is done by taking a length of fuse long enough to provide a 5 second delay and, taking a
book of matchs, make a pull fuse igniter. You make this one very short though by laying out the match section and placing a
strip of tape just below the matchheads. Then you cut off all the cardboard from a 1/2" from the match heads. The tape holds
the matches lines up properly.
Next you lay your fuse on the match igniter and fold up the matches in 3 sections around the fuse with the heads lined up with
the fuse end. Wrap some tape around the cardboard part of the matchs to keep them from unfolding and keep wrapping down
around the fuse to keep it in place. Next you take the paper part of the match book with the striker pad and cut off the paper
on the short end just below the striker. Fold it in half around the match heads.
Fold the paper back so that there's a total of about 3/4" of paper and trim the rest off. Rubber band the tab around itself to
keep it from unfolding and to provide the friction to the stricker pad to ignite the match heads (thanks to Macloud for the
rubber band).
Now take a length of string about 8-12" long and pass it through the fold in the paper of the pull igniter and tie a knot around
the igniter. A small bead is slipped on the string and knotted into place on the end.
Pass the free end of the fuse through a hole (slightly larger than the fuse) that has been drilled in an end plug. Make sure
you put a single wrap of tape around the fuse where it comes in contact with the plug to prevent a fizzle.
Slip a length of 1/2" O.D. or so plastic tubing cut to such length that a quarter inch of fuse end is exposed. Center the fuse in
the tubing and pack the space between with small beads of wax that are hand softened and pressed in with a small stick. This
is to prevent premature explosion from fuse blow by.
DO NOT melt the wax into the tube, this will soak into the fuse and render it useless.
Now pack the space in the end cap with wax in the same manner. This stabilizes the fuse into the center and prevents any
possible flame from the burning fuse getting out around the tube and prematurely exploding the grenade. You may want to
use putty epoxy instead if you expect hot weather to prevent any possible melting of the wax and failure of the fuse.
This is the finiehed fuse assembly.
Take the string and pass it through the threaded connector which you now slip over the pipe and glue into place. There should
be enough string hanging out that you can get a good yank without there being so much that it hanging down to the ground.
Not too long, not too short.
[http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/fuse6.GIF[/img]
The string is folded down into the hole so it won't tangle, the bead (or cap in this case) put in, and the cap screwed into place.
[http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/fuse7.GIF[/img]
------------------
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From: Guess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the string and pass it through the threaded connector which you now slip over the pipe and glue into place. There should
be enough string hanging out that you can get a good yank without there being so much that it hanging down to the ground.
Not too long, not too short.
The string is folded down into the hole so it won't tangle, the bead (or cap in this case) put in, and the cap screwed into place.
=========================================
While a mortar would be too big and too long ranged to have been used, what they could have used would have been rifle
grenades. Use a slam-bang shotgun with a blank shell to launch these grenades with a dowel extension inserted in the plug.
There could be a slot cut in the side of the threads and end of the dowel to allow the fuse igniter to pass outside. The string is
looped around a small stud on the slam-bang.
When the grenade is launched, the fuse is ignited and 5 seconds later the grenade explodes.
I'm sure with practice a person could hit a car at several hundred yards with these "mini-mortar" ahells. Easily outdistanceing
the police and getting behind they're cover.
I don't know how stable AP putty would be to the launch shock though. Perhaps a plastic explosvie like in my PDF with an lead
styphante/picric acid detonator. No AP or HMTD, too sensitive.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
posted December 24, 2000 04:15 PM posted December 24, 2000 12:22 ave.net/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?
action=email&ToWhom=Agent+Blak" target=_blank>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice job on the pictorial NBK2000. Very informative.
------------------
--Zappata
Agent Blak----OUT!!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1091
From: Guess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I had practically written an entire article on them I figured I might as well start with these for my new file so here's the
grenade article with new pictures, corrections, and video.
<a href="http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/Grenades.pdf" target="_blank">http://server3001.freeyellow.com/
nbk2000/Grenades.pdf</a>
This is still just a rough version. Still have to include launchable version with launcher.

Helvetica">
Originally posted by NBK2000:
This is still just a rough version. Still have to include launchable version with launcher.
<hr /></blockquote>Did he by any chance in the last few years get
around to doing that? This is defenetly the best information I have seen on making a improvised grenade.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Delivery System - Archive file
Log in
View Full Version : Delivery System - Archive file
zaibatsu October 13th , 2002, 09:27 AM

ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
From : V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a
This idea was originally thought out by m uffscres dad. I thought you guys might wanna know. The idea is:
1.)Take a piece of tin foil that is 2x2.
2.)Place about 1/3 - 1 fram of ap is a "bowl" m ade in the tin foil.
3 . ) A d d s o m e bb's,gravel, "Solder balls",etc.
4.)roll it into a ball ca refully.
Now, to use these, put em in a sling shot, and shoot em ! Just m ake sure your no t looking at em when you let go, or you m ight
end up with bb's or rocks in your eye. On im pact these little babies m a k e a n i c e b o o m .
------------------
Explosives Archive
Nigh tStalker
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 116
From :
Don't you think it is a bit dangerous cause these could be ignited by the pressure applied when pulling back the sling??
------------------
Death stalks silently....
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
just dont put ypur fingers on the laether where the DEVICE is on the othe r side..i just put m y fingers ahead,of it..i can even
feel it

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Quick and Easy(Death) - archive file
Log in
View Full Version : Quick and Easy(Death) - archive file
zaibatsu October 13th, 2002, 09:52 AM

Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
I read of a Chemical that around the time of Adolf Hitlar was used in germany for murder. It was a Cyanide(But in liquid form) that could sprayed it to some ones face they
would then gasp and cough(death followed shortly).
It supposedly could be shot from a water pistol, etc.
I was thinking this could be a great way to silence guards, dogs, Etc. I just thought this would be of interest to some of you in here.
------------------
"It has To Start Some Where, It Has To Start Some Time;
What Better Place Than Here, What Better Time Than Now!!"
--RATM
Lonegunmen
A new voice
Posts: 32
From: Germany
Are you talking about hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid,"Blausure" for the Germans)?
Or maybe Zyklon B (the stuff used in the gas chambers).I think this stuff is a mix of prussic acid and pottasium cyanide.As far as I know Zyklon stands for Kalium Zyanid
(potassium cyanide) and the B for Blausure (hydrogen cyanide).
Rhadon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 95
From: Germany
I think you're talking of HCN which is indeed highly poisonous but also very volatile. Although it could be prepared at home from precursors that aren't be too hard to get if
wouldn't suggest doing it since you'll be blown away after one whiff of it.
Rhadon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 95
From: Germany
Oh, it looks like I've been somewhat too slow... are you sure about what was used in the gas chambers? I thought they simple used carbon monoxide.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
I thought Hydrogen Cyanide(HCN) Was a Gas also Known as Cyanide Gas. Pussic Acid Could be it.
------------------
--RATM
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 534
PRUSSIC ACID!!!
Its detailed manurfacture is described the PMJB Volume One, Page 22 if I remember correctly.
Its put into a water pistol, with the water pistol hiden in a newspaper, shot in the guys/gals face, gasp from surprise, drawn into mouth and nose, collapse near instantly, then
dies from supposed heart attack 3 minutes later.
Unlike other "Fast Acting" poisons like Cyanide, Prussic acid is so fast acting on your victim (and yuo if your not carefull) that the person wont have time to knock you down.
------------------
Rhadon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 95
From: Germany
HCN is not a gas at low temperature, but its boiling point is 25.6 C thus it's very volatile.
I don't know PMJB. Can you tell me what it is where I can get it (I'm interested in poisons).
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 534
My download site:
<a href="http://www.comawhite.net/forum/bookz.htm" target="_blank">www.comawhite.net/forum/bookz.htm</a>
---
The ape was a great big hit...
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 392
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
I wouldn't recomend making it unless you had a glove box or didn't value livng. I remember NBK post about putting some NaCN in sulfuric acid and having a cloud of HCN
being formed and almost dying, very scary !!
------------------
"ARE YOUR PAPERS IN ORDER" -- Jack Booted Thug
Rhadon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 95
From: Germany
Aahhh... PMJB is standing for Poor Man's James Bond... finally I understood...
OK, thanks for giving me the link! I was searching for this on the net for some time.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 765
From: Sk. Canada
Fuck that would be some scarry shit wouldn't it.
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 534
NBK2K mixed a small amount of Sodium Cyanide (free may I add, forgot to do the COD bit) with HCI.
He put his thumb over the top of the test tube to look whether it reacted, he lost his thumb hold and shot HCI straight up his nose. Then passed out.
vulture October 15th, 2002, 05:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> NBK2K mixed a small amount
of Sodium Cyanide (free may I add, forgot to do the COD bit) with HCI.
He put his thumb over the top of the test tube to look whether it reacted, he lost his thumb hold and shot HCI straight up his nose. Then passed out.
<hr /></blockquote>Did he got poisoned by HCN or did he breathed HCl? Please elaborate NBK... :D
Btw, when fucking around with cyanide compounds, be sure to have a syringe ready with a 0,9% NaCl solution with added Na2S2O3 (sodiumthiosulfate) ready incase you do poison yourself. If you think you've poisoned yourself immediatly inject the content of the syringe into one of your major veins
(sp?), as the thiosulfate will react with the cyanide to form thiocyanate which is as good as harmless.
Leave a note for someone who might find you if you pass out before you can administer the antidote.
Na2S2O3 can be bought as fixing salt from a well equiped photostore without suspicion.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur October 15th, 2002, 06:41 PM

I thought it was amyl nitrate and thiosulphate? with me it has worked with this combo, the thiosulphate was about .01 grams per kilo body weight (I think this was highly
excessive) taken half an hour before exposure and if a whiff of cyanide was detected the amyl nitrate was supposed to be inhaled (not WITH the cyanide gas <img
border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )
still here so it must work, the only downside is that the *actual* nitrate to be inhaled is hard to get, and that amyl nitrate is a strange sex-drug,

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Stabbing Weapon Design
Log in
View Full Version : Stabbing Weapon Design

This could probably be made by anyone who has access to a welder.
it would be 4 thin blades 4mm wide, on a base in a square formation. the blades will be 2 cm apart, and will curve up to the
top where they will connect together in a sharp point. of course they will be tempered and quite strong, but the design of the
weapon is to have a hollow middle, so when the target is stabbed, a large area is present for blood loss, and a large hole is
left, but maintaining a lightness to the weapon, and forcing a stab wound to be effective. this would prove to be a slightly
more diffucult fighting style, but it would prove much more effective.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur October 16th, 2002, 09:07 AM

A few problems that i can see, most people have a resistance welder (sticks used to weld) this tends to blow-away the metal if
it is too thin, and heat-treated metal would become de-tempered (exists?) due to the extreme heat involved. A MIG or TIG
welder
(Metal in Inert gas/ Tungsten in Inert gas) wight be able to get desirable results with fairly thin material (maybe as thin as
3mm)
Thin usually means weak, if you form this weapon using thicker steel, and then use a grinding disk (or something along those
lines) to reduce the thickness, this avoids most of the tempering
problems and allows for serrations to be created :D these serrations leave a wound that is a REAL bitch to sew up again
(due to the lack of a "nice" clean cut)
nbk2000 October 16th, 2002, 09:49 AM

I had an idea for a stabbing weapon. It had a core consisting of an icepick, around which where several tubes. The tubes fit
within each other over the pick.
Each tube has flat spring barbs that lay flat against the tube when restrained by the larger tube it sits within. The tubes are
perforated for their entire lengths.
When a person is stabbed, the ice pick provides the strength to penetrate the body or vest and, upon withdrawl, the outermost
tube stays in place, holding the wound open and providing a non-removable blood channel.
On each subsequent stab (up to the # of tubes), an additional blood channel is made when the next tube is embedded in the
target.
3 stabs equals three embedded tubes gushing blood. Each additional stab is just a regular icepick hole.
darkdontay October 16th, 2002, 12:40 PM

His idea makes me think of a large appel core'er but as far as I know you would have to get it all the way through to realy
leave the hole... I like the idea NBK came up with.. but are nasty though and well what is the point of fighting fair in a fight,
the point is to when and I think that would more then likely give you a "edge" in the fight.
[ October 16, 2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: darkdontay ]
Aaron-V2.0 October 17th, 2002, 04:05 AM

I just cant waste an idea even if it's a bit implausible and complex. Ok, this is a spin off of NBK's tubing design. Simply have a
handle where the tube fits into about 3", have the business end crimped with a point and short barbs attached, before
crimping the other end fill the tube with Iron Oxide/Al mix, magnesium powder, BP and a "Snap pop" string igniter (String with
a fold of paper with Silver/Mercury Fulminate) on it. Crimp the end down and have the string lead into the handle where it's
secured. Then have a notch in the tubing where it's inside the handle for a notched "Safety handle" (Like the one on a
jackknife so the blade doesnt close on your fingers, just this is so you dont pull the tube out prematurely.)
I know it sounds very garbled but look at the sketch I made in Adobe and it'll make sense.
A side note is at the bottom of the tube one could place a few grams of AP for a "finale" to the burning thermite mix.
And if it's purpose isnt obvious then take a look, you stab the device into the target's chest, depress the safety handle and
pull the handle off the tube triggering the Silver/Mercury Fulminate to ignite the BP which ignites Magnesium to the thermite. I
think having a thermite mix burning into your chest will have a faster effect than a hollow tube to increase bleeding. (More
pain!)
http://aaronewf.tripod.com/images/fused_impaler.gif
Hope this makes sense, I'm trying to get it all down before I forget it.
EDIT: Typo & changed picture format.
[ October 17, 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Aaron-V2.0 ]
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur October 17th, 2002, 06:19 AM

On a visit to wally mart I found myself cruising the sports section and I saw something that REALLY caught my eye, for within
the hunting section, next to the compound bows I saw a truly evil toy :D . BLOOD LETER'S (ok, i can't remember the spelling
but that was the name basically) they have either 3 or 4 razor blades that are spring loaded, all held together by a nylon
'ring'. as the arrow penetrated victim, the nylon ring is displaced and the razors are allowed to swing out INSIDE the target. As
they have a curve, they are extremely dificult to pull out.
http://www.arkansasduckhunter.com/HCarrow2.html
This is almost exactly what I saw (these don't need the nylon ring).
Imagine having a few of these on home-made handle's, quick-draw one or two and leave them inside (or if really evil PULL
them out) of victim
oooooh thats gotta' hurt :D
nbk2000 October 17th, 2002, 09:34 AM

No reason you can't combine them together.
Cut down a regular aluminum arrow tube to about 10" long with the described pop out blade arrowhead attached. Inside of the
tube is an AP charge topped off with a fuse hooked up to a friction pull igniter.
The whole assembly attachs to a hollow handle, like a bicycle grip.
When stabbed into victim the blades pop out, locking the shaft in place. As you pull off the handle, the fuse is ignited and, a
few seconds later, the AP charge explodes inside of the target creating massive internal injuries.
Just be sure to use overkill and include poison and drill bleed holes in the shaft, just in case the charge doesn't blow. RTPB:
Plan for failure.
Though you'd likely only need one solid stab anywhere in the torso to ensure an almost instant kill. Also, since the gram sized
charge would be contained inside of a large water filled sack <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> , I doubt
there'd be any noise other than the screaming...certainly no loud explosion to draw attention.
Also, aaron, save drawings like yours in .GIF, rather than .JPG. It'll be much more compact. Remember, .JPG is for
photographs, .GIF for computer drawings.
[ October 17, 2002, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
MoToMaStR October 19th, 2002, 08:30 AM

Hey vir sapit qui pauca loquitur. I go to school for welding, and the welding instructor doesn't really car if we make "bad" stuff
for projects, like brass knuckles and shit. (I'v never tried the make a stabbing weapon btw) but his idea of 3 or 4 curved
blades to make a gaping nasty cut X wound is a pretty good idea. DEFINATLY could TIG it. But if you wanted to SMAW it, I'd
reccomend 6010 rods @ 50-65A on DCEN. AND WORK REEEEEEEEEEEEALY SLOW! But, you'd have to stop every 10 seconds or so
and let it cool a minute. 6010's are great, high penetration, low temp rods with a tensile strength of 60,000 PSI. But they are
also THE hardest electrodes to use, period. Use either 6010 or 6013 (run cold as hell),.. preferabley 1/8" rods. I have been
working on some medevil weapons, I made a big double sided axe, and im working on a mace now. I just cant get it to swing
right. =/
well, if anybody has welding questions, I could probably help ya.
Bitter October 19th, 2002, 03:15 PM

I don't recommend welding blade steel. It's usually high in carbon and is prone to cracking on cooling, not to mention the fact
that all the heat input messes up the tempering.
"I have been working on some medevil weapons, I made a big double sided axe, and im working on a mace now. I just cant
get it to swing right. =/"
Perhaps you have made the chain too long. I have made stuff like that in the past- it's shokingly effective stuff.
Charlie Workman October 22nd, 2002, 03:27 AM

Sarco has a MAS 36 bayonet for sale for less than 8 bucks. It has a cruciform blade about 8-10 inches long. Turn down the
stub that screws to the bbl and weld it to a knurled steel handle. I plan on picking up a couple and doing just that. I have a
"commando" knife I bought from IMA (International Military Antiques) a few years ago made from a Gras 1874 bayonet and
housed in a SMLE spike bayonet scabbard. Punches hard and deep to cause a lot of internal damage with little external
bleeding. Just the thing for a crowd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"To paraphrase Aristotle, life is a gas!"
-Gidget
[ October 22, 2002, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Charlie Workman ]
Deceiver December 11th, 2002, 06:14 PM

i saw on one post in another topic in one of the links a knife/brassknuckle combo it was so when you had the BK's on the
blade was sticking out of the bottom of your fist. a good tactic would be to punchem in the face or gut and then go for the kill.
it was also designed for "Sentry removal" you sneak up behind them grab their mouth as you slit their throat and stab thier
kidnies.

I found the perfect, ready-made, stabbing weapon.
<img src="http://www.coredynamics.com/images/gold1.jpg" alt=" - " />
These are called "Trocars" and are used to drain body cavities, usually by morticans. They've even got all-plastic ones. <img
<img src="http://www.coredynamics.com/images/gold2.jpg" alt=" - " />
Notice the ribs on the plastic tube? This would ensure that the tube stayed stuck in the wound, though not as well as hooks.
Charlie Workman February 9th, 2003, 03:59 AM

They also sell trocars in livestock and vet supply stores. It is to relieve "bloating" in cows. I don't know what condition causes
gas so bad it has to be relieved by a hole punched into the animals side, but that's what they say. Seems like a fart would be
easier, but I'm a city boy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Gidget
zaibatsu February 9th, 2003, 06:07 AM

What *were* you doing looking at a morticians supply shop? The mind boggles <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]"
src="wink.gif" />
Agent Blak February 9th, 2003, 03:00 PM

It Doesn't... It Really Doesn't
RTPB: It is better to have it and not need it; than need it and not have it.
A-BOMB March 21st, 2003, 12:33 AM

Well I was just out at Sears and found some cool new toys one it a pinpoint oiler and a pen size automatic center punch.
When I got the oiler home I thought that you could use it to inject poisons, I took the tip to a grinding wheel and sharpened it
to a point then just stab and press the button on the end and it will inject the compound. And the auto center punch is thin as
a pen and just as long. Being smaller than a standard center punch it is weaker so it takes afew more pops on a window to
shatter, but would be easily looked over in a search. Heres some pictuers.
(center punch & oiler)
<a href="ftp://ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/hosted%20images/new%20folder/TECH0002.JPG" target="_blank">ftp://
ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/hosted%20images/new%20folder/TECH0002.JPG</a>
(oiler with cap off)

<a href="ftp://ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/hosted%20images/new%20folder/TECH0003.JPG" target="_blank">ftp://
ewf:sd332gf@209.195.155.80/hosted%20images/new%20folder/TECH0003.JPG</a>
BaDSeeD March 21st, 2003, 03:35 AM

Well, well, well.
It's been a very long time since I've been around guys. Glad to see the forum is still up and operating somewhere (thought
you'd get rid of me by changing addresses ehh?).
Greetings all. Anyhow I have to comment on vir sapit qui pauca loquitur :confused: (whatever the hell that is).
Those broadheads for the "blood letters" or whatever the hell you called them are for hunting. They are NOT spring loaded,
nor are they hard to remove. They simply swing on a pivot, and an O-ring holds them in place till they hit something. They are
designed to stay closed in flight so that your arrows shoot like field points, and don't "wind plane". Upon impact the back side
of the blades (which aren't sharpened) are pushed backwards (the o-ring with it), and the blades are exposed. Which then of
course cut through whatever it hits.
The whole design of the blade is simply for better accuracy, and also because of the length of the blades, they tend to have a
bigger cutting diameter than regular broadheads (more blood).
Their drawback is, the blades are fairly thin, and bend or break everytime you DO get a deer with them (even if you miss),
and also on glancing shots, they may not open. The small bit of extra accuracy isn't worth the trouble of these broadheads.
I'm back to shooting muzzy's.
Shame on you guys for needing me back here to set this straight :)
Guess I'm the only bow hunter here...(sigh) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
Kid Orgo June 18th, 2003, 01:30 AM

Why not inject something horribly carcinogenic?
Use a really small needle, something they wouldn't notice going in.
then, 3mo later, they come down with a terminal cancer.
Or of course, you could use ricin, like the KGB did to that defector. Little poke with an umbrella, and three days later he was
dead.
Not to be terribly cruel, but i've thought about using ruhypnol to knock someone out during a bout of drinking via the usual
date-rape method, and then inject some nasty mutagen or virus. No memory of the event, as far as they know, they just went
too hard on the drinks. Evil, huh?
nbk2000 June 18th, 2003, 05:47 AM

Because the point of this thread is to kill the victim ASAP, with a stabbing implement, not poison them and watch them linger
on for months. Otherwise this thread would be about how to give someone cancer, eh? ;)
And it's not too comforting if they die months after they've killed you in a fight where you gave them the cancer shot.
Kid Orgo June 19th, 2003, 08:38 PM
Well, the idea with the cancer would be it wouldn't be a fight type thing. More of a sneaky move.
But I guess that's off-topic then, huh nbk? Heh heh.
Thomas[NL] July 1st, 2003, 09:00 AM

I've got an idea,
how about making two pieces of steel tubing 1/8th inch in diameter, one is about 5 inches long, the other one is about 2 1/2
inches long and has a sharp point with (made out of lead because it's poisenous) and then take a piece of thin piping tot slip
onto the first piece of steel (the 5 inch one) and weld it to it at the end like so: (o = nothing to make the spacing in my little
"drawings" right)
ooooooooooo-----------ooo
=============ooooooo
ooooooooooo-----------ooo
and then stick the other end into the pipe like so:
ooooooooooo-----------ooooooooooo
=============+++++++++++++>oooo
ooooooooooo-----------ooooooooooo
So when you stab somebody with it, the sharp 2 1/2 inch part stays behind in the body. And since it's lead it will poison the
stabbe (funny word :p)
Thomas
Bitter July 1st, 2003, 01:21 PM

That is ridiculous. Lead is far too soft to sharpen effectively. It would be more likely to bend than pierce it's target.
nbk2000 July 1st, 2003, 02:35 PM

Lead poisoning? Unless you're waiting for them to die a few decades down the line...:rolleyes:
This is why newbies are discouraged from posting outside of the watercooler for at least a while after joining.
Mr Cool July 1st, 2003, 02:36 PM

So, they recover from the wound since the weapon is so damn lame, and die forty years later due to cumulative lead
poisoning. Sounds really useful :rolleyes:.
Damn, NBK beat me by a minute!

te point was you could stick some kind of poison into the tip. Not neccesarily lead, but KCN or whatever. (hydrogen fluoride in a
nickel coating with a needle or whatever.)
nbk2000 July 1st, 2003, 08:48 PM

To quote myself from earlier in this thread...
Just be sure to use overkill and include poison and drill bleed holes in the shaft, just in case the charge doesn't blow. RTPB:
Plan for failure.
If you had read the entire thread, you'd have seen that the addition of poison has already been covered. Really...you need to
pay more attention.
If the weapon kills by injecting poison, then it is not a stabbing weapon, but rather a poison injector, and as such would belong
in a different thread than the one it presently is in, now wouldn't it?
Jumala July 1st, 2003, 11:29 PM

A cyanide is as poison not the first choise.
Here are some deadly doses of some poisons in mg pro kg weight of the victim.
Sodium or potassiumcyanide = 10mg/kg
Nicotin 1 mg/kg
Tubocurarin 0,5 mg/kg
Aconitin 0,15 mg/kg (Aconitum napellus, monkshood)
Aflatoxin B1 0,01 mg/kg (aspergillus flavus)
The aconitin is an alkaloide and pretty easy to extract out of the plant and also easy to get.
It grows in my garden. It is a nice blue flower.

Aflatoxin could be also possible. Animal poisons are mostly to instable.
Here is a pic of a monkshoot:
http://www.giftpflanzen.com/aconitum_napellus.jpg
It is right, the name is monkshood. Here are some more informations.

http://www.gardenmakers.com/aconitum_napellus.htm
Mr Cool July 2nd, 2003, 05:58 AM

BTW, round here that plant is called "Monkshood." I have it in my garden, too.
Anthony July 2nd, 2003, 02:15 PM

"This rare and extremely hand- some blue-flowered plant grows wild only in the south-west of the British Isles. It grows from
one so two feet high. Another old name for it was 'Wolf's Bane' which tells at once that it is highly poisonous"
I remember it from Monkey Island!
nbk2000 July 2nd, 2003, 02:37 PM

While aconitine would certainly work, you'd want to use a poison that will kill within a few minutes or less. If you're stabbing
someone, than it's a hand-to-hand conflict, one that requires an immediate takedown of the target to prevent any retaliation
by them. It does you no good if they kill you but die at hospital, eh? ;)
This is why I recommend succinylcholine chloride as bullet (or knife) poison. It immediately paralysizes limbs and breathing,
making the target easy to finish off. Barring that, a saturated solution of KCN will do so within a few minutes, if not sooner.
Mr. Cool, have you thought about trying to extract the aconitine from your monkshood?
Argeleb Elb July 2nd, 2003, 06:50 PM

Succinylcholine chloride, yes but where can we find it? i didn't found any source/synthesis :(
Mr Cool July 2nd, 2003, 06:56 PM

NBK, I've thought about it, but never actually tried. Maybe I will after it's grown up a bit this Summer.
Edit:
http://emmanuel.curis.online.fr/Policier/aconitine_2D.gif
It's not a very simple molecule, I don't know how well the normal alkaloid extraction would work... lots of places for hydrolysis,
possibly, and perhaps some acidic carboxyl groups, both of which could easily interfere with the AB extraction, which works best
on the more stable, more basic alkaloids.
Maybe if I can find a patent on extracting it or something...
Arkangel July 2nd, 2003, 07:45 PM

Anyone heard of "immobilon"? (Etorphine)
Large animal Immobilon is an extremely potent neuroleptanalgesic which is highly toxic to humans. It causes rapid respiratory
depression, cyanosis, hypotension, loss of consciousness and death. It can be effective either by injection, or by spillage on
the skin, splashing in the eyes etc. Naloxone is the antidote, but which crims are going to have that on hand ever?
I am told that simply being pricked by a hypodermic needle that has been used to inject Immobilon is sufficient to kill a
human very quickly.
nbk2000 July 2nd, 2003, 11:55 PM

Sounds like a synthetic opiate. The "-phine" suffix, the symptoms, and the antidote being Naloxene (used for opiate OD's) all
point to that.
Surely a search would provide a starting point for a possible source/synth?
Succinylcholine chloride is available to me through a "grandfather" account I have with a chemical company. And, no, I'm not
giving up that source. However, it's commonly used in nuerology research, so it shouldn't be too hard to score some from a
uni lab. It could even be synth'd, I believe it's detailed in Vogels.
Argeleb Elb, you obviously haven't done a search for it, otherwise you'd have found dozens of sources for it. Whether you can
talk them into selling it to you is your problem.
Also, how can we quote you a possible supplier if we have no idea where you are? Typical newbie mistake, being "clever" by
not saying where they're at, and then wondering why no one will tell them a source in their neighborhoo. :D
Everyone knows where I'm at, but I don't need help to find my own suppliers either, so I don't have to advertise. :p
Aconitine is an alkaloid, same as any other, so it's not that hard to extract if they could poison Plato with it 2,000 years ago.
Purification is the bitch, however. Either electrochemical, liquid chromatography, or crystallization would be needed. I believe
it's reactive with picric acid to form seperatable picrate salts. Puruse Saxons "Grandad's Chemistry Medical Jurisprudence" for
some starting points.
Modifying existing alkaloids would open up potentials not normally thought of. Strychnine can be converted into methyl-
strychnine by alkyation with Methyl Iodide. Me-styrichnine is water soluble, without a bitter taste, and more toxic than the
normal alkaloid. :)
Arkangel July 3rd, 2003, 07:20 AM

My question was rhetorical, in that I know where to find it and what it's used for, I was simply mentioning it for people to
investigate themselves. I have no desire to use the stuff though, so it's a moot point.
It is the main drug used for large mammal sedation in veterinary practice. It's interesting in the differential effects between
species, since you use similar amounts to sedate animals of amazingly different size.
Corollary to that is that it's rapid lethality in minute doses to humans, hence people might want to look more deeply (and
have a little searchette themselves) in relation to this thread. It is, however, so dangerous that I wouldn't go near it.
Treatment is regular doses of iv Naloxene, which you're not going to be able to self administer in case of an accident. An
accident could be spillage on the skin, or a tiny splash in your eye when you're constructing your stabbing weapon.
And by the way, if you ever have any kind of infestation of them, it's the recommended method of humane killing for
Dolphins.:)
Mr Cool July 3rd, 2003, 12:50 PM

"Aconitine is an alkaloid, same as any other"
Hmmm.... "alkaloid" is just about any organic molecule with a basic nitrogen atom. There can be quite huge differences
between them, eg phenethylamine, caffeine and aconitine. Ideally, for AB extraction you would want an alkaloid with a quite
basic nitrogen atom, and no other polar groups. This makes the basic form soluble in np solvents and insoluble in p solvents,
and its acidic form soluble in p solvents and insoluble in np solvents.
Caffeine, for example, isn't very basic (in fact, it is neutral in solution) so it isn't protonated too well, and it has polar carbonyl
groups, which messes things up by making its non-protonated, basic form water soluble. Psilocybin has an acidic group, so it is
also soluble in water even without a protonated nitrogen.
This makes the normal AB alkaloid extraction less efficient for these, so more difficult methods of extraction would need to be
used.
If AB extraction can be used for aconitine, then further purification will be unecessary. If it does not work, however, then you
would likely need to use chromatography, for example, after doing a simple solvent extraction from the other plant crap.
Picrate precipitation could work though.
Argeleb Elb July 4th, 2003, 07:05 PM

Sorry NBK, you're right my mistake was stupid, i live in france, i've done a search for few hours and i didn't found any source /
synthesis (Vogles is a book right? hum, what a shame, i didn't found the pdf too... :o ) If you have any link for me i will
appreciate it but anyway i will search again, sorry again if my last post seem lame. :(
nbk2000 July 4th, 2003, 11:10 PM

You can find a copy of Vogels linked to at The Hive (or Rhodium). Check it out.
If you haven't found a euro supplier, than you need to hone your search skills, not ask for direct links. God helps those who
help themselves. :)
Argeleb Elb July 5th, 2003, 12:29 PM

Ok thanks i'll check the hive :) that's all i was looking for. :)
I finaly found a scan of Vogel's (thanks NBK :) )http://www.rhodium.ws/chemistry/vogel3.html there is a lot of great
informations, but i didn't find anything on succinylcholine chloride (it's hard to find something in a scanned book because i
can't use search fonction), maybe there is something under an other name than succinylcholine chloride?
nbk2000 July 6th, 2003, 12:02 AM

Maybe it was the 5th ed., I don't know. Did you check the index? (I'd assume so) Check the Merck Index for further info.
Argeleb Elb July 6th, 2003, 07:42 AM

Yes i did and i didn't found anything.
Hum merck? my mother work for merck lol, funny. :)
yt2095 July 6th, 2003, 11:55 AM

has anyone ever seen an automatic wine bottle opener?
the sort that takes a 12gm CO2 cartridge (like used in a COB).
it has a long hollow needle, cabable of penetrating a cork to a depth of over 2 inches without bending or breaking.
the needle enters the gap between the cork and the wine, a 1 second press of the button on the top, and Viola, the cork pops
out because the gas forces it out.
each loading is good for up to 10 bottles.
a half second burst will explode a mellon.
Air in bloodstream is apparantly not a good thing.

i`ll let you do the maths :D
EDIT: and as far as i know, perfectly legal to carry! (with a good enough reason)
nbk2000 July 7th, 2003, 10:11 AM

If enough gas was injected into the abdominal cavity, the pressure would prevent the diaphram (SP?) from being able to pump
to lungs, causing suffocation. Since the needle would make a very tiny puncture wound, that would self-seal, the only way for
the victim to survive the attack would be to cut themselves open to release the pressure. :)
Not very likely to happen. And all the gas would escape as soon as the pathologist cut them open. ;)
yt2095 July 7th, 2003, 12:51 PM

on the assumption that they didn`t already explode while you did it, or you didn`t get them in the neck (jugular) i send NBK to
the top of the class for 101% maths score :)
no... i`m NOT evil, i was just presented with a question ! ,,, if honesty`s a crime, i throw my hands up and shout "Guilty"
ancalagon July 7th, 2003, 01:09 PM

The "air in the blood stream" killing method is partly myth. The amount your talking about will certainly kill, but not the
amount used in many movies. 10 to 20 cc's, or the air volume of the average hypodermic needle would not be sufficient to
kill. It simply gets pounded to nothingness in the heart. I base this on what I was told in the hospital, hooked up to an I.V.,
and watching a rather large air bubble go into my vein.
Anyway, as for the stabbing weapon, I was thinking of using a pointed tube surrounded by various ripping and slicing blades,
that would have a vacuum or suction pump capable of siphoning a large abount of blood and other bodily fluids after the
blade-tube was removed, quickening the time of death even if you did not hit an artery.
-Ancalagon
yt2095 July 7th, 2003, 01:28 PM

gas in the blood stream is what keeps us alive i agree whole heartedly, i suffered a bad bike crash in 96 and had to have a
tap to bleed air off from under my knee cap also. my post idea wasn`t about causing possible blood clotting months later, but
more about killing the bugger instantly!
explosion, gas whatever...
it will work!
and yes sufficient gas in the blood stream will cause blood/gasm traps within a single heartbeat! eliciting instant death!
no movie crap no nothing.... FACT!
an adaptation of the auto cork opener is used to kill sharks instantly also (the gas release is somewaht faster but not by
much!)
NBK is quite correct in what he said, and he only refered to perineal cavity!
A-BOMB July 7th, 2003, 02:20 PM

I was thinking of the same type of thing, I though of useing those 12gram CO2s with the threaded tops (cant remember what
there for right now) and the needle from one of those turkey marrinade injectors with the end sharpened to pierce the Co2 with
a piece of lead pipe holding it inplace, inside of a bike grip or something of that nature. There cheap enough so you could
make dozens and just strap them to you chest and go on a spree. But the bad part is with injecting all that air blood is going
to be shot out of the wound and onto you so there is evidence. But the same type of thing could be used with a spud gun to
shoot a one of these killer Co2s at a target from farther away and it would be quit too (well if the spud gun is air powerd that
is).
nbk2000 July 8th, 2003, 04:17 AM

A good thing about the gas pressurization of the thorax is that it makes it impossible for the victim to scream, or make any
other kind of vocalization which could give you away. :)

and yes sufficient gas in the blood stream will cause blood/gasm traps within a single heartbeat! eliciting instant death!
I know this, I was simply saying it takes more than most believe. Anyway, I like the idea of using a CO2 cartridge, because I
bought a bunch of cartridges about 7 or 8 cm long, and 1 or 2 cm wide. If I were to build a blade-tube, it would be neat to
have both a trigger which would release a suction pump, and another one to blow out CO2. It would also be great for the
lungs.
-Ancalagon
nbk2000 July 8th, 2003, 07:34 PM

12 grams of CO2 takes up about 6 liters of volume at STP. Since the average human adult males total lung volume is less
than 2 liters, that means you've got 3x more volume of CO2 going into the chest cavity than the lungs are capable of holding.
Very effective at squeezing the air out. ;)
Testing on a large dog would be in order. :D

I purchased these smallish (10 to 20 gram) CO2 canisters for my mini-flamethrower plans. They are used by bikers to pump
up tires far away from a normal air pump. They are quite convenient and come with a little triggered (mostly handle, no barrel)
gun. The cartridges just slip in the bottom like a clip for a handgun. I might buy another one and modify it for the handle of
the tubed-blade design. This idea is interesting me more and more, and I have already begun to gather pieces for a
somewhat expensive dagger design. If I get somewhere with it, I'll post both pictures and plans.
Also, nbk, although I share your view reagarding cats (they are some of the most beautiful, graceful, and powerful killers on
the planet, rivaled in hunting ability in my opinion only by some sharks), I find many dogs cute (even if they are dumb), and
am not quite ready to kill 'em off just for my half-assed "improvised weapons." After all, what are FRIENDS for?:D
-Ancalagon
Arthis July 9th, 2003, 02:21 PM

I remember the Indian stabbing weapon, the Katar. My parents have been opn holidays there and they saw a special model,
said to have been used against tigers.
One central blade is folded into two other blades. You handle it like a katar, and you can make the two blades act like 2
cissors. It can cut about anything (good handling system).
I'm not at home but I'll post a design of the stuff if someone is interested.
nous July 12th, 2003, 09:59 PM

stabbing isnt always the best way to use a knife.
i did an indoniasian art of silat, and as they show slicing can work more effectiverly,
wouldent mind checking out a judas isccariot (sp?) type design for ripping and shredding. apparently i am told it is quite good
for this as they had to penitrate the roman armour with it

the problem with slashing is that blood gets everywhere. Not good if you want to look innocent walking away from the scene of
the crime.
nous July 13th, 2003, 10:39 AM

there are no inoccent all are guilty!! :) exept children ofcause
stabing in the liver is the most painful death
Mr Cool July 13th, 2003, 11:13 AM

If you're stabbing someone, causing pain is not the objective. Rather, you will be trying to kill them before they kill you.
nbk2000 July 13th, 2003, 11:33 PM

The reasons why the Alexander the Greats army was so successful was because they IMPALED their enemies on swords, killing
them, rather than slashing about which only wounds.
When you using any knife, you STAB, not slash. Slashes may be specteculary (SP?) bloody, but they kill only rarely, and over
extended time.
With 911 and medical care being what it is, slashes aren't effective. You must IMPALE your victims brain, heart, or both lungs
to get a quick kill. Liver is too slow, though kidney is taught as a sentry removal technique to SF because the pain is
supposedly so intense as to make it impossible for the sentry to stay concious, let alone scream a warning.
nous July 14th, 2003, 11:39 PM

ofcause, but in silat they teach you that if you dont want to kill your victom and just harm to ward of, to slice in certain areas,
the first move is always below the knee cap, then you slice back and forth on the arms neck and face, quite a good combo for
one move.
i still cant find that design for the freakin ischariot knife??
any one?
Nihilist July 15th, 2003, 02:30 AM

The poison idea seems to me like the best, if you could find a suitable poison. The "most venomous snake in the world" is
the inland taipan snake of Southern Australia. The average dosage of toxin for each bite is 44mg, however this is more than
enough to kill the average adult human. Before the introduction of antivenom for this snake(it will be perfect, unless you're
fighting right next to a hospital, or the target happens to have the antivenom to taipoxin on him/her) more than 90% of
taipan envenomations, are fatal "effects of paralysis and clotting disturbance are caused by envenomation". The amount
required to kill an animal is .010 mg's per kg of body weight. While death is not immdediate, paralysis and excruciating pain
are. The main component of their poison, taipoxin can be purchased here http://www.alexis-corp.com/html/
Toxins_ALX_630_029.html the rest of their venom is a mixture of assorted neurotoxins and procoagulants. As long as you
don't use the stuff in Austrailia it is quite likely that the doctors won't know what to do, or won't have the antivenom for this
poison. Another thing to note, is the paralysis is rarely temporary, and if it doesn't go away of it's own accord, the victim will be
permanently paralyzed. So, even if they do survive, they will most likely be a vegetable.
MrSamosa July 15th, 2003, 03:24 PM

I remember a quote from the manual used by the Roman Legions... "2 inches in the right spot is fatal." Basically, you don't
need a BIG weapon to kill, nor do you need too many fancy blood-grooves and such.
In my humble opinion, one of the best stabbing weapon was the Italian "Stiletto" knife. It was frequently used by assassins,
and was very easy to conceal. People would just hold it under their arm or behind their cloak (hence, "Cloak and Dagger"),
bump into the target, whip out the knife, stick it in, pull it out, and walk on. All of this could be done in about 1 second.
The knife was basically a thin dagger with a very sharp point. Sort of like a rapier, in a way.
Although I wonder sometimes about the mess one could cause by sticking someone in the heart, then inserting a large bubble
of pressurized gas ;) .
streety July 15th, 2003, 09:24 PM

nous, I've heard a bit about the indoniasian art of silat. I haven't found anywhere near me where it is taught but how have you
found it? I think there's a place about an hour away where it is taught and it may be worth checking it out.
controlphreak July 22nd, 2003, 11:07 AM

This may sound a little bit off topic but here we go. My design for a stabbing weapon would be simple. Basicly it would have a
sharp blade that would souble as a needle. Then it would have two spring loaded side blades and a vial of a powerful
anticoagulant int he handle with two buttons activating one of each feature.
You would stab the person first and press the injection button, which would give them a very liberal ammount of anticoagulant.
Then you would press the release button and release the two spring loaded blades to make a nice deep cut. The anticoagulant
would be able to be administed several times.
Just my idea. Came up with it on vacation (wierd huh?)
controlphreak
yt2095 July 22nd, 2003, 11:34 AM

Great idea IMO.
Heparin (ask people that have had strokes or blood clots at any time, they`re usualy on it for life or Warfarin)
if you can`t get either, look at Rat pioson, it contains Warfarin. that`s your anti-coagulant :)
pity really, I have a box of Heparin vials and several boxes of warfarin tabs here doing nothing.
I use it to soak grain in to kill pigeons on my balcony.
controlphreak July 22nd, 2003, 11:41 AM

LOL Pigeons? Well, I'll look into those anticoagulants, and thanx for the encouragement man! Any help in making this a
reality would be appreciated.
Imperial July 22nd, 2003, 11:56 AM

I personally think that Samurai weapons are excellent for killing. They are extremely sharp and as such even slashes will
cause grevious (sp?) bodily wounds which are likely to kill within minutes or less.
But since stabbing is the topic, I think I will discuss an idea I have had for a weapon of this sort. Now the fundamental plan for
this weapon is not to "stay in", but to be easy to use and fast to kill.
I was thinking of having a reasonably long (20 cm) blade, with both edges sharp, only having another blade perpendicular to it
(like a sort of a cross). In the spaces where the four blades (well two) join, could be blood grooves which could be filled with
poisons, etc, and which would allow the weapon to quickly be removed for further stabbing action ;). This sort of a weapon
wouldn't be a good slasher, but could kill quickly with stabbing, especially if the blades were like 4-5 cm wide, and 5mm thick.
The wounds would be difficult to suture if the weapon was somewhat serrated (this would cause problems with taking the
weapon out though), but even without serration the deep wounds would be plain evil.
The main problem is the creation of such a weapon, though. Since it is reinforced by more metal, using thin aluminium would
work, although the weapon would break if it hit bone, etc. It would be good for momentary defense, though. The best thing
would be to somehow get one blade, and to it weld two thin blades on either side, perpendicular. Encasing the end (not the
pointy end) in resin/plastic would make a durable and practical weapon, and a handle could be made with the resin or over it.
The grooves and sharpness could later be altered by using standard filing, grinding, etc.
That is my idea, at least.
Anthony July 22nd, 2003, 03:33 PM

A "blade" with a profile of 5cm (2") square would, I imagine be difficult to stab effectively with, it just would slip in with the
ease of a flat blade or spike. Granted it'd cause greater internal injury, but that's no good if you can't get it anywhere vital!
You wouldn't be able to get it between the ribs, so you'd be left with the abdomen (not fast death) and throat (small mobile
and often covered) as targets.
jelly July 23rd, 2003, 03:14 AM

Since daggers with sharp points easily penetrate bones (ribs) and get stuck there, a thrust weapon should have a blunt
rounded point, if you want to use it as a murder tool ;)
nbk2000 July 23rd, 2003, 05:59 PM

The blade should also be set so that it is parallel to the ribs when held properly. That means horizontial, rather than vertical,
like it would be if used against 4 legged animals.
Imperial July 24th, 2003, 11:55 AM

nbk2000, Anthony: I know what you mean; the blade has to be flat to be able to go in between the ribs. This means that my
weapon is limited to stabbing in other areas than the chest, although I was thinking of it as more of a 'add poison to it and
quick kill' weapon. It would be more effective in that way, for a lot more poison could be administered in a single thrust due to
the increased surface area of the weapon. It would also be a good back-stabbing weapon (the kidneys are easy to reach from
behind ;)).
I still believe in current weapons in existance for killing, especially Samurai weapons as I said before. The thing is, there isn't
much evolution that can occur for the current knife design, beyond weapons for specialised uses (like my cross-knife) or
simply more durable, lighter materials for making weapons.
As for the "parallel to the ribs when held properly" notion, I think that applies to almost every knife, only problem is that most
sheeple don't know how to hold them properly and end up causing a slow death instead of a very quick, almost painless one.
;)
nbk2000 July 24th, 2003, 10:37 PM

That's the beauty of my spiked tube weapon. It doesn't matter how you hold it, the spike will always go between the ribs. :)
If I had a katana, then I too could lop off heads with a single swipe, but that wouldn't be a stabbing weapon then, now would
it. ;)
Also, it's rather hard to hide one in daily carry, now ain't it. :p
GibboNet July 25th, 2003, 10:13 PM

Your mention of testing on an animal made me remember when I stayed worked for a vet for a day, checking sheep as part
of a new vaccine trial. (shitty work, but VERY well paid) Ever tried catching and checking a sheep for lice ? Then give them a
new shot, and record the results as average lice per square inch.. for 350 sheep :(
He had to administer a second shot to each animal, and each shot he was making absolutely sure there was no air in the
needle / syringe. He said that because it is injected into the neck, there is a chance that you will hit an artery going to the
brain, not a vein going back to the heart.
This is important because apparently even a very small air bubble can cause the animals a painful death due to the fact that
the air will cause the smaller blood vessels (forgetting my biology here) to get clogged. In the brain, these vessels are
extremely small, so it doesn't take much, and the air isn't absorbed back into the blood this way.
I forget what else he said, but it sounded fairly definate. And, being a vet, I assume he knows what he's talking about.
Sheep being large mammals, I assume this would apply equally to humans. It's a few years ago, but I'm fairly sure that's
right.
nbk2000 July 26th, 2003, 02:01 AM

It'd be rather hard to hit the cartoid artery on a moving victim. It's hard enough to hit one when the person is staying still and
cooperating, letting alone thrashing about, fighting for their lives.

It is true that air bubbles can kill if they get into the brain, although unless you actually inject air into the cartoid it isn't likely
to happen. The reason for this is that by the time the bubbles would get to the brain, the air will have dissolved in the blood
and/or been trapped in the upper chambers of the heart. This way, the air eventually gets dissolved in the blood and never
reaches the brain. It would have to be either a lot of air, or a lot of air being injected straight into the cartoid for it to be
deadly. And as nbk2000 said, that ain't gonna happen :p.
nbk2000: Of course katanas are hard to get around. That is why one sticks with tantos, daggers, small knives and the like
when outside (your stabbing tube may seem like an idea....) What katanas are good for is when an idiot/pig/both gets into
your house and tries to kill, rob and/or arrest you. That is when the heads really begin to roll. ;)
MrSamosa August 1st, 2003, 01:20 PM

Well, would Katanas really be good weapons for Close Combat? I mean, how much force can you get into a swing in a narrow
corridor? Nevertheless, it would be quite amusing to hear of a guy going Ninja on a police officer... Reminds me of a story
where a guy cut off another guy's arm with a Katana during a traffic dispute. :D
Now, back on topic for me. Have you all considered the Arrow-Heads used in Hunting? I mean, what if you just bought an
arrow, attached one of those special heads (I can't remember what they are called- but when they hit a target, 3 or 4 small
blades spring out), and stick them with that?? Those would be quite a pain to pull out, and would make a mess of the skin
that would be hard to stitch. Also, Arrows would seem to be relatively easily concealable. Hell, you don't even have to use the
whole arrow- break off half of it, or as much as needed to conceal it, and just shove it in. If you need a nice area to hold on
to, wrap some rubber bands around it perhaps. But the whole assembly shouldn't cost more than $8 (Well, the arrow heads
come in packs of 3 or 4, and are about $8-$10/pack..but this would be good for 3 or 4 stabbing weapons :) )
Of course, it's a one-time use weapon, unless you feel like ripping it out of the victim... Then again, there is a fairly wide
variety of weapons to choose from. Perhaps you could rig the arrow so that as it hits the target, the blades spring out, and
then there is some switch to pull the blades back in to facilitate removal?
yt2095 August 1st, 2003, 02:04 PM

6`th post, 1`st page, by Vir ;)
Tended Tripod August 25th, 2003, 04:01 AM

I recall my english teacher explaining to me a weapon the French (I think) used in some war. It was a bayonet but blade was
shaped like a +, looking at it from the top. If you don't understand try to imaging what a knife would look like if it made an
entry hole like a + sign. As we all know that a very effective tactic in war is to wound someone enough to incapacitate them,
while not being fatal. This way two people have to carry the person. This is the reason .223 is a common round. More common
to wound intead of killing. While this really doesn't help us with this current topic, I thought I'd bring it up that a wound in the
shape of a + sign takes absolutely forever to heal. Not sure why. Probably the fact that if the skin moves in any way, the
wound will be pulled open again.
Again, I know this doesn't help us with a fast killing weapon but this thread is titled 'Stabbing Weapon Design' so why not
consider all options and decide what the exact use of the weapon will be before omitting certain things from the topic.
Kid Orgo August 25th, 2003, 11:13 AM

Read "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut. In it, one of the characters carries a triangular trench knife for that very reason.
It's also a pretty good book if you have a sense of humor a bit on the black side.
Sparky August 25th, 2003, 11:54 AM

About the arrow heads, I have never seen ones that spring out but the ones with blades on them are called broadheads.
Fishing arrows have barbs that come out but otherwise they look much like a normal target arrow - like a pointy stick, without
blades. These arrows are considerably heavier and stronger than normal arrows. Most arrows are pretty flimsy since they are
meant to be pretty light. They are not meant to be really stiff either since they bend in flight. Arrows meant for stronger bows
are stiffer. Use arrows that are aluminum or wood otherwise you will probably have a hard time cutting them. Carbon fiber
tends to fall apart if disturbed though intact it is very strong. Same with fiberglass though to a lesser degree. Broadheads are
intended to kill the animal by blood loss, which isn't really fast enough for what you want. Also that's why a springing out blade
wouldn't be very effective for hunting since it wouldn't cut on the way in (probably why I've never seen one). If your weapon
didn't need to kill right away then they would be a REAL bitch to take out though :). Of course you would have to leave it
behind if it got caught in a bone. Otherwise yank it out!
BTW broadheads usually screw in so if you wanted you could stab then once they are dead or unconscious twist the handle to
unscrew it and leave the head in there but take the rest of the weapon with you.
Cyclonite August 25th, 2003, 12:58 PM

Well poisions and explosives have been talked about, what about a 2 blade weapon hooked up to some amperage? Stab N'
Fry, you wouldnt even have to hit a critical area. I guess you wouldnt even have to really stab them but it would work wonders
for an added lethal effect.
nbk2000 August 25th, 2003, 01:38 PM

I remember a spring loaded knife that could shot the blade for several meters with enough force to penetrate plywood boards.
If one was to take a short section of arrow, and have it inside of a spring-loaded handle, then you'd merely have to be within
a few yards of your target to be able to maim them. :)
This would be especially effective against someone wearing soft body armor because it can be very difficult to stab a blade
through the layers of fiber, but with an arrow point and 200 pounds of spring tension pushing through at contact range, then it
shouldn't be too difficult. :D
Haggis August 25th, 2003, 05:59 PM

The knife is knowns as the "Pilum Ballistic Knife". The Florida Knife Company used to make it, but no word if they still do. It
carries a 4.5 inch blade and can supposedly penetrate the length of the blade into flesh from 5-10 feet. I hear it is classified
as a concealed weapon in many states and large cities. Other than that, I think it would be a nice knife to have just for fun.
nbk2000 November 2nd, 2007, 01:26 PM

Am J Hosp Pharm. 1991 Mar;48(3):501-6.
Stability of succinylcholine chloride injection.
Schmutz CW, Mhlebach SF.
Hospital Pharmacy, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland.
The stability of succinylcholine chloride injection prepared by a hospital pharmacy was studied under a wide variety of
conditions. Batches of succinylcholine chloride injection 10 mg/mL containing sodium chloride, methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate,
hydrochloric acid, and water were prepared.
Samples were tested for the effect of initial pH (3.0 and 4.2) and sterilization (steam treatment at 100 degrees C for 30
minutes and 121 degrees C for 20 minutes) on stability after three weeks; long-term stability under refrigeration (12, 17, and
23 months of storage at 4 degrees C); and the effect of storage temperature (4-6 degrees C, 20-26 degrees C, 35 degrees
C, and 70 degrees C) and light exposure at various intervals up to 12 months.
Samples were analyzed by thin-layer chromatography (TLC) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Unlike
heating at 121 degrees C, heating at 100 degrees C produced no significant loss of succinylcholine chloride, independent of
the initial pH. Succinylcholine chloride was hydrolyzed only minimally over 23 months if the solution was stored at 4-6 degrees
C.
A 10% loss of drug content occurred if solutions were kept at 20-26 degrees C for five months, at 35 degrees C for one
month, or at 70 degrees C for one day. Initial degradation was slowed if the solution was protected from light. The
assessments by TLC proved to be more sensitive than the HPLC measurements.
Succinylcholine chloride injection sterilized at 100 degrees C for 30 minutes can be stored for up to five months at room
temperature if protected from light. The preparation is stable for at least two years under refrigeration.
ccw8076 November 4th, 2007, 08:59 PM

NBK2000:
I know that you wrote this back in 2002, but I ran across your idea for the icepick/tubing weapon. It all seems very plausible
and effective, but wouldn't the subject (if still conscious) be able to just pinch the tube shut? or use a clothespin or something
to stop the flow of blood? I mean wouldn't having a tube direct the loss of blood be less effective than an actual hole in the
subject?

The tube is metal or rigid plastic, with holes drilled the entire length of the tube, so it's impossible to 'pinch' shut or plug the
end closed with a finger.
Also, by having a tube in the wound, that keeps the wound channel open and bleeding, rather than the flesh closing up around
the puncture like it would otherwise.
By including Succinylcholine chloride in the tube, it paralyzes the victim, making it impossible for them to remove the tube,
even if the SC is insufficient to kill them by itself.
ccw8076 November 4th, 2007, 11:52 PM

Ah, deadly,cruel, and paralyzing; the best kind of weapon.
rightway November 5th, 2007, 12:11 AM

I agree with Cyclonite's idea of using electricity. It takes very little subdermous current to kill, and DC current will cause
uncontrollable muscular tension instantly and kills almost instantly. It is cheap, easy to make, easy to hide, easy to use, and
fast.
All you need is a sharp wire and a capacitor. You can make a bunch of small, one-time use ones, or one larger one made out
of a battery charging capacitor. They discharge slowly enough to allow for multiple kills. They are also easilly concealed due to
their size and could penetrate almost any body armor that does not have ceramic or steel inserts, since a very thin and sharp
wire would easilly go straight through any fabric.
The best part is that you could make a factory for the things on the steps of a police station and they could not do anything.
Capacitors are everywhere and usually harmless (relative to succynilcholine chloride), and pointy wires are not exactly a
smoking gun, either. Even better, they are cheap, require no tools or supplies other that a stop by Radio Shack, or you could
just as easily make your own capacitors, particularly at such low voltages.
The only downside is that you never get a chance to hear your victim scream... and no blood, either, though both of these
could be very good things.
W4RGASM November 5th, 2007, 09:46 AM

Blade cross-sections have been discussed a bit, IIRC Cold Steel produced a lovely piece of work, the 'Delta Dart'. Knurled,
round Zytel (GRP) shaft 5mm in diameter with a 3 1/4" triangular profile stabbing blade. Overall length of 8 1/2", non-metallic
and a very handy length to conceal taped to the forearm. Simple cross your arms, reach into your sleeve and shank to your
heart's content - The triangular profile makes the wound particularly difficult to close, forming an effective blood fuller in their
flesh.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Portable 25Kv DC Generato r
Log in
View Full Version : Portable 25Kv DC Generator
xyz Novem ber 1st, 2002, 06:45 AM

I was looking at the 25Kv DC generato r at the bottom o f <a href="http://www.powerlabs.org/igncoildrivers.htm "
target="_blank">this</a> page and th inking that it wou ld be a rather useful thing to own (being portable and reaso nably
s m a ll).
I was wondering if anyone has any ideas on how to improve on this design (m ore/bigger batteries, better transformer, different
pulse circuit), and also if som e o n e c o u ld tell me how he used that dam n relay to pulse the power as I have thought of several
different ways to connect a relay so that it switched on and off rapidly but none of them seem to work.
The other thing I considered was an entirely different circuit to pulse the power and I would like a circuit diagram for an SCR
b a s e d o n e ( I a m reasonably new to this kind of electronics).
Asger Novem ber 1st, 2002, 07:06 AM

Now I can't see the transform er you are referring to so this is out of the blue : Your key componen ts could be an electronic
ignition system from a car and a coil from a car aswell. The electronic switching is more reliable than m echanical switches in a
relay. My experience is that such m echanical contacts get worn q uite fast.
You could pe rhaps use two coils with comm on ground and then with different polarisation to get double voltage.
Now I don't know how stable you want your 25kV and how m uch current you would want available at that voltage...
xyz Novem ber 1st, 2002, 07:20 AM

This circuit has nothing to do with car coils OK? It is just on the powerlabs coil driver page because it didn't fit anywhere else.
The transform er I will be using is a 240v/12v step down which I will run in reverse.
Voltforce Novem ber 1st, 2002, 12:25 PM

W hy m ake a 25KV generator? It is nothing special. You can buy 20,000 volt ion k its at almost any electronic store or online kit
store. They are also found in m any high power ozone generators. W hy not build a 100kv or 200kv generator? You could start
off with a sm all 9KV 30mA or less (12V 5A operation) automotive neon transformer to save yourself the trouble of building an
oscillating circuit. O r INFO RMATION UNLIMITED, I am sure you have already heard of it, has som e 2KV-7KV 10mA battery
operated transform ers that yo u could use as a power source (very com pact and lightwieght). I got a 4KV on e to power my
v o l t a g e m u l t i p l i e r . K i t s a n d p l a n s ( o n l i n e ) h a s s o m e 3 0 m A 12KV diodes 10 for $30 that you could use if you could n ot find a
low enough current transform er or current lim iting resistor or if you wanted it to ch arge faster. Information unlimited also sells
diod es and capacitors for voltage multipliers. W hat is your 20,000 volt generator for?
xyz Novem ber 1st, 2002, 07:03 PM

Inform ation unlim ited is a piece of shit (and I'm sure m o s t p e o p l e h e r e a g r e e )
If I m a k e a 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 v o l t g e n e r a t o r i n s t e a d o f a 2 0 , 0 0 0 v o l t o n e then the current will be a lot lower, I want to be able to run it

on a few 9 volt batteries. (25Kv is all I need an yway, It will jump through clothing)
I will probably use it for charging capacitors or as a shocker.
PYRO500 Novem ber 1st, 2002, 09:38 PM

If you want 20-30 KV then just buy a stun gun, they are around that range althou gh they claim to be much higher.
Marvin Novem ber 1st, 2002, 10:00 PM

Quote "This circuit has nothing to do with car coils OK?"
Actually, its everything like the old car coil circuits. Specifically its identical in m ethod to the model T ford circuit which is a copy
of the victorian induction coil. The relay is m ade to oscillate in exactly the sam e way, you wire the normally closed contacts in
series to the relay coil.
Mechanical contacts d ont just wear out quickly, they are too slow to produce the high frequ ency you need fo r com pact power
transfer. Tesla coils u se very high frequency, generated with a tank circuit, crude but effective, with very highly refined resonant
transfer (both matched frequency and standing wave) to achive extrem ely high voltages a nd high power transfer through an air
coil. This is exception ally good engineering for the time, but is basically a reflection on the state of transformer cores at the
end of 19th century. Anyone wanting to work with high voltages would do well to understan d how a good tesla design works
fully, rather than the lazy drop-available-com p o n a n t s - a n d - g e t - s p a r k i n g d e s i g n s t h a t s e e m to perm iate the internet.
Today you can get a lot of power throu gh a small coil with a high quality ferrite core at high frequency (eg 100khz), and this is
definatly the way to g o for small EHT p ower applications. But for use as a w e a p o n 2 0 o d d k v DC is useless. Its a bad way of
generating the power, its a ba d way of storing the power, its a bad way of switchin g the power and its a very uncontrollable (and
therefore unreliable) way of delivering the power.
Modern stun guns work like a cam e r a f l a s h t r i g g e r s ( u s u a l l y a r o u n d 3 - 6 k v , b u t t h e s a m e e n g i n e e r i n g a p p l i e s ) a n d

defribulators. The battery is stepped up to a few hundred volts over a large electrolytic (and therefore high energy / m a s s a n d
size) capacitor over a period of time and when the pulse is need e d i t s d u m p e d t h rough a power transistor or m ore easily with a
thyratron into the primary of the main output EHT coil. In Idoru gibson m e n t i o n s p e o p l e m a k i n g s t u n g u n s o u t o f d i s p o s a b l e
cameras, which is a possitivly godlike idea and quite feasable. Y ou only require a self built EHT coil, and a beefy replacem ent
transistor to m ake it work (They burn out very easily as sold), at least in theory. A cam era flash is essentia lly light produced by
a s h orted thyratron.
W h e n y o u h a v e t h e e lectrolytic method working , y o u c a n r e a d u p a b o u t h u m a n h e a l t h e f f e c t s b a s e d on energy rather than

voltage, which is a be tter indicator and this will give you a rough indication how much power will hurt a lot, and how much will
c a u s e p e r m i n a n t d a m age, two very important limits for determing how fa r you want to go. EHT is fun to experiment with, and
a s s a f e ( o r a s unsafe ) as you are willing to make it, but this alm o s t g o e s w i t h o u t s a y i n g t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t a s a w e a p o n a t
s o m e point would have to involve lining up a num ber of people willing to die in th e process, police squad style, and
electricuting them one after another. R e m i n d m e never to visit western australia.
Cockroft walton ladde rs, and sim ilar passive de vices are extrem ely cunning, and very useful for building stable low power EHT
supplies, but are rath er a dissapointment when it com es to rate of energy transfe r. A mod ification of the ladder, which uses a
series of coils on a comm on core, is m uch better for hig h power (up to about 1MW in short bursts or sm all devices overheat)
applications even over 1MV but its difficult to in sulate and couple the the transform er wind ings.
As a n end note, 9v batteries are pretty crappy in term s o f i n t e r n a l i m p e d e n c e , a n d t h e r e f o r e m a x i m um available power, try
NiC d cells in series to the sam e v o l t a g e .
Boob Raider Novem ber 1st, 2002, 10:37 PM

Use Ni metal Hydride 9V batte ries. They pack m ore juice than any other comm only available battery (about 15 C.D) and are
rechargeable . Also Lithium ion .... but I don't think they can be charged.
Marvin Novem ber 3rd, 2002, 12:11 AM

Thats true, b ut what concerns projects like this m ore is power rather than stored energy. Power is the rate a t which you can get
the energy into the electronics to do som ething useful with.
You can get rechargeable Li batteries, and NiMH do last a lot lon ger than NiC d, I'm not sure what the im pedence is for NiMH,
but for sheer m elt-the-wires power, you cant do a lot be tter than NiCd or Lead-Acid.
Anthony Novem ber 3rd, 2002, 09:35 AM

I'll second th at. The new 3Ah Sanyo Nicd cells are good for about 90A continuous!
xyz Novem ber 4th, 2002, 05:55 AM

OK, so it does have something to do with car coils but I don't intend to use one for this circuit as it would be too large and
bulk y.
I c a n ' t b u y a s t u n g u n b e c a u s e I a m in Australia and yo u can't g et anything like that here.
Can someone post a diagram for a good pulse circuit as I can't find one anywhere.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > tec-9
Log in
View Full Version : tec-9
phyrelord Novem ber 1st, 2002, 03:21 PM

How hard is it to make a tec-9 or ab-10 full auto? Is it possible to m ake it select fire? If any one h as any info it would be really
help f u l . T h a n k s
nbk2000 Novem ber 2nd, 2002, 08:44 AM

The TEC-9 is a piece of shit, the prefered turd of ghetto dwellers everywh ere.
Plus, full-auto is murder <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> on accuracy. It doesn't matter how fast the
b u l l e t s a r e b e i n g s p r a y e d i f n o n e o f t h e m hit the target.
Zyklon_B Novem b e r 2 n d , 2 0 0 2 , 1 1 : 3 4 P M
The cheaper method at a cost of less then 80$ is to build a Sten MK3. Kits are worthless, m ags are even cheaper, why the hell
would anyone need to convert a tec-9 other then to ruin resale value?
And anyways Tec-9 is a Jam -o-m atic, and the only way of m a k i n g it even som ewhat reliab le is to polish the feed ram p.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Defense from groups
Log in
View Full Version : Defense from groups
knowledgehungry November 2nd, 2002, 04:27 PM

3 days ago, on my way home from school, I was accosted by a group of people who resembled the missing link between apes
and man. My school,being in a less than desirable neighborhood of one of the US's larger cities, is frequented by these
groups of people quite often. While they do not go to my school (I doubt they go to school at all)they hang out by the school
waiting to harass the students leaving school. This group of people, ranging in age from 16-25 surrounded me demanded my
money, threw an egg at me(it was halloween)and other things that monkeys tend to do. When I went to my belt for my chain
with a lock attached to it they thought I was going for a gun, they promptly went to their pockets, they didnt pull anything, I'm
not even sure if they had enough welfare money to purchase a weapon but I thought discretion was the better part of valor
and put my chain away.
When I informed them that I had no money they punched me in my face twice. Luckily there were quite a large amount of
people nearby so they did nothing else that day. However this group of people (and I use that term, lightly) hang around my
school nearly every day and since I mouthed off to them (dumb move I know)are no doubt out for blood. So my question is
this do you have any idea for a weapon that is not only effective against a group of 6-8 people who possibly have guns but
could go through my schools metal detectors and x-ray machines without looking suspicious? Thank you for any help you have
to offer. I would like the weapon to be able to be made by monday since that is when i go to school, however i understand the
difficulty of my request, but if anyone can think of something it is you.
[ November 02, 2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: knowledgehungry ]
piggarro99 November 2nd, 2002, 05:07 PM

you have the only option that a person has left. and that is that you need to take a small lump of something heavy and have
the frame of mind that you hit the one that talks the most, i know they say that the quiet ones are the ones to watch, but its
the big mouth ones that get fucked up when you hit them.
when i was once circled i thought, they are going to kick the shit out of me so i may as well try something, and i just walked up
to the biggest one and said "excuse me you are in the way" and stared him in the eyes, and fuck me he looked down and let
me pass. if you do this and the biggest one dont move then have that lump of heavy stuff ready, cos the truth is they will hurt
you, so if you can get a good strong nose breaker in, that one is alot easier to stop next time...
if you can avoid it tho, then try!
kingspaz November 2nd, 2002, 06:23 PM

well if they harass other students then it may be an idea if everyone from your school joins forces and beats the shit out of
them all.
or:
<a href="http://www.spytech-uk.com/" target="_blank">http://www.spytech-uk.com/</a>
they sell nylon kinves :)
ShockWave November 2nd, 2002, 07:21 PM

I always have some teargas in my car, You can buy them legally in germany, I still haven't used it, I'm glad but i'm not sure if
it works, maybe testing someday !?! :D
nbk2000 November 2nd, 2002, 07:52 PM

"The way of no way" is the way to do things.
Sorry if this sounds Yoda'ish, but you will want to take care of this situation so that there's no way of retaliation against you.
Do these people have a favorite spot? If so, stink it up with decayed flesh, diarrhea, month old fermented eggs, etc. When
they move, stink that spot up too. Continue to do so till there's no spot left for them that doesn't stink till they get the hint
and leave.
A drive by teargassing with a CS fogger makes a point. Or paintball guns (the full auto kind), with a warning "Next time, it's
real".
If they're that big of a problem, spray them with lye from a supersoaker. Blind predators become prey for other predators. :D
knowledgehungry November 2nd, 2002, 09:21 PM

Unfortunately I do not feel that it is as simple as having boot party on their asses or else that already would have been done,
the neighborhood is NOT in the suburbs, kids from my school have been shot and killed in recent years in front of school. I
am thinking ski masks and some pepper spray/sulfuric/lye followed by a baseball bat to the head but i need at least six
people to pull it off right. I think leaving none alive is best bet but I have no gun. I read something about a substance called
prussic acid that is fast acting and lethal. is is to hard to make or too dangerous? NBK i doubt putting foul smelling substances
where they hang out will deter them, the whole city smells like shit and i doubt that these kids even wipe. They are that dirty.
In theory things work better than in practice unfortunately I now have to put them into practice...
MrSamosa November 2nd, 2002, 10:13 PM

Prussic Acid is another name for Hydrogen Cyanide/Cyanide Gas (HCN). It has almost immediate knock-out action and is very
toxic. It also volatilizes readily, but has a melting point of 78.9 degrees fahrenheit. If the temperature is too far below that, it
may not be effective. However, if you were to simply squirt a small amount between their collar bones, it would surely volatilize
and evaporate up to their noses quickly (especially since HCN is lighter than air). If I remember correctly, NBK had gotten a
bad whiff of HCN once...maybe he will tell you how it acts on the body, how much he inhaled, and what is body weight is (as a
frame of reference for how it may act on your targets). However, then there's the problem of being arrested and charged with
use of a chemical weapon. The same applies even if you use Lye or other corrosive cleaners. They are chemicals used as
weapons...keep that in mind.
If you're interested in a particularly nasty tear gas, try Chloropicrin... Buy some Nitromethane from the hobby shop (race car
fuel), and add bleach to it. I haven't figured out the ratios yet for 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite, I've been too lazy...sorry. But
from a preliminary test of it using an unmeasured amount of 60% Calcium Hypochlorite and 30% Nitromethane, it works pretty
well. Keep in mind - Sodium Hypochlorite will work better than Calcium Hypochlorite...that means, you spend less money =D.
Now, heat for about 15 minutes (the patent never said specifically how much heating, but seeing as the reaction occurs
spontaneously it shouldn't require too much). The Chloropicrin should be a clear liquid that forms towards the bottom of the
mixture. You will want to filter it out quickly, because it eventually will be destroyed by NaOH present in the mixture.
You seem to be in a tough situation, my friend. Maybe skin-damaging cleaners will demoralize them, especially if a group of
you in ski masks carrying them were to spray em down. Really- if a group of you equal to the size of their group all carried
cans of Lye oven cleaner and used a whole can on each of them...they'll leave you alone for a while. But then there's the
threat of retalliation :( . Why not just call the police though? Have them monitor the area? They're our friends! The protectors!
[ November 02, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]
EP November 2nd, 2002, 10:36 PM

You should look for alternatives to killing them first... :rolleyes:
Stay in a group of people when you are around them. See if the school can put sercurity gaurds out there. You could always
call the cops and tell them something is going on. The drive in with lights flashing, the goons run away, you walk on by!
Seeing as this is in a public place, most likely in daylight, it would not be a good idea to start tossing stun grenades and acids
at them...
PYRO500 November 2nd, 2002, 11:31 PM

If you are looking for chemical weapons to use against them, there's always the non-lethal choice of acrolin or posibly
chloroacetone, both are very easy to make. I think if your gonna take out these punks you'd better do it in a group to be
safe. If maiming but not killing is your name then how about a bucket of cairo's acid thrown at them?
[ November 02, 2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: PYRO500 ]
MrSamosa November 3rd, 2002, 12:09 AM

Now that we've gotten into taking off flesh with acids... What about "Piranha Fluid"? That is a simple mix of H2O2 and Sulfuric
Acid, right? And it likes to cause organic materials (e.g.: eyes, flesh...) to catch fire. THERE is something that will deter would-
be attackers.
Edit: Silly me, Caro's Acid is simply another name of Piranha Fluid, which is basically a 3:1 mixture of Conc. Sulfuric Acid:30%
H2O2. Unfortunately, this is a very unstable mixture and is explosive if not handled very carefully! Storing it in a closed
container is trouble. And unless you enjoy chemical burns, it I would suggest that you mix the solution shortly before use! Do
not ever try to store it!
[ November 02, 2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]
MoToMaStR November 3rd, 2002, 12:22 AM

That sucks dude,... the coloreds messing with you cause your white huh? I'd just invest like 15 bucks in like 2 or 3 of them
pepper spray's or blow like 25 bucks on a big one. The stuff thats made for bears and other big animals on hunting trips.
Check like cabelas magazings and shit for the bear foggers. The pictures demonstrating the stuff is bad ass. All you see is a
white cloud that looks like tires while burning out, and a big ass grizzly bear with its face turned away looking like it wants to
die. =) if you could,... friggen peel off the lable so it dosnt say bear fogger, and try to stick on an air freshner sticker or some
shit so if when it gets xrayed and stuff and they do see the thing in your bag,... they wont care. just tell em its for when you
gotta take a steamy shit,... you spray air freshner. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Im saying dude,...
Im sure that bear repelent will put the colored boys down for a bit and they'll think twice about stopping you again. :D
[ November 02, 2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: MoToMaStR ]
nbk2000 November 3rd, 2002, 03:32 AM

HCN is VERY toxic. A chunk of NaCN the size of a pea in a couple of milliliters of H2SO4 damn near did me in. I was holding
the end of a small test tube shut with my thumb to see how much pressure it would build up. Unfortunately, the pressure
released on the side of my thumb that my face was on.
I got just a tiny puff of gas, but it made me dizzy and nauseous within seconds. I got tunnel vision as I started to black out.
My heart was racing, I was breathing rapidly, but I was suffocating (cellular oxygen deprivation). It passed in a couple of
minutes as I hadn't inhaled a lethal dose, so my body cleared it quickly.
That's the thing with HCN, you either die, or you recover. There's no lingering effects like with other gases.
But straight liquid sprayed in the face? Death, quick and quiet, though likely messy from the vomiting or bowel emptying.
Easter egg shells filled with lye powder could be chucked at the slope apes from around corners or rooftops. The powder will
burn the shit out of them. Just don't get caught by the cops.
If you can get a group of friends with you, pick off the slope apes one by one when they're alone and show them what it's like
to be on the receiving end. Leave a permanent mark to remind them about what happens to muds who fuck with the master
race.
Butane soldering pens make useful branding irons for freestyle "art" work. :D I've heard tribal style patterns are popular with
african-americans :rolleyes: nowadays.
Make sure everyone takes a turn with the iron, so everyone is equally liable for punishment, thus interested in keeping their
mouths shut.
Korfaction November 3rd, 2002, 04:42 AM

I'm wondering whether they'll be disgusted if you attack them or they'll try to kill you in your back while you're walking
somewhere without witnesses...
I like the idea of pepper sprays, very efficient, but a more radical gas may be better. You have to choose. But wait a little for
your anger to pass. Then you'll think more clearly about that.
Why not destroying their car or anything ? Thay may not be happy enough to get back to the school to try to steal a few
bucks... In the neighborhood that you're talking, you can manage it to look like a car doubtfire (? is that the word ?)...
metafractal November 3rd, 2002, 05:53 AM

I like to be on the safe side or at the very least dream of how to deal with such types, even know they seldom bother yuppie
suburb's like mine :D . I have decided that the best method is how they have learnt to deal with similar harrasment in South
Africa, the country with the highest rate of car jackings in the world, by far. They designed a device that is now commonplace
there to send out large burst of flame from the bottom of their car. I think that big, cold-medium hot bright yellow flames work
best for the following reasons:
-First and foremost: Such flames will cause immediate "shock damage", i.e. the enemy 'thinking' he feels pain, or expecting it
as he sees his his friend's facial hair turned to charcoal and even skin peeling off(its a psychological thing <img border="0"
title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), while permanent damage is reasonably minimal, and death, if you use the device
within reason, is very unlikeley.
-They scare the sh*t out of people and the intense light often temporarily blinds (or at the very least visually shocks if they
are not expecting it)
-Very easy to come by, as the best for such flames is often just low hydrocarbons around the transition from gaseous-liquid at
atmospheric pressure
-No metal would be required for the delivery system, I built a such a device from a mini-fertilizer sprayer in 1 hour, works like
a dream...
Most of those kinds of types wouldnt be back for a year, but they vary, some of them are just bloodthursty and lusting for
revenge at any point.
Korfaction, I think that screwing over their car etc. would just inspire more anger and just as much will for revenge (supposing
they knew it was him, and if not it would be useless anyway), and could even bring his family into it, depending on just how
sinister/serious they are.
And NBK, with all do respect, I just dont see the stink-out idea happending outside of spy kids...
The only downside to fire is its visibility and how much attention it could draw. Still, using HCN would be very messy, its not
good to have murder on your hands in general, and if it really is that toxic, in the heat of the battle one could easily kill
himself, or at least cause him to pass out (wich would equal killing himself, if any of the others are still alive)
Hope its not too late!

>Metafractal
piggarro99 November 3rd, 2002, 06:24 AM

what ever it is that you choose to do, remember that althought they are not what one would call "great people" they will still
get you arrested for abh. gbh. abh/gbh (wi) so have a limit.
Also if you feel that you are going to walk around your school for a whole day with some of the things that we have discussed
in your pockets, then good luck, because other than a good mortician that is what you are going to need.
zeocrash November 3rd, 2002, 07:08 AM

i used to carry a cooking blowtorch round with me. it ran off lighter gas (butane). It proved trusty a trusty companion for
repelling cro magnon man. and was also useful for lighting things. you could try one of them, or a stun gun/tazer. or if you
would like to terminate these dudes without suspicion, you could OD them on smack or something, to make it look like they
were shooting, and they ODed. i'm watching this post intently as i've been lamped a few times, and its not enjoyable
[ November 03, 2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: zeocrash ]

Have you ever heard of the fable where the mice had to put the bell on the cats neck. They had a great idea, but then no one
was willing to do it.
i feel that you must act, but sensibly, get the police involved..

If the stinkum idea is so silly, why is the US military spending millions on developing malodorants (MIL-SPEAK for stinky crap)?
Would you hang out somewhere that smelled like a cross between a cesspit and a maggoty corpse? If you could, you've got a
stronger stomach than I. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
This denies people the use of an area without damaging the materials or property therein. This would have come in handy
where I used to live where feral devil-spawn ("children" to the uninformed) would make all kinds of noise in the laundry room
next to my apartment in the middle of the night while I was sleeping.
A shot of stinkum would have made them look elsewhere for a place to hangout at without any hassles from the garbage
breeders ("parents"...and I use the term loosely) like I ended up having.
Anyways, they hit you in the face...TWICE! They're sub-human garbage and should be killed. Do it quietly, do it
dispassionately, and do it without a trace.
The police aren't going to care about something "petty" like a street assualt if you don't have influence or a public outcry
about it. They'll take a report, tell you to be more careful, and send you out the door.
Better to keep quiet, plan well, and strike quickly.
Leave poisoned candy bars lying about where they hang out. One or more of them will surely eat them, thus reducing their
numbers. Something like ricin would be ideal. If someone else eats it...oh well, Darwin in action. After all, you don't eat food
off the street unless you're a wino or terminally stupid, thus unworthy of life anyways.
If this is a gang, find out what their tags are, and who is their enemy. Then, tag the enemy gangs turf with the other gangs
sign, and cross out the first gangs tags. This is an intolerable disrespect and will instigate a war between the two. This is
referred to as using a "cats paw".
[ November 03, 2002, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]

as the fable suggests, these are very good ideas, but there is a shortage of people that will actually carry them out.
zeocrash November 3rd, 2002, 08:04 AM

i will, if you pay for my plane ticket to wherever the hell it is you live. no but seriously for guys like this either you avoid them
or you make sure that they are unable to attack you. the first option might work as i hear that cro magnon man has a very
short memory span. for the second option you would want to make their deaths as natural as possible, an injection of alcohol,
wouldmake them look as though they had drunk too much and got alcohol poisoning. but an injection of something like water
off the street, or crap out of the urinals would make it look like they had died of an illness.
knowledgehungry November 3rd, 2002, 10:02 AM

I did go to the police after it happened and they said in an oh so helpful manner what did they look like i replied that they
were standing right fucking over there and i pointed. They then asked whether i would like to press charges(they had not caght
them) i answered yes but then they told me not to bother that it was too much work :mad: the school knows too but they can
do little except chase them away. I am going to have to deal with this one carefully since where they hang out is crowded with
many other witnesses. The worst part is when i was surroundeed and punched in the face NO ONE helped me, blacks will stick
together against the whites even if they are mortal enemies, but most whites feel to bad about slavery to do anything we
should have left them in AFrica to rot like the rest.

And the niggers wonder why white people come to hate them.
Hate makes you strong. Nurture it, savor it...use the dark side of the force to give you strength.
Just yesterday, I saw a newspaper story about some nigger who got paroled out last week after serving 20 years for rape and
robbery. He attacked a white woman in a parking lot, raped and sodomized her, then cut her throat and left her naked body in
the van he fucked her in.
Needless to say the moron is in jail right now waiting on capital murder charges.
This thing (can't say "man" in connection to a mud) looks like a fucking ape...literally. Add a little more fur to the face and I'd
swear it was a silverback gorilla who escaped from the zoo!
And yet, you say the "N" (Nigger) word, and they go ape ( <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ) shit!
Believe it or not, at one time I had black friends and wasn't at all racist. Then I came to see them all the time, and that
opened my eyes up to what they're like when they're not putting on the "massa'" face that they show to whites when they're
putting on a front.
When they're being themselves, they're straight "gorillas in the mist". Crude, violent, loud, rutting "jungle Fever" bug-a-boos.
When in white society and they're trying to conform, they can be quite polite. But the front falls down quick when they're angry.
That's when the ghetto dweller comes out of them and the true face of the nigger comes to the fore.
And, given the choice, what would you rather have as neighbors? White trash, or ghetto dwellers? I'd take the trailer park over
the 'hood any day.
Oh, and another funny thing I read was how an insurance company has settled out on a big lawsuit for having charged poor
"minorities" more for life insurance than whites. Gee, could that be because the slum dwellers are more likely to be killed in
conflicts over drugs, drink themselves to death, or have heart attacks from fried chicken poisoning? :p
piggarro99 November 3rd, 2002, 12:49 PM

what is the difference between a nigger and an ape.
an ape smells better and dont go round nicking fucking handbags and raping old women!
knowledgehungry November 3rd, 2002, 02:35 PM

Is their anything that marijuana could be coated with that would be unnoticeble and give a lethal smoke? I am thinking let
them jump me I drop mebbe oz. bag and then say oh take it your blackness you are oh so superior etc. then let em all puff
up together and never see em again. If that fails i could blow up the welfare office or the KFC, that would show em. :p
Sparky November 3rd, 2002, 02:37 PM

I don't speak from first hand experience but here is my advice anyways:
First, you must decide to what degree you want to get them. Do you want to kill them? Probably not. Burn their houses down?
No. Put them in hospital or jail. Maybe for a bit. Assume that you will get caught and you will have to decide whether the
consequences are worth it and whether you will be able to plead self defense.
I'd say you need more time to prepare. Though as Sun Tzu said, it's better not to have to fight at all. If possible, do not go to
school (what is worse - failing a course or going to jail for killing someone?) or avoid the group. I don't know how old you are,
but if you're young your parents will doubtless let you skip if you tell them what happened (could make it worse though). This
gives you time to prepare and for the undesirables attention span to be stretched. They may very well forget about you, in
which case you could organize even better and take them out with help from other schoolmates (like kingspaz said) or take
the easy path and go back to normal.
Other tactics may be to have the police in plainclothes watch you while you enter school. When the thugs attack they get
locked up. But chances are the police will ignore you and your request.
If you decide to face them, meet all of your friends, and people you know who hate the enemy at hand, somewhere before
going into school. Tell them what's going on so that they can prepare. Meet your friends inside of school also, so that you can
exit the school in numbers.
If you accept the consequences, a preemtive attack could be effective. If you can find out their names you can find where they
live. This opens up a wide range of possibilities, from framing (or reporting them) to capturing them (gas them first?). To
frame them, you could plant drugs and tip the police. Or take a chance and just hope they have drugs. Steal their car plates
so they can't drive to school. Put ice or grease on their brake drums, or cut the lines. Use your imagination.
As for avoiding them, if you choose to go to school and try to avoid them, disguise yourself. Choose a disguise that blends in
and hides your face. Maybe get a haircut. Change your walk. Wear contacts instead of glasses. Preferably disguise yourself as
someone else who goes to your school as opposed to just some new kid. Have your hood up, wear a belaclava.
If you decide to face them with weapons, I have some suggestions. Most hand to hand weapons are out since you don't have
training in them (right?) and they outnumber you greatly. Possibly their numbers will be even larger if they expect you. There
has been extensive discussion on self defense weapons. I suggest you read that thread. You could use commercial self
defense such as mace or bear spray (ape spray <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). Application is quick
and the range is long enough so that you aren't yet surrounded. A flame thrower would be good too. A flame thrower with
minimal metal is feasable. A liquid fuel one would easily put them in hospital (sticks to them, then burns) or a gas one would
be less damaging, depending on how far you want to go. A can of ether (quickstart) might work as a chemical weapon. Ether
used to be used as an anesthetic but it killed people too often. In any case, test the weapon well before use. Have a backup
weapon, maybe of a different sort. Have a friend meet you just outside the door, when you're coming out of school with the
weapon. Or stash it outside.
One of the knockout gases in NBK's PDF could be useful, if difficult. The advantage is (probably) no permanant damage. This
could be bad though. You must finish the job the first time. They must be afraid enough of you enough to not attack you
again. If you half ass it then they will be prepared for next time, and they will want revenge. "If you're gonna knock a man
down, do it so he don't get up."
the resourceless reaperman November 3rd, 2002, 02:43 PM

Helvetica">what is the difference between a nigger and an ape.
an ape smells better and dont go round nicking fucking handbags and raping old women!
<hr /></blockquote>I assume you mean the non-getto type of ape
here :p .
Anywayz are ya sure they want to kill ya cos if they did wouldn't they have done it allready? Also you thought they might not
have the money to buy firearms. But frankly I don't think they actually make a legal purchase more than 2 times a year
anyway.
Also if they group together why not put remote controlled bomb at the spot where they usually go? The police would suspect
some other gang and you be rid of those smelly black f*ckers.
[ November 03, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: the resourceless reaperman ]

Perhaps the only reason they didnt finish me was due to the fact that there were a large number of people nearby, however
that is not always the case, tomorrow i leave school after dark <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . They
were waiting outside of school the next day but school cops :D chased them away.
[ November 03, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: knowledgehungry ]

Ehhhm maybe it's time you came to school with a fucking big gun, something like an UZI or MP5 and shot all those
underdeveloped monkeys to shit.
The bomb under the street idea might be worth it tho. D'you have any exp with die Bomben?

did you see my previous post about poison dope? Any ideas?

I don't think giving them dope is a very good idea. The cops might arrest you for it. one of the niggers might survive and fuck
you up and also why waist some perfectly good weed?
maybe you could put a poisonous spike on the ground, the niggers steps onto it and get poisoned. a carcinogen or opiate
might work. They'll never know it was you.
Or somehow start a gangwar...
Energy84 November 3rd, 2002, 03:05 PM

I'm pretty sure that I heard one time that teflon can kill when smoked. I think I read it somewhere on a site about different
bong designs and it said to never use teflon tape to seal joints because if it burns, the fumes can kill. It apprantly doesn't
take much either. So if you could find some good weed (we call it white rhino here) with lots of crystals so that it almost looks
white, you could conceivable grind in some teflon tape. You might want to research it first though because I'm just going on
memory here. I'll see what I can find for you though.

I suppose you'd notice the weird taste of burning plastic before you got a lethal dosage. by the way, would allmost any plastic
be toxic? and like I said it wouldn't be a good idea to walk up to them with weed they's think you were up to something and
fuck you up any way.
how about 3 or 4 bottles of clorine gas packed together with something that slowly eats away the bottles so that they'd get
clorine fumes into their system? It certainly won't kill them but it would scare m away.
or make a bomb with some bottles stuck to it together with lots of nails. they'd be ripped open by the nails and get clorine in
their veigns. that would kill m of.
vir sapit qui pauca loquitur November 3rd, 2002, 03:17 PM

when ever i get thinking about this entire area my blood pressure hits some serious highs. There is a programme that is due
to come on in england (can't recall which channel) but it's about a young BNP member, (for the yanks, the BNP is like the KKK)
and the entire thing is going to be poking fun at the BNP without dissecting WHY more and more white people are "deffecting"
to the cause. You only need to take a look at the news-stands to understand why. The police have to go softly-softly to reduce
the riots that occur in brixton (harlem)
and when one of these exceptionally stupid smack-head nigger(sorry repeating myself there) goes to jail, the family has the
GALL to call for the release of the "wronged party" as leroy biglip always was a good boy. :mad: The family can't seem to
realise that little leroy happens to be a multiple rapist who loves nothing more then to rob, mug and be a nasty bastard to
everyone so that he can have a few more gold teeth/braclet's/necklace's :rolleyes: it only makes it easier to pick them off at
night with the jangling that it makes :D
when i do visit the slums of london (not often and only when vital), I seem to be the only white in a sea of black faces. the
africans hate the jamaicans, but they hate white men the most (still feeling the 'massas whip :D )
You dont mention any numbers (apart from ages) of the slope-heads,
how many? Do you consider it worth while investigating where they live? if you are considering investing a bit of time in doing
this correctly then you may as well dispose of them. The entire op has to be done in one day, with the elimination of each one
before joining they join up with the rest of the group.
I'm not sure as to the validity of this idea, but how easy is it for ricin to be dissolved in water/ethanol? Can it be absorbed via
the skin? (using water/ethanol as solvent) As a super soaker filled with this gives you a slow acting weapon that normal cops
would over-look (and what coroner would spend money on a jungle-bunny looking for ricin poisoning?)
EDIT:
Q.why are a niggers eyes red after sex?
A. because of the mace
[ November 03, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]
Energy84 November 3rd, 2002, 03:28 PM

Here is a <a href="http://www.imscompany.com/msds/105579.pdf" target="_blank">MSDS for teflon tape</a>. It basically
outlines what fumes are released at certain temps.
This is an interesting little tidbit though from the <a href="http://appalachia.outdoors.org/bbs/messageview.cfm?
catid=4&threadid=644" target="_blank">AMC Forum</a> about the dangers of burning teflon.
Helvetica">One thing you REALLY never want to burn is Teflon. Burning this releases cyanide gas. The Winston-Salem cigarette
company, for example, does not allow ANY Teflon products in their production facility, just on the off chance that some of it
might wind up in a cigarette and kill someone.
<hr /></blockquote>Best of luck.
Edit:
How do you get a nigger out of a tree?
Cut the rope.
[ November 03, 2002, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Energy84 ]

maybe you should ask the KKK for help...

Q. How do you help a nigger that's one fire?
A. You better well fuckin don't!!!
piggarro99 November 3rd, 2002, 04:01 PM
those silly kkk and there knot tying sessions...
so what you gonna do
Eliteforum November 3rd, 2002, 04:16 PM

Why has the resourceless reaperman not been banned yet?! :confused:
I remember reading somewhere (Kurt Saxons site I belive) about an improvised weapon called the Pike?
It's like a stick with a fishing hook sort of contraption on the end, that when stabbed it sticks in the victim without leaving
much evidence.
Therefore if your surrounded by would be "witnesess" they would say that they didn't see anything.
john_smith November 3rd, 2002, 04:33 PM

Wouldn't the combination of a sixpack and ricin work the same? Sure, booze is not as appealing as dope for them but i doubt
they'd leave it to you...

There are six of them(at least) i wasnt gonna walk up to them and give it to them, i was gonna wait to be jumped by them
and tell em i got no money but i got this just dont hurt me. Even if the police trace their deaths back to me how is it my fault
that they stole it off me plus i got it that way from the dealer. And 1 manslaughter term (most ill get) will be worth six of
them.
zeocrash November 3rd, 2002, 05:28 PM

if you're going to fight these guys, you should try to do it on your own turf. So find a derelict building, and learn the layout of
it, corridors, rooms, closets, crawl spaces, stairs and basements. now if you are started on try to bring them to the location, by
running very fast towards it. once there, you can either try to split them up and deal with them, or you can place boobytraps
around, e.g. broken floorboards, bare wires and any other traps you may have thought to set up.

I like the idea of a six pack with poison in it. Instead of ricin i think might be better to use methanol (methyl alcohol)less
difference in taste and i heard as little as 10 milligrams cause blindness and 30 milligrams death. I think that is right. Any
opinions.
vulture November 3rd, 2002, 06:25 PM

How the hell could Teflon produce cyanide gas? It's a fluorocarbon, so it's either going to produce HF, CF4 or
some other gaseous fluorocarbon.
And might I say that this thread is getting a tad too imaginative? I doubt it anyone would pull off a stunt they're describing
here...

Vulture if you lived where i live... It is not necessarily all imaginative it is likely that some of the ideas are too extreme but i
am seriously contemplating the lye if i get fucked with again.
kingspaz November 3rd, 2002, 06:42 PM

this thread has turned to shit many posts ago. the last thing we need is a forum member becoming a serial killer.
there have been few (if that) viable suggestions and a ton of k3\/\/\/1 crap between.
waste of space - end of topic.
knowledgehungry - this topic has provided all the usefulness its going to provide. good luck!
[ November 03, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]

I jsut had to post this:
"<a href="http://torkyarkisto.marhost.com/niggerguide.html" target="_blank">How to Become a Certified Nigger</a>"
It's so true it's unreal! :D
As for teflon, that burns into various fluoropolymers and toxic/corrosive gases. However, the amount you could reasonable
expect to hide in a cigarette is tiny. This might cause polymer Fever, similar to the better known foundry man's Fever. The
symptoms of this malady are chills, headache, and increased body temperature.
These symptoms usually come on many hours after exposure to the fumes and disappear after approximately 36 to 48 hours,
without medical treatment. It causes no lasting or cumulative effects.
So you could put the nigs out of action for awhile without having to kill them. Just leave tainted blunts (for their "chronic"
[weed]) lying about for them to pick up and smoke.
You could use a fluoropolymer dispersion called FLUON GP1. Fluon is a liquid that dries very quickly and what remains is a
solid white patina. Fluon is water soluble and is not oil-based. It is not cheap, 1kg costs 42 Euro.
Order it from whitford. You have to phone or write an e-mail and explain that you want some fluon GP1. you can pay by bill/
check.
<a href="http://www.whitfordww.com" target="_blank">www.whitfordww.com</a>
Fluon is not on the webpage but you will find the e-mail addresses there at: <a href="http://www.whitfordww.com/mail.htm"
target="_blank">www.whitfordww.com/mail.htm</a>
Now who's your daddy?
<img src="http://www.planetquake.com/smackdown/HomePAGE/kermit.gif" alt=" - " />
:D
Lightfoot December 31st, 2003, 02:25 PM

Seems to me some of you are a bit hypocritical, one minute calling the police pigs and the next advising people to run
mumbling to them over something that amounts to little more than an egging, and talk of stripping there skin and leaving
them with severe respiratory disorders is a bit overboard. My advice would be to just leave a conventional weapon of
preference hidden outside the school and go to work on them next time you see them.

Lightfoot,
you inspired me...
Take a gun, perhaps a zipgun or whatever, plus some ammo, and stash it where the gang hang out. Then call the cops while
they are stood there, from a payphone, and rant about "Kids with guns outside the school"! Let the SWAT team take them
down. At the least, they will get dragged off at gunpoint, charged with whatever they have on them, and it is a federal offence
to have a gun near a school in the US!
Even if you aren't in the US, the cops will still respond ASAP with guns and many hands!
If you can't get a gun or ammo, get a few petrol bombs and a "zip gun" or similar, or a toy gun that looks real. Let the cops
dream up the use for them!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Disposable Telesniper
Log in
View Full Version : Disposable Telesniper

The whole incident with the DC sniper brought to mind the need to bring the Telesniper concept down to the masses so that
any nutcake with a direct hotline to God :D can use it to avoid pesky witnesses and identification.
So, what do you do?
Well, you firstly take a cartridge of the caliber you'll be using, and remove the primer. Replace it with an squib so it can be
fired electrically.
Next, chamber the round in a barrel you've bought anonymously through the net from one of the hundreds of parts dealers
using a prepaid cash card and had delivered to an abandoned house.
Seal with epoxy and embed the chamber end of the barrel in a container that you fill with concrete. This gives it strength and
weight for placement.
From previous experimentation using said barrel in an actual weapon, you've built an aiming device that consists of a barrel
plug onto which is attached a small microvideo camera. This is attached to a small battery powered TV.
The camera has been zeroed with the impact point of the barrel during your test firings, so whatever is centered in the camera
view is ground zero for bullet impact.
Set your one shot Telesniper up somewhere where you can engage a stationary target, such as a park bench, seat, or urinal
:D
Once you've sighted in the weapon, you remove the barrel camera for future use, and attach the command firing circuit to the
Telesniper. Could be as simple as a walkie-talkie hooked up with a DTMF decoder.
Or perhaps a prepaid pager dialed from a disposable cellphone, all bought several months prior so there's no way they can
trace them back to the store they were bought at and try finding you via store surveillance tapes.
Anyways, once you see someone at ground zero, either directly or via a seperate hidden CCTV camera, you activate the
weapon and continue on about your business.
Cost is minimal per weapon since it's only a barrel (under $200), a single cartridge, and some concrete. The aiming device,
the expensive thing, is reuseable.
Since every barrel is unique, they can't connect crimes by ballistics, though obviously they could be the same type of device
being used. But so what? If you're clever about it, and set them up days in advanced, no one will remember you by the time
the device is functioned.
And you could be miles away if you set it off by pager while it's aimed along a bench during some public event, where you're
sure to hit someone. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Oh, did I forget to mention how there's another squid that sets off the thermite in which the pager is buried in? Try figuring out
what pager number that carbon blob used to have Mr. Piggie. :p
zeocrash November 3rd, 2002, 12:26 PM

you can buy telelsniper systems from the web quite cheaply. an idea would be to strap explosives to the telesniper, and pack
it full of ammo. then try and see how many people you can shoot, and when your telesniper runs out of ammo, or is about to
get taken away, you explode the explosives, and, more dammage, and no eveidence.
irish November 3rd, 2002, 05:33 PM

the only problem I can see is not knowing the exact point of impact without a test shot. good idea for short range shots
though.
IRISH
zaibatsu November 3rd, 2002, 07:06 PM

I don't think concrete is a good material to use, I think it acts as a wick with water. Obviously if this is standing still for several
days dew etc may affect the reliability of this telesniper. Plus, I remember reading on some varmint shooting/reloading pages
that primers of different strengths affect consistency, so the electrical squibs may make the device innaccurate over long
distances.
Also, I'm unsure of how you intend to mount the video camera used for zeroing, without cutting rails and designing a mount
for the camera how are you going to get it level+ensure it stays that way?
Zach November 3rd, 2002, 09:54 PM

I think he meant stick it in the barrel...
right? Couldn't you just take your block with firing device inside, and either get a laser small enough to fit inside your barrel or
rig up something that fits perfectly in the muzzle and holds the laser at the exact center of the barrel?
Then set your block, put in the laser insert (into the barrel, remember) turn the laser on or tape the button down somehow
and point it where you want the bullet to end up. Then as you leave, you just remove the laser and go make a call.
I think this could work, despite it being suspicious and impossible to set up in the daylight.
EDIT: so basically I just went through all that trouble to tell you what he already did :"From previous experimentation using
said barrel in an actual weapon, you've built an aiming device that consists of a barrel plug onto which is attached a small
microvideo camera."
I'd think a laser would be a bit cheaper or at least less complex than a mini tv-camera setup
[ November 03, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Zach ]
Eliteforum November 3rd, 2002, 10:28 PM

Zach, how would you be able to see what your aiming at?
I think NBK had watched the film The Jackle, and then a news report on the sniper..! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]"
src="wink.gif" />
nbk2000 November 3rd, 2002, 11:01 PM

Laser would only work during darkness, when someone creeping around in bushes might raise suspicion. TV works 24 hours. :)
And it's not at all expensive. $20 for the camera, $20 for the TV.
There are laser boresighters that slip in the end of the barrel using a barrel plug.
Moisture from the concrete isn't going to be a problem because the chamber is sealed with epoxy, hence watertight, eh? <img
As for the primer issue, that is a possible complication. However, since this weapon is a one shot deal, nothing says you have
to use smokeless powder as a propellant. A charge of AP would fire out a bullet at much higher velocity than would be possible
in a gun. Like a one fragment claymore. :D Though test firing would be expensive at $150/test. :(
Perhaps a really cheap telesniper could be made using a length of steel tubing as a barrel, and saboted muzzle-loaded
hollowpoints as ammo. That'd bring a telesniper down to under $50/shot. :D
zeocrash:

Helvetica">you can buy telesniper systems from the web quite cheaply.<hr /></blockquote>Really? :rolleyes: Please post a URL for these cheap telesnipers. You're a good candidate for
BFL.
zeocrash November 4th, 2002, 04:54 AM

i take it back if you're extremely rich you can buy a telesniper of the web.
yeah they're slightly more expensive than i remember
**many apologies**
Machiavelli November 4th, 2002, 05:48 PM

EF, the telesniper idea has been around/sold to law enforcement/discussed on our beloved forum quite some time before the
bad remake of The Jackal was screened.
The only thing I don't see with the setup discussed (public location/random target) is the advantage compared to a normal
remote-controlled bomb/directional charge.
Sparky November 4th, 2002, 07:10 PM

Looks like NBK is expanding his chicken army. A squid that can set off thermite is one smart squid.
Just couldn't resist :D
PYRO500 November 4th, 2002, 09:01 PM

I think he ment "squib" :) and I have a video not of a telesniper per say but more of an SUV that has a .50 cal cannon on it
that can fire at 600 yards and hit an 18" target 10 out of 10 times! this is the ultimate weapon someone attempting an assult
on a large group of people should choose, the platform is very sophisticated and stabe. Check it out:
<a href="http://www.ibistek.com/activeprojects/files/cobravid9-02/COBRA.MPG" target="_blank">http://www.ibistek.com/

activeprojects/files/cobravid9-02/COBRA.MPG</a>
NoltaiR November 4th, 2002, 09:53 PM

That sounds like my fantasy of having 4 homemade RPGs that can simultaneously rotate in any direction all welded to a
platform that can easily be removed and installed to the bed of my truck... then we'll see which crazy MF out there wants to
tail-gate me! :D

Remember a thread at the old forum where I discussed the idea of having a pickup truck with a quad .50 or such concealed
under a camper shell? Well, here's the concept made real.
This'd have been quite the equalizer for the LA bankrobbers. :D Come get some piggies!
When a group of people are killed, the event becomes a generic bombing. For instance, when that moron in finland blew
himself up, did anyone hear about the victims? No, just a body count.
Whereas, when people are picked off one by one, the media has time to tell about them, making the killings seem more
"personal", bringing the paranoia home to the masses. :D
After each DC sniper victim was shot, their life story was in every paper.
Besides, bombings are sooooo 20th century. We're in the 21st century, and it's time to make a clean break with the past and
head off into the brave new world of telesnipers and meat puppets. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
And I'd like the cops to show how they captured the sniper...a mass of slag in a block of concrete. :p
pyromaniac_guy November 5th, 2002, 02:05 PM

want to REALLY reach out and touch someone???
<a href="http://members.aol.com/gunfreak/vulcan20.jpg" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/gunfreak/vulcan20.jpg</

a>
from:
<a href="http://www.serbu.com/" target="_blank">http://www.serbu.com/</a>
just 6$ a pop in quantity of 10+ and they are already have an electric primer! :)
granted they are just practice rounds... but fuck, a 20mm steel slug propelled by as much powder as there is in probably a few
ar-15 clips is going to REALLY mess someone's day up... I dont remeber where the link is, but I do recall one dealer selling
incindiary and armor piercing rounds for the m61, but they were much more expensive...
you would have to make your own barrel, m61 barrels are extraordinarily hard to come by.... but look on the bright side.. the
boire would be big enough to fit a cheap web cam in! no need to spend alot of money on a tiny video cam!
as a side note, i thought I should add that if anyone does decide to buy some of these rounds (hell i bought 10 of um from
the guy just because i thought they would be a kick ass paperweight to have and give to friends), anything larger than a .50
cal (with the excpetion of muzzle loaders, ect) is considered a destructive device... you can NOT make a firearm with these
things without federal liscences up the yin yang... even if you made a bolt action, single shot rifle out of one you would still
need a class II FFL... if you plan on doing something illegal anyways, fine, just wanted to give a heads up for anyone who
wanted to obey, or even make it look like you were obeying the law :)
[ November 05, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: pyromaniac_guy ]
A43tg37 November 5th, 2002, 06:56 PM

20mm Vulcan/M61 barrels aren't that hard to come by, apparently. Big Sky Surplus ( <a href="http://bigskysurplus.com"
target="_blank">http://bigskysurplus.com</a> ) sells the barrels for $350 apiece, all kinds of 20mm ammo ($5 per round in
quantities of a hundred rounds, pricier for less than that), 20mm chamber kits, and even an adapter to use .50 caliber primers
in 20mm shells. I'd still stick with the .50 for a telesniper, anyhow. 20mm seems a little like overkill against just people, and a
.50 BMG bullet could do just as good a job on anyone, even wearing some of the best police body armor. For vehicle-mounted
applications (presumably for anti-vehicular use against cops, or mabye the abovementioned asshole tailgaters :p ), though, a
20mm might be just the ticket...

A43tg37 ,
you ever buy anything from that dealer? it's too bad he didnt have more pics, but some of the photos he had looked a bit
odd, for example, the 20mm vulcan muzzle brake he has a photo of looks like little more than a piece of box steel welded
onto the end of a barrel, and is unlike the photos of any vulcan or vulcan style cannon i have ever seen... but holey hell! the
guy claims to have a 90mm tube and dummy rounds!!!! now that would make a REAL telecannon... wouldnt even need to put
a camera into the bore to sight the thing in, just take the round out and look through the tube! lol!
I'ma have to buy me some of those phalanz projectiles before someone goes and makes them illegal to own...
A43tg37 November 6th, 2002, 12:17 AM

pyromaniac_guy,
No, I've never bought anything from them. However, at <a href="http://www.nmpproducts.com/rt07.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.nmpproducts.com/rt07.htm</a> there is a picture of a 20mm single shot cannon someone made
with a barrel and parts from Big Sky Surplus (that was back when Big Sky Surplus was still CDSS Inc. Right now, if you call the
number listed for CDSS on that webpage, you'll get Big Sky Surplus); it appears therefore that this company is legit and not
some fraud like Information Unlimited or other "exotic weapons" companies.

One item of interest I found at <a href="http://bigskysurplus.com/misc.htm" target="_blank">http://bigskysurplus.com/
misc.htm</a> was this:
B-29 SODIUM FILLED VALVE---- $39 ea.
I wonder how much sodium you'd find in a lifter valve for a bomber engine? :) And only $40 with no "legit business" bullshit
from chemical suppliers.
And full length 20mm barrel blanks for $300? :D Even using inert ammo...the possibilities! :)
Oh, a good way to bait someone into standing still is to superglue a gold dollar coin to the sidewalk. Guarentee you that
anyone walking by it will stop and try to pick it up. If set up right, the telesniper will be directly over the coin, blowing their
brains over the coin since their heads will be directly over the coin as they're bending over it.
Korfaction November 6th, 2002, 11:10 AM

Just found a link about some remote rifle:
<a href="http://www.precisionremotes.com/" target="_blank">http://www.precisionremotes.com/</a>
An application is to rescue hostages... :D funny since the hostages are the one to take the major risks.
These remote systems are specific for a few weapons such as M16, but I guess adaptating it shouldn't be too difficult. But you
would need to re-calibrate the pointing device, more difficult.

NBK2000,
if you are looking for sodium metal on the cheap and without questions, i know a guy who sells the stuff in bulk.. i have no
friggin clue where he gets it, but his prices are cheap (around 230$ delivered, for 10 lbs) and he sure has a lax sales policy...
send him $$ and you get sodium in an UNMARKED box!
the guy is rather foolish really, when he first shipped me a brick (10 lbs is almost as big as a loaf of bread) it was simply in a
single (thin) garbage bag, wrapped in cardboard, and sealed with tape.. no outter box, no vapor barrier, no metal can packed
under agron, no dessicant, no hazmat lables, nuthin... when i got the box i didnt expect it to be the sodium, I order alot of
stuff mail order and from ebay, so given the packing i just figured it was some ebay crap... i cut the ting open with my pocket
knife, and in doing so i cut into the plastic bag it was wrapped in... once i got it unwrapped imemdiatly the surface started to
tear, sucking moisture from the air (seeing as we normally ahve 110% humidity here). luckily i had a 5 gal can of gas in the
garage.. i put the sodium brick into an empty 5 gal paint can and covered it with gas as a temproty method of storage... can
you imagine what would have happened if a mail carrier inf lorida would ahve dropped the thing in transit... especially if it was
raiing out? once sodium starts burning, it doesnt stop easily!!!
I'll give contact info for the guy, for anyone who wnats it, via private email...
xoo1246 November 6th, 2002, 02:58 PM

Patent 3,204,527 comes in mind. "Micro meteorites".
Is it me or is everything about random terror thease days, carried away with the hypes of the new century. This whole thing
sounds a bit sick.

No sicker than the weapons the governments of the world are developing for their use. :)
Kornification, the precision remotes site is run by the people who developed the telesniper concept in the first place. So that's
nothing new. Though I see they now have a .50 version. :D
Jacks Complete October 2nd, 2005, 01:31 PM

http://cs-people.bu.edu/aaron/turret/turret.htm
A home-brew sentry gun. Obviously and easily modified to be a telesniper, or could be left on automatic, with the exe being
run at power-up, which in turn is powered from a battery and a timer.
The design would need bulking up a bit, but standard techniques exist for that already.
GBowski November 12th, 2005, 08:34 PM

to better your chances of hitting something, and lower the cost profoundly, why not use a shotgun shell, a rat trap w/ a pin
soldiered to it, and some kind of remote trigger (or a tripline)
this takes away the need of a barrel,

due to its small size, it is much easier to conceal
(add some green and black spraypaint for camouflage)
the shortcomming of this would be its limited range, hence its not a sniping device, but it would be effctive.
thats just my two cents
James November 20th, 2005, 12:12 AM

A while back I ran across electronicly activated primer from remington. The primer are called EtronX (http://
www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/700etronx.htm).
Jacks Complete November 20th, 2005, 06:55 PM

http://www.binocularsdirect.com/Adirondack_Optics_Rifle_Scopes/dprfljnzocylhod.html
Could probably be modified to run as a web cam, or the guts could be removed, and replaced with an IP camera. IP cameras
are getting very cheap now, like all technology.
Jacks Complete January 2nd, 2006, 09:59 PM

The USB port is rapidly becoming the de facto standard for a lot of interfaces, from cheap media readers and thumb drives all
the way to audio devices and all the way down to toys.
It would seem that someone at Marks & Spencer's saw this thread, because this christmas they were selling a simply brilliant
USB controlled missile launcher! Check out http://search.ebay.co.uk/usb-missile_W0QQfromZR40 for ebay listing of it.
It fires three Nerf style air powered darts, and has a fairly full range of motion. And pretty much anyone with a bit of a clue
could mod this to point a webcam, or pretty much anything else, in any direction they want. Which could be very interesting...
E7 January 31st, 2006, 03:45 PM

Earlier in the discussion there was mention of using black powder bullets which led me to the thought of using an entire black
powder rifle. They can be purchased fairly inexpensivly with no permits or paperwork in most states and with the use of
pyrodex or the like can produce devestating effects at close range.
<A HREF="http://www.cva.com/products/rifle_buck.htm">145$, complete rifle.</a>
Jacks Complete March 27th, 2006, 06:13 PM

I was looking through a catalogue the other day, and stumbled across the perfect system ready for use and enhancement.
Powered satellite dish drives. Designed to turn at least 180 degrees, azimuth tilt, sub-degree accuracy, and designed to take a
heavy loading, of a big dish in windy conditions. And pretty low cost, too!
With the ability to move the device through big angles quite rapidly and then hold them solidly, the fine aiming device can be
both heavier duty and far simpler, as it needs to cover less than a degree of sweep. The dish could even be left in place as
cover, or even used for ELINT or audio collection!
nbk2000 March 27th, 2006, 10:13 PM

I had seen one of these dish servo setups in the past and thought them quite excellent for this very purpose.
They'd be good for pointing in the general direction as described, but a much more refined controller would be needed for
actually hitting the target, as an accurate rifle has a dispersial of 1MOA (Minute Of Angle) or less. A degree is 60MOA, much
too coarse for long range, but more than adequate for covering your backyard, eh? ;)
nbk2000 March 30th, 2006, 05:43 AM

http://www.live-shot.com/
Hunting via web-based Telesniper! :D
nbk2000 April 14th, 2006, 05:46 AM

A remote-controlled helicopter gunship platform:
http://komodo.fullvoltage.com/AutoCopter_Gunship.mpg
An airborne telesniper if used as such. :)
Third_Rail May 6th, 2006, 10:32 AM

Seeing as I've no desire to go to Federal prison, I'll keep obeying the law; that doesn't mean that I'll abandon this wonderful
idea of getting a way to make a relatively inexpensive telesniper accessible to the masses.
The wonderful part about openly developing such technology is that, by Federal laws here in the USA, it's perfectly legal if you
follow basic rules set out in the 1934NFA - legal to the point that you could lug the entire setup to a range and test it to make
sure you got everything correct, which in my mind is quite nice.
I look forward to the day I could actually start offering a setup to be used with whichever rifle you'd like to use for less than
$500; and since it's not a firearm by Federal standards, I wouldn't have to keep records of sales other than price/amount - no
names, no ID, nothing.
Maybe then politicians would get the hint.
LostGunner May 9th, 2006, 05:15 PM

The telesniper idea is certainly an intriguing one. The military's strategy is actually surprisingly similar to NBK's initial post and
also the one about the quad .50's based off a pickup truck. It's been brought up in other parts of the forum but they call it
metal storm:
http://www.metalstorm.com
The relevant part to this discussion is that the bullets aren't loaded into the chamber like conventional weapons, but rather are
stacked inside the barrell and the primers detonated electronically, enabling very rapid fire.
As I understand it that's essentially the same/similar concept as the NBK's initial post, thought the mechanism for creating the
electrical circuit was different (by pager vs. direct radio control).
Jacks Complete May 12th, 2006, 07:26 PM

If anyone has seen the new Logitech QuickCAM Orbit ( http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/
EN,CRID=2204,CONTENTID=10628 ) they might be thinking what I thought...
Then you look at the software that comes with it, which features *real-time* face movement tracking, eye tracking, etc. for
free, as well as the ability to track your head by panning the camera, keeping you in the frame all the time. And you get to
thinking some more...
A telesniper with a basic movement tracking system that would carry on if radio was jammed or lines were cut would be
brilliant. The jammers would think they were simply on the wrong frequencies, and change again, and never yield any results!
teshilo May 13th, 2006, 02:43 PM

From USPTO:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,966,859 (1999) describes the use of infrared radiation from a target imaged on a pyroelectric quad cell through
unspecified optical filters, to cause a solenoid to pull the trigger on a gun. Pyroelectric detectors require the use of a
mechanical chopper to modulate the incident optical beam on and off, with the inherent disadvantages of mechanical
complexity, fragility and loss of half the target signal time. Further, use of a pyroelectric quad cell significantly limits the
detection range due to its electronic noise. Additionally, no method is taught for interpreting the signal to differentiate human
radiation from, e.g., flames. No provision is made for compensating the point of aim for target motion or weapon motion. The
invention cannot deal with separate or overlapping targets, but would shoot exactly between two targets standing near each
one another. The aiming disadvantages of mechanical percussion firing are further increased by the taught impulse motion
and delay in action of a solenoid.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,370,914 (1983) teaches a gun-aiming method for calculationally averaging the swings of a rifleman's point of
aim by gyroscopic measurement. The rifleman first designates the desired point of aim using his trigger switch. As said above,
it is unclear why shooting at that point would not be preferable to later swinging back to that point and electrically firing the
weapon. Of further disadvantage, the sighting method is taught by its claimed results, not as an limitable design or
manufacture. Further, the use of a visible-light camera is taught and illustrated and claimed, which greatly limits the use of the
method in combat. Further, no method for electrically firing the weapon is taught, but the electrical firing is simply invoked
without teaching. Finally, no provision is taught for correcting for the effects of angular velocity either of the target or of the
weapon; thus at best the taught method of aiming would be accurate only for a stationary weapon and stationary target.
:rolleyes:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,392,688 (1995) shows the use of a television camera as a weapon sight for aiming, wherein the rifleman
designates the "target" by placing the scope crosshairs on it and partially depressing the trigger. While it is not clear why the
rifleman would at that point prefer simply to kill the target, this patent invokes an undisclosed "autolock-follow processor"
circuit to differentiate and follow a target and ignore the background. Such capability is not generally known in the art. Further,
the weapon is described simply as "fired electrically" and no useful firearm method is taught.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,625,972 (1997) discloses an electrically discharged firearm in which a heat sensitive primer is ignited by a
voltage induced across a fuse wire extending through the primer....
nbk2000 May 21st, 2006, 05:10 AM

In the anime series Ghost in the Shell, S.A.C 2nd GIG, episode 14, "Poker Face", the tactical use of a telesniper is shown.
There, a sniper uses a 20mm telesniper to as a decoy to draw fire away from his true position, allowing time to relocate to a
new sniping location.
And it's clever that he loaded the TS with only one shot, to prevent it being used against him. :)
nbk2000 June 29th, 2006, 01:15 AM

Now there is a commercial manufacturer of a net-enabled telesniper:
www.wisnipe.com
What I like is that they are proposing that it be accessed over the internet via username/password log-in.
0_o
Perhaps they haven't heard about the countless instances of people using Google to find webcams and passwords for same?
It's one thing if someone hacks into the video feed of your internet Bird-Cam. It's an entirely different story when they can
aim and fire a live gun!
Oh, and the scenario of using these things for bank or embassy security? Ludicrous!
The fact that you're installing a remotely-accessible weapon in a bank or embassy makes it a supreme target for criminals and
terrorists! :rolleyes:
Imagine this scenario:
Hi. I'm your robber for today. I've hacked your gun-turrets, which you will notice are now aimed at you, and will gladly use
them to kill you if you don't toss all the money in the vault out the back door into the waiting van."
Care to imagine what'll happen after that?

That would make an assassination really easy... really, really easy.
Of course, a telesniper would make it really easy anyway. It's just that you wouldn't have to pay someone to install the box for
you, and it wouldn't be noted during the security sweep.
nbk2000 July 8th, 2006, 06:09 AM

A RealVideo feed for a demo of a remote firing station.
rtsp://real.gannett.speedera.net/real.gannett/atpco/blackwater/2005/RemoteFireingStation.rm
Jacks Complete July 8th, 2006, 08:38 AM

Very nice.
Mine's smaller and lighter and less accurate. :-( But it's network IP and radio enabled. If I get it up and running, I'll post
some stuff about it.
The goal is two axis, but I figure with an auto shotgun it would be fine with just the one. I also want to remove the radio
element and get it network only, since this will allow finer control and more distance. Currently it's more tele-spray-n-pray than
sniping. :-)
Alexires July 8th, 2006, 01:32 PM
This might be stupid, but has anyone seen Mission Impossible 3 yet?
4 Barrett .50 calibers punching holes in a building, controlled by one dude with 4 of those roll ball mouses and infrared
cameras.
Ever think of the movie business, NBK?
megalomania October 31st, 2006, 05:02 AM

A company called MaxStream is now marketing the XBee XTender Wireless Bridge, a wireless router that can control devices up
to 40 miles away. I just thought this might be of some considerable benefit to the telesniper, such as controlling a webcam,
and activating the telesniper from far far away. This one device could control a host of assorted nasties.
The article about the XBee is here: http://edageek.com/2006/10/25/maxstream-xbee-xtender-wireless-bridge-zigbee/
ShadowMyGeekSpace November 3rd, 2006, 10:18 PM

I just had an interesting idea: it would not be that much harder to fully automate the firing process.... It'd be interesting if you
could simply take your mouse, create a box around your target's torso, and then hit "fire". The computer would then do some
quick mildot ranging, automatically adjust the vertical axis for firing, and then prompt for the final go ahead before taking a
shot.... I can just see the news stories now.
If you made a reliable enough product, you could even shove the setup on a little remote controlled vehicle(sort of like EOD's
bomb defusing "robots"), and market it to the military or something.

If you are fully automating it, why have two steps? The computer IDs the targets (OCR for "OLIS") and do the maths right
away, whilst sending an alert to your pager/cell/lair. If you don't respond, it assumes they already got you, and it fights back
on your behalf.
I think a neat slaved system that maps all the telesnipers onto one map screen would be great, as you could have a target
shot by several TSs at the same time, with auto-selection of the two that are most likely to hit/kill (by factoring in range, likely
body armour, wind direction, obstructions and cover) so that there is nowhere to hide. With a multi-screen set-up you could
control an entire battlespace. With some anti-armour gear and some prepared traps you could hold off a small army.
neo-crossbow November 16th, 2006, 03:05 AM

A remote-controlled helicopter gunship platform:
http://komodo.fullvoltage.com/AutoCopter_Gunship.mpg
An airborne telesniper if used as such. :)
Wonder how long until the USAF takes its own revenge and sends a UAV / Predator into a target. I have heard they can use
one to paint a target for a paveway now.
JakeGallows November 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but they already have armed UAVs:
'http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/armed-predator.htm'

I was thinking more along the lines of flying into a target as opposed to using additional munitions or lasing a target to
achieve the same purpose.

a la Twin Towers 2: Desert Storm in a Teacup.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R emote controlled 50Cal turret on
suburban truck
Log in
View Full Version : Remote controlled 50Cal turret on suburban truck
Zyklon_B Novem ber 6th, 2002, 12:05 AM

Check this out!
<a href="http://www.ibistek.com/activeprojects/files/cob ravid9-02/COBR A.MPG" target="_blank">www.ibistek.com /

activeprojects/files/co bravid9-02/COBR A.MPG</a>
I would love to get the plans on how to m a k e t h a t b a b y .

W e a p o n s e e m s to be a M 2 H B 5 0 C a l m achinegun. The uses for a vehicle or just the turret on its own is lim itless.
Check their complete website: <a href="http://www.ibistek.com/security_vehicle.html" target="_blank">http://www.ibistek.com /

security_vehicle.html</a>
<sm all>[ Novem ber 05, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Zyklon_B ]</sm all>
A43tg37 Novem ber 6th, 2002, 12:39 AM

I t s e e m s f r o m their website that Ibiste k m akes this stuff for potential m ilitary buyers and it would as such be unavailable to
civilians. However, m any com p a n i e s t h a t m a k e t h i n g s l i k e t h i s s e e m to be willing to sell to U S civilians, as long as it's not for
export. They get REAL touchy about that. As for the turret, som e of the video cam era turret ideas m e n t i o n e d i n o t h e r p o s t s
could be com bined with NVG (night vision) optics, and the signal piped down via cable to a CCTV unit in the cab, or one of
those cameras that transm its via R F could be u sed instead. Of course, all the cam eras and NVG optics would be behind round
(or better yet, very th i c k h a l f - b u b b l e s h a p e d ) P olycarbonate or Lexan shields. I've been thinking a bout how to add the capacity
for .50 automatic fire, since that wouldn't be norm ally available to a civilian. I believe the best bet for that would be to put a
fairly powerful solenoid behind the thum b-trigger of one of those sem i-auto M2HB's (having a trigger between the g rips that
requires depressing by two thum bs, instead of a trigger within a trigger guard that is pressed with one finger is actually an
advantage. It means that one doesn't have to try to fit a powerful enoug h soleno id into the space within a trigger guard.). The
solenoid's plunger wo uld be pushed back and forth by electrical pulses from a 555 timer circuit (with an additional relay
controlled high curren t circuit that includes the solenoid itself, if m ore current was needed than the 555 oscillator circuit could
provide), an electrom echanica l timing circuit, or, if one wanted it to remain legal (as in one bullet fired for every one press of
the trigger-or in this case a switch), one could control the solenoid with a quick acting mom entary switch that one wo uld have to
pres each tim e to fire a round. Still, even using the "leg al" m eth od, one could still fire the .50 from the safety of the vehicle,
and could probably get off 150-200 rounds per minute if one had a quick acting enough switch and nimble enough fingers. Oh,
and Zyklon_B, as a final note, didn't you just copy the web address for the Cobra from the telesniper thread? Mabye it does
deserve a new thread , mabye not, I won't try to call that.
<sm all>[ Novem b e r 0 5 , 2 0 0 2 , 1 1 : 4 0 P M : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : A 4 3 t g 3 7 ] < / s m a l l >
nbk2000 Novem ber 6th, 2002, 04:58 AM

No matter how legal the components m ay be, or how sq eaky clean your past m ay be...you can bet your anal virginity that the
feds will lock you up for the re st of your life in prison if you actually built one.
Thin gs like this are too "powerful" to be allowed to exist outside of the proper hands...meaning the feds and their pig lackeys.
Thin k the feds would like the idea of a "mere" civilian owning som ething capable of shooting down an apache (by surprise,
natch <img border="0" title="" alt="[W ink]" src="wink.g if" /> ) or blowing away th e presidential m otorcade?
Nope, they sure don't. In fact, only "highly sophisticated terrorist network s" would have "sniper weapons" capable of such
"mass destruction". Did I forget any buzzwords?
And, yes, he did copy the link.
Charlie Workman Novem ber 7th, 2002, 03:38 PM

I h a v e a b u d dy in AZ who m a k e s s o m ething sim ilar. He calls it the "Raptor". It's a modified Surburban with a pop-up .30
caliber minigun in the sunroof. Carries 4,000 rounds standard, with an option for 8,000 m o r e . T h e s a l e s t a p e h e g a v e m e i s
im pressive. It literally chewed its way through a cinderblock wall to get at what was behind it. As the blurb on the tape said
"Instant fire superiority". No shit, huh? W on't tell m e wh o h e s e l l s t h e m t o , b u t h e a s s u r e d m e
there are none in use in this country. I figure oil sheiks and such. I'll have to tell him a b o u t t h i s o n e . K e e p t a b s o n t h e
competition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-Gidget
pyromaniac_guy Novem ber 7th, 2002, 04:32 PM

NBK,
I think your opinion of the atf's stance on heavy firepower might be a bit too harsh... while it is not exactly easy to get one's
hands on such hardware, it certainly isnt impossible... there are plenty of compan i e s s e l l i n g . 5 0 ' s t h e s e d a y s , g r a n t e d m a y b e
not full auto, but there are a num ber of pre-ban, full auto M2HB's to be bought.. when you consider a CHEAP .50 will run you a
few thousand, and a good bolt action .50 m ight go for 5 to 7k, 10 or 15,000 for a full auto M2 aint that bad of a price.... As far
a s t h e m o r e e x o t i c w e a p o n s l i k e m inig uns and cannons go, well there sure arent alot of pre-ban guns avalible out there, but
you can still m ake your own... thats the catch that i just find fucking hilarious... you can buy a newly m anufactured minigun..
the only legal custom ers for such would be law enforcm ent agencies or the m ilitary. etc... BUT you C AN jump through the
f e d e r a l h o o p s a n d p a y the taxes to ge t yourself a class II and b uild one for your own inve ntory...
T h e g o v e r n m ent will let you have just about anything th ese days.. just so long as you fill out the forms and pay the fees...

W aco...Ruby Ridge...any of th ese ring a bell?
A n d t h e s e a r e j u s t t h e o n e s t h a t e v e n t h e s h e e p l e h a v e h e a r d o f. There's THOUSANDS of people, from joe blow to Class 2 a n d

3 dealers and manufacturers who've been fucked by the ATF over the pettiest of things. And I m ean "Sitting in Federal prison
for 10 years" kind of fucked.
Besides which, if they know yo u have this kind of weapo n, you can't ever use it without them knowing it was you, now could
you? Not very RTPB.
spydamonkee Novem ber 8th, 2002, 05:23 AM

RTPB #7 Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it :D
i sure would'nt m ind one just sitting in the gara ge....just in case...
if so meone were to build one you would want to keep it secret so only you know about it, nigh impossible i bet <im g
border="0" title="" alt="[W ink ]" src="wink.gif" />
BoB- Novem ber 8th, 2002, 05:29 AM

Thats why there are websites like this, so you can m a k e o n e .
It would'nt have the same power, but a hopper fed, 20-gauge slug gun would be alot easier to get am mo for...
redred D e c e m ber 20th, 2002, 02:17 PM

I W ANT ONE for Christmas !!!!!!! <im g border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
------------------------------------
How about posting so m e t h i n g r e l e v a n t a n d u s e ful on your first p ost? I mean you've waited months for it, why would you want
to lose it straight awa y ? Y o u ' v e h a d e n ough tim e to read other posts and find out what happens to p e o p l e l i k e y o u - Z a i b a t s u
<sm all>[ Decem b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 , 0 6 : 5 0 A M : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : z a i b a t s u ] < / s m a l l >

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Throwing knives and the science behind them
Log in
View Full Version : Throwing knives and the science behind them
piggarro99 November 7th, 2002, 09:04 AM

I am happy to say that I have now bought my self a set of throwing knives.
<a href="http://images.snapfish.com/334989%3B923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E2326% 3D86% 3B% 3D899%3 Dxroqdf%3E23232% 3B%3A5% 3B87%3C3ot1lsi"

target= "_blank">http://images.snapfish.com/334989%3B923232%7Ffp47% 3Dot%3E232 6%3D86% 3B%3D899%3Dxroqdf%3E23232%3B%3A5%3B87%3C3ot 1lsi</a>
They were on ebay and there are many of them still to be sold.
now to add reason to my post i w ill give you some pointers in to the science and methodology of throwing knives w ith a small topology on how to use them.
If someone is new to throw ing, he will always be told to release the knife when it points exactly at the target. This advice, which does w ell as a helping notion, is given by
many books as w ell. But in reality, the knife is released earlier.
Describing it w ith regard to physics, the follow ing happens: The hand makes about a circular motion around the shoulder joint. The movements in the elbow joint just change
the radius of the circle and will be ignored.
Once released, the knife will fly on tangentially to the circular path (see the pink 90 angle of the trajectory to the radius, and the picture; the knife is gripped by the blade!).
Perhaps some of you remember the experiment in physics at school, when the teacher sw ung a weight on a string around his head and then let go?
If you were to release the knife exactly when pointing to the target (blue line), it would fly straight to the ground. Rather, it must be released when the tangent of the circular
path of the sw ing points exactly at the target (upper red line), or better a little earlier, because the ideal tangential trajectory w ill be affected by gravity (lower red line).
In the very moment when releasing the knife, it w ill be about perpendicular to the ground, then start to turn. The arm will go on in his downward swing (follow through).
Why does the knife spin?
Blade and handle (the whole knife) have the same angular speed omega in the circular movement around the shoulder joint. The end of the knife that is not gripped is farther
out, therefore it is faster: its circular movement has a bigger radius (v = r * omega). If you hold the knife by the handle for the throw, then the tip will go dow n in the flight,
the knife w ill be rotation clockwise around its center of gravity (seen from the right).
the best grip (in my know ledge)....
The pinch grip is used to throw light knives fast, suddenly and with force (that is some stress for your poor arm :-( The knife has to be gripped (pinched) betw een thumb and
index finger, in a manner that it is a straight extension of your arm. You can hold it w ith the 2/3 of your finger that are next to your hand and the thumb (compare picture #1,
my preferred method), or only with the fingertips. If you grip a heavier knife or w ant to throw further, you can additionally use your middle finger. If the edges are not sharp,
you can use this grip also on the blade.
If the knife is not sharpened, a blade grip is no problem, just do it as described above. If the blade is sharpened on only one side, you can carefully hold it with your thumb and
middle finger as show n in picture 2. I prefer not to have the knife extend such a long way in my palm, it might cut. Of course, the sharp edge faces out of your palm! You have
to hold the knife so tight that it does not leave your hand early, but not too tight, especially not cramped. Only a relaxed throw is a successful one!
Dont throw knives at people, and if you do, dont fucking miss...
<a href="http://www .knifethrowing.info/images/loslassen_grafik_eng.gif" target="_blank"> http://www .knifethrowing.info/images/loslassen_grafik_eng.gif</a> (actual

picture of forces in motion and motion of forces)
thanks to "knife throw ing info" book, 1998
[ November 07, 2002, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: piggarro99 ]
Korfaction November 7th, 2002, 01:15 PM

I was wondering about the shape of throwing knives. Their particular form is due to their particular use, I mean having a gravity center placed to facilitate the throw ing. But in
movies, ... (i know they're not a reference) we often see normal knives, like close combat knives in the shape (but smaller of course, who carries a 30 cm knife everyw here ?
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). I was wondering when one shape or another is used ?
(Largo Winch prefers the second type <img border="0" title= "" alt="[Wink]" src= "w ink.gif" /> )
piggarro99 November 7th, 2002, 05:13 PM

thats a nice question, but i feel there are things that should be cleared up. throw ing knives are not sharp, and can be just long pointy shanks of metal. the truth is that when
you throw an ordinary knife, the (stuck on) handle w ont let it fly like it should, and it buzzes, (buzzes is a term we use when a bad knife hits the target and makes a metal
tw ang sound.) i know you see in films that they flick a knife and BAM straight in to David LO-PANS head (big trouble in little china) the truth is, that is luck...
a throw ing knife is made the w ay it is just to glide through the air, faster than a bullet, and smoother than a frisby... It is like poetry dude...
long handle......
this is for the skewer throw, the blade does not turn at all...
curve top (looks like the top segment of a cannabis leaf)
this is for holding at the blade and letting it spin 180 degrees.
heavy handle
this is for the pinch throw, it spins every four meters (on average) so you need to be 8 meters from your target... to do the pinch throw you need to hold the knife so that there
is a flat face looking at you, and then whipcrack your arm forwards from behind your ear with the flick of your w rist well timed with in it... it will whirr off for a devestating hit....
very difficult but the strongest hit by far!!!
[ November 07, 2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: piggarro99 ]
frostfire November 8th, 2002, 12:46 PM

sorry to inform you, but those throwing knives at ebay are F-grade quality. Sure you read alot of stainless steel 440 etc, while you might see that as fancy and assuming the
claim is true, 440 is a "soft" grade. After several misses on hard surface (trees, not even concrete), your knives would become a good candidate for useless chunk of metal.
Don't w orry, we're all learning...sometimes the hard way.
Good quality throwing knives are expensive. Around $30 and up, that includes the balanced-for-throw ing claimed glock knives (I'd love to hear if anyone has expereince with
this). The proffesional (note: has no edge, only needle sharp tip) ones can cost over $100, they use it in exhibition, circus etc etc.
But then again, w hat's the whole purpose of your knive throwing exercise, if it's to become a pro/exhibitionist etc, you can't go cheap.
If it's for survival (though as NBK said, knife is for sticking, not throw ing), your best chance would be the readily available knives; eg: all kind of kitchen knives, good quality
brand
are farberware, tramontina etc. Also you can never get poor quality knives if they are from Solingen, Germany.
Also I believe there's a shallow thread concerning this topic a while ago.
Agent Blak November 8th, 2002, 03:25 PM

You can throw anything an make it stick w ith practice. But if you have one knife and you throw and miss, you have no knife. Plus you can damage a very expensive and usefull
tool.
I have one of those kershaw speed-safes(Boa; Semi-Serrated). I wouldn't dream of throwing it.
Try to learn to throws Spikes, they are more suited. All around for throwing you best bet is a shuriken. A lot less practice to master. they can be manufactored easily.

i already have a black haw ke throwing knife, and quite honestly if you saw it, you could not say that it w as a knife at all...
it looks like just a handle w ith a point... i am trying to find a picture now , but in the mean time, the knives that i have are not used for anything other than recreation...
it just a sport.
MrSamosa November 8th, 2002, 08:32 PM
While in San Francisco over the Summer (nice city, btw...nevermind the gay, Leftist population < img border= "0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), I bought myself a
pair of cheap throwing knives from China Town. I throw them out in my back yard occasionally, using live trees as targets. No, they aren't the best targets and I find that they
like to resist my knives a lot, but oh w ell.
Nevertheless, they are light-w eight, soft-metal. Very cheap quality too (like anything from China Tow n I suppose); so cheap one of them even broke on hitting the target!
:mad: Bah. For me, pinch grip on the blade has been most successful. Some people love their hammer grips and modified hammer grips and handle throws, but those have
never worked. From a distance of about 3-6 meters, I can usually get a solid stick. To me, it doesn't matter if it's a professional knife or a China Town knife, so long as it sticks
into the target. Personally, I don't mind the soft metal on throwing knives; it makes sharpening the point easier.

MRSAMOSA, it has been a dream of mine to actually make a throwing knife, and i can not see that it would be that hard to get it right, all you w ould need is a thin light shank
of metal and a sharpened point that w as lead from a flat handle? Any contributions
MrSamosa November 9th, 2002, 12:47 AM

Basically piggarro, you are right :) . Throwing knives are little more than sharpened sticks with their center of gravity at the center of the knife. So long as it is balanced and
made of a rigid material, it should have stability in flight. I don't know how thin you w ant to make it though, but I suppose 1/8" thick w ould be good (that's how wide mine
are).
I don't know much about the design of throwing knives, unfortunately. So I can't answer your question much further than this, sorry mate.

i am now going to risk starting another topic on making your own throwing knife...
i w ould rather much like you to give some feedback on that one too, thanks
Zach November 9th, 2002, 12:45 PM

IMHO, go buy the throwing knives. Trying to make one would'nt be w orth your trouble unless you w ant to make it your hobby. There is alot to learn about metalurgy and
forging/crafting a blade with the right temper and center of gravity. "Throwing Stars" are easier to make, but not very effective.
If you do decide to try and make your own, use an annealed file or something like that, and put your edge on w ith a file. This process is called draw filing (taking the file and
putting it perpendicular to where the edge is to be, and slide it up and down on the peice, like you w ere scraping paint off of a pole or something.) and it is way easier to get a
straight edge than with a grinder. trust me, I've done it.

thank you for the feed back, i am only going to try and make one as i can see the general gist of the knives. so i know that kind of balance is needed in this affair.
if you have any srecial info then please tell me what it is.. thanks again
Maddoc November 9th, 2002, 03:07 PM

The ability to throw knives properly is a hard task to master, as well as something that I only ever saw as a novelty, no real self-defense/attack method there. I feel the risk of
giving a w eapon to your enemy (i.e. by missing your mark and giving away your position) is too great. It w ould be better to learn good knife fighting techniques first.
Walk before you run...
I know that many elite special forces teams learn the techniques of knife-throwing (especially Russian Spetznaz troops), however it takes a long time and is still not all that
effective in my view. If anyone has seen some of the videos of Spetznaz men training(e.g. "Siege Busters"), it w ill also show them trying to do backflips off buildings and
cracking bricks with their heads. All the signs of boardom, their training w ould benifit if they learnt more practical uses for their skills, mainly how to carry unconcious hostages
from a building full of suffocating gas... Or how to keep proper perimeter control (such as the "possibilty" that some Chechens' escaped).
Korfaction November 10th, 2002, 06:08 AM

I agree that throw ing knives is not really a useful skill. The fact is that it's an amazing hobby, and impressive. But is stays hobby.
It is NOT recommended, whatever the situation, to throw your knife. Because after you're defenceless. So it will quasi never be used in combat or anyw here. Yet it can save
your life: face to a gun, a close-range weapon like a knife is hard to use, you can throw it, kill the guy ... < img border= "0" title="" alt= "[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Really it's
useless but fun.
Harry November 11th, 2002, 04:13 PM

Back in the mid-90's, I read about an Aussie knife throwing club. They actually taught a form of "combat" knife throwing: have 2 knives. the throw er is a large, single-edge
bowie design, while the other is a 4 inch folder or gravity knife. Use the thrower to w ound or distract your enemy while you close and kill w ith the folder.
BTW, has anyone tried Blackie Collins' Ninja? A singleedge knife, useable as a knife, guaranteed as a thrower.
My preferred throw er is an antique Mauser bayonet. The things have been a drug on the market for several years now, and USD$15 can buy one.
Harry
Zero November 13th, 2002, 02:48 PM

Speak of the devil. I'm actually writing a short book on throwing knives at the moment.
If you want to make your own throwing knife/knives, get some 1/8"x1" or 1.5" steel key stock from the home depot. Contary to the popular notion, I've found that the 'quality'
of the steel matters little versus the design of the knife, especially it's edge. Get a good 25 to 30 degree point and a good 45 degree bevel along the edge all the way down to it
and you should have a durable and quite effective knife. You can go whole hog and temper it, but that's only if you're serious about it.
I one-upped popular notion today, though, and made a set of throwing spikes from steel railroad stakes. They're about 6.5 inches long by a touch less than an inch wide, come
down to impressive points (with a little nudge from the angle grinder) and will bury themselves in a tree to a depth of three inches w ith a good throw from five paces. They
weigh about a pound, so you'll build up your arm throwing them. The things are like Lee's dungarees. You can't bust 'em.
~Zero

that is fantastic.
thanks for that, yet may i add, is there any form of characteristic that you can add to aid the flight of the knife any further?
thanks again

****Aside from better balance, not really. You could add a tassel or similar mechanism to act as flights, but that would impede the spin of the knife rather than help it. You
could do this for small knives that you don't want to calculate spin on but rather throw them as hard and quickly as you can at an enemy as you flee...
****I suppose you could make aerodynamic enchancements to the shape of the knife w ith the bevels and surface textures and whatnot but at that point it's nitpicking. The
difference made to the flight of the knife by a change that small w ould be negligible at best.
****The best thing to invest your time in is designing the overall shape of the knife properly and putting the proper edge and good point on it.
~Zero

Having made a really simple knife now , that w as basically an angular piece of metal i have adorned the idea that i should try and put tw o points on it one each end, it will not
be known as a tristan quasai, as compared to that it is shit, and the quasai is a brand name.
So what could an official name be for a throwing knife (with a blade in each end) be..
before some one points out that with no handle i cant hold it, i will make sure (as should be done) that the blade isnt sharp.
if there is any help that i can lend you while compiling this book then please let me know .
thanks again

****I think a knife with tw o points would technically be known as a double pointed knife. If you can come to grips with that logic, of course. I don't know offhand if there is any
more exotic oriental name or similar for a knife of that description, but there it is.
****I could always do with pictures of throwing w eapons for the book. At this rate I'll need detailed shots of a variety of throwing stars and axes, since my selection is limited
and pictures on internet catalogs are generally useless. Links on throw ing technique and such would always be appreciated, but I'm writing the book from the standpoint of my
experience and should have that end of things covered nicely.
~Zero
Agent Blak November 16th, 2002, 01:35 AM

Have any of you boys watched the movie "24hrs in London." If you like to see an application of Blade throwing this is it... w ell kind of...
If you have seen it you will know what I mean

<a href="http://www .knifethrowing.info.com" target="_blank">ww w.knifethrow ing.info.com</a>
that is a good site. But now i am looking for pictures of sticks (when the knife goes in)
Eliteforum November 16th, 2002, 09:36 AM

Link is 404. But < a href="http://w ww.knifethrow ing.info" target= "_blank">http://w ww.knifethrowing.info</a> works.

a few comments, this past summer i dabbled in blade forging/throwing. and from all that i have read and tried it would seem that a good throwing knife design is the tip has
almost a diamond or spade(as in the card suit) shape to it ie, this <> i'll find a few pictures of some blades, this place has some throw ing knives for under 30pounds on the
ninja section < a href="http://ww w.spytech-uk.com/" target= "_blank">http://w ww.spytech-uk.com/</a>
also it dosen't matter if the blade is perfectly balanced, it will still stick in the target with practise, all the center of gravity has to do with anything is how many revolutions it w ill
have to make before the point is in line with the target again. it just changes the radius of the circle the blade makes
if you have the time/patience here is a site on how to make throw ing knives
coldsteel INC. makes a throwing 'torpedo' basically an eliptical throwing knife with 2 sharp ends for half the frustration

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Bobby Trap Required.
Log in
View Full Version : Bobby Trap Required.
Bitter November 7th, 2002, 09:48 AM

A booby trap is required for defence of a room. The floor is bare concrete, but there is a table immediately to the right that something could be hidden under. The trap should
go off as soon as the mother fucker enters the room. I don't want any fantastic bullshit. I don't want "tie an AK-47 to the door", or any similar K3\/\/1 crap. The room must
remain relatively intact too. I want suggestions that are likely to be near 100% effective, can be built at short notice and would at least result in minor injury. I was thinking
that a carpet-covered pressure pad with a claymore-type device hidden under the table would be perhaps the best idea.
DBSP November 7th, 2002, 10:05 AM

First of all, a claymore is the best choise due to the fact that the room shuld stay intact. Relatively small ammount of explosive is needed and the effect is, well what could you
say but dedly.
I you choose to use electric ingition there are an endless ammount of choises, if yo choose mecanical the number of alternatives are drasticly lowered. As you said a pressure
switch could be sutible. There are off course more sofisticated solutions like, the doorbells you hear when you enter some shops(you know, when the light-beam is broken the
bell rings). Allthugh that kind of soltions seeme a bit to complicated.
One thing you definately have to think of is your own security, the boobytrap has got to have a on/off switch on the outside. The acces to the swith shuld allso be protected.

Thanks. I actually had an even better idea- How about one of those timer switches that you plug into the mains to switch on your lights etc between certain hours of the day ?
Connect the live wire to the inside of the door handle and set the timer. You just have to wait until it switches itself off to gain access to the room.
A-BOMB November 7th, 2002, 12:20 PM

Bitter look around DIY store around Christmas and you might see a light touch switch which it a little metal plate that is wired to a light timer like device. So when you touch
the plate it recieves a charge or it discharged and it turns off the circuit. So mount you claymore/shotgun under the table and wire it into the touch switch and to a trigger
switch attached to the door. I had a similar arrangment awhile ago with the wire just soldered to a carpet tack on the wall near the door, to go in touch the nail then open the
door, when you leave close the door and touch the tack again. And nice Avitar you got going there.
Korfaction November 7th, 2002, 01:03 PM

Just putting a device to allow the entry at a pre-configured date is not exactly the same... I mean that just forbidding the access is not at all the same thing, and does not
match the same needs.
If someone commes into your room and you don't want to, and you're angry enough to put a claymore inside the room, then I guess that person has really no right to come in,
and that your room is closed. Then a simple system to forbid access isn't enough. You can go thru one lock, so thru 2 or more simple systems.
But, if not the case, just an open room that you want to secure for any reason, a bobby trap is maybe too much.
What I'm trying to say is you have to think twice about a solution that wouldn't match the problem: a bobby trap can bring you problems, especially if not adapted to your
situation (which I don't know).
About simple locks, electronic or not, you can easily find on Google some links to systems for that, cheap and reliable.
What about putting a shape charge in the casing next to the lock: when the door is opened, then it explodes right next to the hand. A small switch is needed to disable it,
another to detect the opening.
DarkAngel November 7th, 2002, 05:59 PM

Could you tell us more about who and why?
Cause there must be a really good reason to putt a claymore kind of device in a room for defending it,but your a mod so i won't doubt about it that you just say something.
Have you already thought about a normall alarm?
Are you sure that nobody else (friends/family/etc)will acces the room?
A good way to defend a place for example burglars would be to trigger a smoke bomb in your house when someone try's to acces it.
So theres no view in the house,it would be difficult to normally breath in and doesn't damages the house (unless there's a dye in it).
A big can of CS gas with a panic button(? so after it's triggered it keeps spraying)on it could be attached on the wall above the door and could be triggered when the door goes
open.
If your goal is to defend a certain item in your house,or you know that your enemy will check a certain place (like something that is stored in a cupboard)than only install the
booby trap in the cupboard and let it be triggered when the cupboard is opened.This will also reduce the change that someone from the good side get's trapped.
A plastic ball claymore (stun grenade) could also be made instead of using BB's which will kill the guy.
After re-reading your post's name i noticed the word "Bobby" does this mean you expact Bobby's that need to be trapped :cool: or is it just a typo?
Cause it wouldn't be very wise to Booby a Bobby :D
[ November 07, 2002, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: DarkAngel ]

instead of a pressure switch or a booby trapped light switch ect as suggested, by not use a simple magnetic read switch that you can buy at radioshack for 5 bux? the thing
about the read switch is that you can place it along the top of the door way.. the closer to the hinge you place it, the further the the door would ahve to be opened for the
switch to activate (place the switch really close to the hinge, and you may well be able to crack the door open and hit a hidden saftey switch only you know about to arm /
disarm the device... also this would guard against someone peeking into the door, or possibly steping over the pressure switch (unless you got a very large one)
if you go the claymore route the mine should be placed so that it has a clear view of the intruder, ie if the switch is placed in such a fashion that the claymore goes off as soon
as te door is opened a crack, and the claymore is right infront of the door (assuming an imporvised device with less punch than a true claymore) the door will sheild the
intruder.. if the mine is afixed to the wall next to the door frame, it will have a clear view or mr. tersspasser when the door is only open a slight amount..

"After re-reading your post's name i noticed the word "Bobby" does this mean you expact Bobby's that need to be trapped or is it just a typo?
Cause it wouldn't be very wise to Booby a Bobby"
Yes, I know, don't rub it in. I did mean 'booby'.
Sorry about the vagueness of this, but someone broke into somewhere on my property and someone who lives here went to investigate and got attacked in the process, but is
relatively okay (unfortunately, I wasn't in at the time and the individual concerned had better kiss god's ass and thank him that I wasn't). I suspect that someone has been
here before and might come back again. I also think there is a chance that that someone might have some connection with drugs, hence the nature of the devices mentioned.
No, no one else will access the 'room' except me and an appropriate warning sign will be posted on the door. Thanks for all the ideas, I'll get onto it.
xyz November 8th, 2002, 11:51 PM

One of the most simple ways of booby trapping a door is to hook up a battery and electrical ignition on whatever you plan to set off. Then get a clothes peg and put aluminium
foil on the bits that touch when the peg is closed (the bits that usually touch the clothes), hold the peg open and wedge the two handle bits (the bits which you squeeze to hold
the peg open) in the door. Then connect your electrical ignition circuit to the aluminium foil bits.
The disadvantage is that you will have to put it in place from inside the room and then leave through a window or other exit which isn't the door.
When the door is opened, the clothes peg springs shut and closes the circuit. You will probably want to use an igniter that takes a second or so to heat up (like steel wool) so
that they get the door fully open before the device triggers (it would usually ignite whatever you are using as soon as the door was moved slightly and the door may shield the
person from whatever is on the other side.

Put the weapon outside of the room to be guarded, with the "barrel" being aimed at the door. It'll catch them fully on in the back, and no door to possibly shield them.
knowledgehungry November 9th, 2002, 10:40 AM

For trigger I am thinking a battery attached to the door(inside) with 2 leads going down to bottom of door then the leads which are about 1 foot apart are each attached to a
different thin piece of metal on the bottom of the door. On the ground about one foot inside put two more pieces of metal that, when the door is opened, will come in contact
with the pieces of metal on the door, attach 2 leads to the pieces of metal on the ground and attach the other end of the leads to whatever explosive you will use. To disable it
so you can enter put a piece of paper under door and open slowly keeping the paper under the metal on the doors to prevent the circuit from being completed. Just an idea if
you do not understand ask.
Bitter November 9th, 2002, 01:58 PM

That's a good idea- through the back so it can be hidden behind something.
Well I don't think the fucker will be coming back any time soon (if ever), but setting up a trap 'just incase' seems like too good an idea to miss. Perhaps a one-shot claymore/
shotgun with a round barrel (so the shot doesn't spread too much and ruin the walls) with electronic ignition that can be 'made live' at a seconds notice by hooking up crocodile
clips to the pre-existing trigger switch.

Out of general experiance, booby traps tend hit the wrong mark, such as innocent parties whom wander into the area unwittingly, which means extra "cleaning" to do
afterwards. Or, should the real "mark" set off the device, get injured and manage to make it away, you end up with a whole lot of problems on your hands.
I feel that the time and effort would be better spent setting up a simple security system to "silently" alert you to the intruder, so you can grap a handy weapon of some kind,
eliminate the threat and go about disposal, should the situation nessecesitate such.
Harry November 11th, 2002, 04:29 PM

Cyanoacrylate. Accelerator. Spray one, then the other. Use solenoids. Maybe non-lethal. Bonds in seconds!
Harry
rayad August 30th, 2004, 05:29 PM

not the most harmful, but I found some plans for a motion sensitive airsoft pill box. I think i can post it herewithout getting smacked, so here:
http://www.unconventional-airsoft.com/projects/turret.php
load this bad this with a better sping and some steel BBs, could be a serious deterant.
PS, plastic BBs from this gun raise nasty bruises, so have fun
Trigger Mike September 1st, 2004, 12:30 PM

How about one (or a couple) of those little battery powered magnetic alarms that go off when the plates are separated?wire in a flash bang or something with the detonator
where the speaker would be.Something really loud that will go off right in the perps ear and blind and deafen him for a while?I managed to pick up a couple of those alarms for
under a pound(UK). You'd need to set up a switch on the outside to stop the thing from going off when you want to enter the room!
SweNMFan September 1st, 2004, 01:45 PM

Partypoppers...But loose the streamers and fill it with something more peroxide..
Swindle1984 September 1st, 2004, 06:33 PM

For non-lethal booby traps, you have numerous options. You stated it was an empty room with a concrete floor and a table to one side of the door. It would be incredibly easy
to rig a container of vegetable oil or a similar substance so that it spills across the floor and makes it extremely slick. The person walking in has his feet shoot out from under
him and his butt hits the floor hard enough to crack his tailbone. Should give you enough time to react to their entry.
Another option is a motion-triggered device aimed at the door. Set it up so it only triggers when someone enters the room and the occupants don't interfere with it. A
professional photo studio flashbulb would surprise and temporarily blind anyone walking in. An alternative is something like pepper spray, though depending on who is breaking
in, that may not be effective since face guards and gas masks are fairly easy to get hold of.
Yet another option is to booby-trap the door itself. Connect the outer doorknob to a powerful electrical current so anyone who grabs it gets the shock of their life. Or make a
metal contact plate. Most people breaking in SWAT-team style will kick the door open, causing it to violently slam into the wall. So when it does that, it completes the circuit
and sets off the trap. Thus you or anyone entering casually are perfectly safe (so long as the door doesn't touch the wall), but anyone kicking/ramming the door open will get
an unpleasant surprise.
Better yet, stick a claymore or large-gauge shotgun shell inside the door itself. Almost undetectable by most booby-trap standards, and nearly guaranteed to get anyone
entering. Imagine the look on the guys face when he grabs the sledge, smashes the door open, and the door blows apart, sending shrapnel into his face and his sledge flying
back at him. It should be quite simple to rig a system to set off an explosive or shotgun shell from inside a door. Make sure the inside of the door is more resilliant than the
outside.
Similar to the age-old concept of putting a bucket of water above the door, put something like a spiked ball or hatchet on the ceiling so its swings down when the door opens.
Just remember to duck when you go in or your face will need reconstructive surgery.
raptor1956 September 1st, 2004, 07:49 PM

Probably the simplest trick would be to wire the door handle directly to the mains power, via a switch hidden on the outside, then sorting the intruder out more seriously when
you are alerted by the yelps of pain. If the floor outside the door isn't concrete, think about removing a square of floorboard, putting a rabbit/bear trap or punji stakes inside
the hole, and balancing the boards on something that'll give way when stepped on, like cardboard.
meeks56 September 2nd, 2004, 04:22 AM

http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/grenade.htm
Maybe this could help. Just rig it up, some one opens the door and gets a face full of pepper spray.
(Learn to use fucking punctuation, and why not post plans on how to 'rig it up'? If I have to correct any more of your posts there will be an instant ban - kingspaz)
bipolar September 2nd, 2004, 07:39 PM
well i would say definently go with a magnetic switch like alarms use they are made to open (or close) the switch when a door opens . you would want a normally open one
and you can get them from radio shack or online the ones from radio shack have adhesive backs that install in seconds. and like nbk said put the claymore outside of the room
so it goes off behind them when they open the door. but I dont think thats a good idea to use a booby trap in the situation your in. because you would go to jail if anyone gets
fucked up by it and you get caught.
I would just cctv or one of those remote motion detectors and come up on them with a gun to check out the situation
Trigger Mike September 4th, 2004, 01:24 PM

What about a length of piano, similar strong wire, securely fastened across the door frame at neck height?Or with one end attached to a paint grenade that will go off right in
the perps face, after they get a the wire digging into their throat.
Attach one wire across the door frame and then another from one side of the frame attached to the edge of the door a little higher up so it get pulled tight when the door
opens. Anyone entering the room would trip over the first wire, then fall onto the second which would pull the door closed in on them making it difficult for them to get out.
ninja42 September 5th, 2004, 05:23 AM

The safest way to minimize collateral damage to friendlies is to put a boobytrapped box inside a cupboard.A locked drawer or an extra door inside a closet under high voltage
or rigged with an explosive device will need a deliberate action from your "burglar". when he has to breach two doors to get to your goodies you can assume he's not a friendly
and he WILL be punished for that by means of a shock or a mouth full of shrapnell. It also enables you to put failsafe safety devices in it to prevent yourself from being fragged
by your own toy....
ninja.
Dr.M September 5th, 2004, 12:53 PM

Hm, if you want something that will kill him immediatly you should wire the doorknot, so if anyone turns it it will ignite a claymore at the other side of the door, so it will blast
straight trough the door and if you hang it at +- 1.70m hight it will kill any human, unless he is not standing in front of the door, but still, who wants to enter a room that
nearly blew him appart. Now since you want to get in :) i would suggest a hidden switch outside the room wich turns of the booby trap so you can enter safely.
redbull September 6th, 2004, 07:00 AM

Have you considered using an obstacle instead? If you just want to keep someone out
use a guard dog and or an electric fence. amazing1.com sells modules for electric
fences for about $60 USD. There are alarm systems that have pepper spray
attachements that can be good to use. A flashbang close enough to not seriously
injure someone but close enough to make them shit their pants wouls be a smart idea.
I would tell you to use only professional switches from an electronics shop since this is
a permanant boobytrap. you can make a professional circut interrupter out of a mono stereo femlae jack and a assemble it yourself mono make jack. Just short the leads
and you have a simple, professional looking key. Remove the key on one side of the
door to enter and go through and put the key back in on the other side. The system
can be armed as long as there is a key in on one of the doors. Use an LED to confirm
armed/disarmed status. You can get as fancy as you want with the "kill switch" it
will be just like a car. Use a normally open magnent contact on the door. Everything
you need is at radio shack to build this setup. If you go normally open the design will be much simpler and therefore easier to defeat if someone knows what to expect.. but
im sure no one is expecting this so you're probally fine. If you wire up enough pressure
plates you can go that route... play hopskotch around the armed tiles ;-)
ninja42 September 8th, 2004, 01:45 PM

Why does everybody want a boobytrap that goes vavoom?
I really would use some silent way to keep someone away like the beforementioned gas,high voltage ,poison or silenced weapons.
If you would use it in an urban setting, the cops are going to be there quicker than you and not only find the purb, but also the goodies you were trying to protect from him
(assuming you were hiding some controlled goodies).you will be charged for both....
ninja.
guerrero February 15th, 2005, 06:01 PM

try it with this patent.
Jacks Complete February 16th, 2005, 12:54 PM

ninja42,
who would be dumb enough to leave name and address behind after setting up a lethal trap?
If you kill someone, the noise makes sod all difference, since the smell will give it up in a few days, or the missing person's friends will come looking. A big bang when you are
nowhere near makes no difference, except it will almost certainly alert you to something happening, since it will get in the papers. A subtle approach might mean you walk into
something unexpected.
knowledgehungry February 16th, 2005, 01:59 PM

Whatever happened to Bitter anyway?

No idea... perhaps he left his business card next to his lethal trap & the body of ninja42?
Seriously, though, he has been around this forum for years - why do you ask what happened to him?
p.s. Hey, cool, you made Sr.!
knowledgehungry February 18th, 2005, 08:41 AM

Because he isn't here now, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Odd - try searching on his name, and you get an error!
Plus he always shows up as "guest" when he posts, with no count or PM facility...
Just one of those things, I guess.

Bitter has not posted here for a very long time, it says "guest" because he is no longer a mod.
Tribal February 19th, 2005, 09:55 AM

you can allways use several sharp objects connected do doors, that just fall to the head all leght of door whenever you open em, you can also poison them, and when
someone comes in - 4 sharp blades swings to the head, you can open the door, by ducking... and then load the blades - when you leave the room, silent but deadly, even if
the blades won't kill the victim, the poison will...
nbk2000 February 22nd, 2005, 07:05 PM

He did something stupid that brought pork attention upon himself, thus removing him as a viable staff member.
Tribal February 25th, 2005, 02:50 PM

I've allways admired medivial style traps... Pits with blades, falling stones and so on... If a farm is available, it could be great if there's something to hide. Now we can use
wired fragmetation grenades, Anti-personnel mines and so on...
malzraa February 28th, 2005, 08:14 PM

I would suggest a poison gas generator. Door switch triggers KCN to drop into HCL or H2SO4 and produces HCN. An automatically closing door (like most screen doors, would
trap the victim inside, and after a certain period, a venting system comes on and vents the gas through a catalytic converter, neutralizing it.

Poison gas? Tricky, but do-able. You would need at least a fairly air-tight place, or a large excess of gas for longer than normal, as some (or a lot) gets whisked away by the
wind. Broken windows or even breakable windows would be bad, and there would have to be no other exits, etc. or openable windows. Fast acting would be required, or at
least no smell, or they would just break the door or smash a wall to escape.
Also, just vent to the great outdoors, then you just need a timer and an extractor fan (or a pair for fast clearing), rather than a clever, expensive system.
malzraa March 5th, 2005, 01:37 AM

Thanks Jacks, you turned my mediocre idea into a pro one! I thinks a gas setup would be highly effective, and if the gas is odorless (like you said) then the lack of windows
would be unnecessary.
Tribal March 5th, 2005, 07:27 AM

I've just thought, that you can always use electricity to activate booby trap. My idea is a simple switch, connected to 12V car battery (hidden somewhere) and attached to
door. This baby can make a bullet to explode, if wires are wrapped around the cartridge. This little thingy, howerer could arm something a lot powerful, like the gas or even
without the gas, just a suppressed double barrel shothun (also hidden) , shooting both barrels at time for higher chance to hit.
Oktogen March 5th, 2005, 08:10 AM

probably the best idea is to break a light bulb, stick a quickmatch to it and stick quickmatch to kind of gun, for example just metal pipe with load of black powder/flash ( BP +
KClO3+Mg or BP + KClO3 + sodium benzoate) . On the lift charge I would put some lead balls or nuts and nails cut into pieces. That would kill the bastard. If you don't want to
hurt him, use lacrymator ;)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R obotics(Revisited)
Log in
View Full Version : Robotics(Revisited)
Agent Blak Novem ber 10th, 2002, 05:16 PM

T h i s m ay interest some of you...
<a href="http://www.appliedautonomy.com /" target="_blank">http://www.appliedautonomy.com/</a>
It is a principal we have been workingwith for years.
...Say hello to m y little friend...

Imagine little streetwriters laying down "Free your mind...www.roguesci.org" on sid ewalks a nd streets during political rallies,
televised events, and other tim e s w h e n m a n y t h o u s a n d s o f p e o p l e w o u l d s e e i t . : )
OH! IDEA!
Use a laser to write the U R L o n t h e s i d e o f t h e G o o d y e a r blimp when it's being shown live on TV during the Superbowl! :D
A global audience of hundreds of millions would see it!
Our server would crash and burn from m illions of hits in a m atter of minutes! :(
But what a way to go! :)
T h e n c o m es the thought police kicking down our doors for the "terrorist" act of trying to shot down the blimp with a W e a p o n o f
Mass Destruction (ie. laser pointer) :m ad:
Or m aybe it'd be the media police kicking down our doors for "pirating" airtime without having paid $10m il for 30 seconds of
Superbowl advertising tim e. <img bord er="0" title="" alt="[W ink]" src="wink.gif" />
Agent Blak Novem ber 11th, 2002, 06:34 PM

T h i s h e r e m a y b e o f s o m einterest to a nyone that lives in NY, NY.
<a href="http://www.appliedautonomy.com /isee/" target="_blank">http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/</a>
W hat is is a program the gives you a path that you can take while style of camm era. it seem s the there is a High
C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f C a m eras in one particula area, Is that "Tim e Square"? I am not for NY

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > BB Machineguns
Log in
View Full Version : BB Machineguns

Found this awesome site that sells BB machineguns.
<a href="http://www.pipersprecisionproducts.com/" target="_blank">http://www.pipersprecisionproducts.com/</a>
<img src="http://www.pipersprecisionproducts.com/images/MVC-bp1F.JPG" alt=" - " />
Interested now? :D
Check out this video showing what a "<a href="http://www.pipersprecisionproducts.com/images/MVC-niteshoot.MPG"

target="_blank">Bullet Hose</a>" these things are. :)
Yes, it's BBs and not 7.62mm NATO AP...BUT...1,200 BB's a minute at 600FPS isn't something you'd stand still for either. Oh,
and just the intimidation value of its appearance alone would likely mean you wouldn't even have to fire a shot! :p
The most "practical" one is the Strafer MKII which uses a 20 oz CO2 bottle for propellant and only cost $300. The
thing can chew through a 55 gallon drum like a sawz-all. :o
vulture November 11th, 2002, 06:37 AM

The best thing is, those videos don't show any recoil at all! This thing would be great for suppressive fire. I even think you can
scare the shit out of someone carrying a real gun...

You'll also notice that the loudest thing in the videos is the glass breaking or the metal being cut, not the weapon itself. And,
yes, these ARE weapons.
Sure, a single BB isn't very dangerous. But, when you're getting hit 6,000 times a minute with them, each one removes a little
chunk of flesh/bone (I'm aiming for the head <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), quickly drilling through
to the brain.
It would be capable of blinding a person in a fraction of a second. If it was, for instance, aimed at a person inside of a vehicle,
it'd first shatter the windshield, then break through, then chew up the interior and the occupant within. And do so without any
annoying blasts to draw witness attention. :)
This would be perfect for indoor room clearance if you could boost the velocity to about 1,000FPS. Then it'd be similar to firing
a shotgun with #4 buckshot, only it'd be a continuous hose you could sweep around to cover everything.
Plus, with it's saw-like cutting action, you could cut holes in sheetrock walls, cut locks out of wood doors, bust widows, etc, and
get the occupants within. All with no one outside of the building hearing a thing. :)
Plus, no GSR, ballistics, noise or flash, and all the other problems associated with ballistic firearms.
'Course, if I'm facing down SWAT piggies, I'm still choosing the M-14 or P90. This would be a special weapon for special
"missions".
IDEA!
If the BB's could be fired rapidly enough so that the distance between each on was less than the spark gap for a high voltage
source, would it not act the same as a solid conductor? Like a TASER wire, only it's a projectile weapon at the same time. :D
You'd be electrocuting them at the same time as your chewing a hole through them! <img src="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/
icons/icon23.gif" alt=" - " />
[ November 11, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
knowledgehungry November 11th, 2002, 08:20 AM

NBK,the problem with using the bbs as a "taser line" is that the BBs do not fire in a straight line. They scatter too much to
conduct electricity me thinks. But it would be fun to test it out <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
EDIT: I just looked at the strafer's night video and realized that it should work to be a taser wire, I doubt the GAUSS style
guns would work though.
[ November 11, 2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: knowledgehungry ]

Glad to see they've added some new models to the basic Vulcan :)
Makes you wonder what the hell kind of loading/firing system those things run on!
zeocrash November 11th, 2002, 02:34 PM

Helvetica">The most "practical" one is the Strafer MKII which uses a 20 oz CO2 bottle for propellant and only cost $300. The
thing can chew through a 55 gallon drum like a sawz-all<hr /></blockquote>fucking hell man those things are cheap over there. they cost like 3000 here.
anyway, those pellets would be like buckshot, and would cause untold dammage to any unsuspecting person., although they
dont have the penetrating power of a real gun, they're a load quieter.
also it would be quite hard to conceal and since the public wouldn't suspect it to be a bbgun, you could end up with an armed
response unit on your ass quite quickly
zaibatsu November 11th, 2002, 03:36 PM

Zeocrash, those things are illegal in the UK, as they are fully-automatic and over 1J in power. You will be thinking of airsoft
versions, but I'm guessing this has a lot more power.
SofaKing November 11th, 2002, 05:16 PM

Sweetness is mey weakness !
I've liked the idea of very fast firing, high (higher)velocity bbs for a long time.
But would these really be effective against full body armored swat types. Yes you could probably take of their limbs, and
maybe even chew through armor, but it would take to long an you'd be shot by then (unless your wearing armor too).
Couldn't somthing like this be made ? but better with like 1000fps X 10000spm. that would be nice.

ARRRRGGGHHHHHH YEAH!!!
Now I've got one hell of a sticky leg... I believe its time to warm up old el "Cardo Credito" and have a little fun.
probity November 11th, 2002, 06:26 PM

"FPS Limits: The commonly accepted UK limits are 328fps for AEG rifles, and 500fps for 'single action'/'semi automatic' (fps
quoted using 0.2g bb)."
There are no fps limitations in the US though. Boosting the fps from 500 to 1000 would be quite a feat...

The conversion kit is pricey...
Co2 conversion kit for Vortec 2000 & Strafer w/20oz Co2 tank $165.00.
How hard would it be to make a conversion kit? You could always use a remote set up like some paintball guns have
<a href="http://www.paintball-online.com/product_list.asp?dept=133&last=133" target="_blank">http://www.paintball-

online.com/product_list.asp?dept=133&last=133</a>
<a href="http://www.paintball-online.com/product_information.asp?
number=TKNP45A&variation=68&aitem=2&mitem=&back=yes&dept=86" target="_blank">http://www.paintball-online.com/
product_information.asp?number=TKNP45A&variation=68&aitem=2&mitem=&back=yes&dept=86</a>
Lets talk Back pack, TrenchCoat, Body armour, A back up piece, Gas mask, Tear Gas...
Now were cooking with nitro :cool:

The CO2 kit you called "pricey" would be only 1/3rd of the cost of the high pressure nitrogen tank listed in the 2nd URL you
posted.
And the CO2 is worn in a pouch with a hose connecting it to the BB weapon, so it's not really a problem either.

I don't think the gun could be used as a taser for several reasons, one is that the bb's aren;t exactly 100% in a solid stream,
they are spaced out just a bit and the electricity would have to arc across all the bb's. aother reason that it wouldn't work is
that the dielectric breakdown of air is about 1.14 mm/kV so you have to have a fairly high voltage for it to work, Another thing
is that the bb's are a curved surface witch makes striking arc's more difficult and finally an arc is very hard to strike with
turbulent air all around it.
From what I'm seeing it looks alot like the trigger is a simple compressed air blow gun, these will not handle the high
pressured of CO2! What you need is a CO2 regulator and some hoses to attach the regulator output into the gun.
frostfire November 11th, 2002, 07:34 PM

<a href="http://thqreviews3.homestead.com/matts_vulcan.html" target="_blank">http://thqreviews3.homestead.com/
matts_vulcan.html</a>
this is the original prop I believe

From some of the pictures on the page frostfire linked to, you can start to see how the gun works.
Probity, those numbers are guidelines for airsoft - this is not an airsoft gun!

The systems I listed were as examples...
But if you are going to toss the money around you might aswell go bigger and better.
There are added advantages to the N2 system... that is why it is prefered by some in the paintball scene. Cost is a restricting
factor though.

I was walking outside tonight when I passed by a car lot...all that fragile glass...thin sheetmetal... <img src="http://
www.roguesci.org/ubb/icons/icon23.gif" alt=" - " />
Stores, churches, plenty of places have fragile glass. I could even envison a terrorist in one of those fancy motel atreiums
(SP?) that has the glass ceilings several storys overhead. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Darn it,
didn't they install shatterproof glass before the cubscouts convention? :D

There is only one way to find out nbk...

Another idea that came to me would be the usefulness of something that's dangerous, silent, fairly cheap, unregulated, uses
supercheap ammo, runs off of air, and can maintain a high rate of fire for long period of time.
Remember the sentry guns in the movie Aliens? The tings were just blasting away at anything that moved. Well, while that'd
be neat to have, it'd also be very expensive to build.
The idea is to have on of the "strafer" models hooked up to what would be a very simple oscillating device that would sweep it
back and forth within a set arc at a rapid pace.
A car battery powers a small compressor which keeps a tank topped off with compressed air. A simple passive IR motion
detector turns the device on, causing it to sweep a hallway or such with a constant stream of high velocity #4 buckshot (BB's).
Once movement stops, it stops, recharging its air tank.
It'd be fairly cheap to build, could stop any immediate persuit till some kind of shielding was found (like a table or such), and
wouldn't draw any more attention to you like full-auto fire would. :)
Of course, we include the obligatory self-destruct to take out the brave soul who charges the sentry gun from behind a shield.
Considering how the things fire 6,000RPM, and 5,000 BB's costs only $6, you could maintain a 10 minute stream of fire for
only $60+another $400 for the gun setup.

I wouldn't bother with the compressor. Add unreqired expense.
If I were to set up a Sentry gun using Pneumatic power I would use one of the small CO2 tanks for fountain machines(Only a
$50 deposit; If you know someone that works in a resteraunt, he may get you one for a case of beer or a bottle of Rye).
Those would have more than enough Gas to power 10 min of constant fire; plus when you set off the self destruction
mech(LSC directed at the tank)... well damn.
$10 for a motion snensor

$20 for the Rye to get the tank
$400 for the set up(Solidnoid, gun, etc.)
$60 for rounds
$5 for Power supply(Battery)
$5 for the self destruction system
A sentry gun to hold off the swat team, while you prepare...
priceless. :cool:

I think if sustained fire is your thing than CO2 is not an ideal gas. For one it looses alot of it's expandability when it gets cold
from repeated firing and the tank freezes up. I'd go with compresses air or something. Possibly from a regulated scuba tank.

Liquifiable gases like CO2 have a huge advantage over other gases, like compressed air when it comes to cramming a lot of it
into a tank.
Plus if the gun is designed to run off of unregulated CO2, then using HPA or nitrogen is going to require a regulator (added
expense, might restrict flow).
I'd be easy to have a $15 electric fan heater blow over the CO2 bottle, activated by a relay when the gun starts firing.

I think that to heat the entire bottle of CO2 to keep it from freezing you'd need more than just a fan and heater, more like a
500W electric wrap around heater.

Hence the compressor and reservior air tank.
Now, another idea that came to me was that fact the BB's are round (duh!), and round projectiles can go around curves, just
like a bowling ball.
Well, if you attached a curved tube, I don't see why you couldn't have the sentry planted behind a corner, with just the snout
of the curved barrel poking around to blast the hallway.
This would protect the machine from being shot or otherwise damaged for greater effectiveness.
Also, using the same idea of a curved barrel, would it not be possible to have a small "bump" on the top of a car that was the
outlet for a curved barrel? This bump would rotate at high speed, spraying the BB's in a full circle around your vehicle. This
would serve to repel nearby attackers, whether street thugs, or surrounding cops.
It wouldn't kill them, but the fact that they're catching lead in their face, eyes, and throat would make for a hell of a
distraction! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Anyone within 15 yards is going to have a bad time of it if they're standing. And if they squat down below the line of fire,
they're now greatly restricted in their mobility.
Naturally the bump could be aimed to concentrate the shot at a specific target. To the rear to shatter persuing car windows, or
distract approaching bacon. To the sides for those annoying people trying to cut you off. Or to the front to repel those mangy
street beggars who want to "wash" your window with their urine.
Boy, I could build a whole business on the "products" I've come up with. Unfortunately I think I'd be arrested within the first
week for selling them. Damn those pesky consumer safety laws! :mad:
MoToMaStR December 6th, 2002, 09:51 PM

I think what hes trying to get across is,... if your ripping 20 rounds per second on your C2 tank, just like a paintball gun, youll
get loads of velocity drop, which kills your range, accuracry and consistancy, and will freeze your seals, hoses, gaskets and put
ice crystals through your gun, and barrel. just like in paintball, if your serious about your game, go nitro. C2 sucks. yeah, you
can get more shots per tank fill, but the shots are lousy and inconsistant. go to a pawn shop and see if you can snag scuba
gear, (the tank) most likely it will need to be hydro'd soon, but who gives a shit right?
Aaron-V2.0 November 1st, 2003, 03:07 AM

So has anyone even bothered to try making their own BB Machinegun styled after the Strafer yet? Since there's nothing here
I'm guessing no, thus I'm proud to announce that I've built one that works damn well. It's not at the Strafer level yet but I'm
still working on it, it fires around 15-20 RPS at 300 FPS @ 125PSI. The gun is built from PVC parts, a 1" Tee is layed flat and
from the Tee section there's a vertical BB hopper and in the fitting between the Tee and the upright elbow is a half circle of 1"
dowel which keep the BB's level in the firing chamber at half the height of the Tee. A barrel is fit within a 1/8" NPT close nipple
and threaded into an inverted 3/4" cap in one end of the straight through section of the Tee and the same is done on the
other end only it's a blowgun hooked to your compressor.
I'll have some pictures soon along with a technical drawing.
The gun gets 300 FPS with an 18" barrel, I tried a 36" barrel and noted a much higher velocity so my plans are now for a 36"
barreled gun and a blowgun/trigger rated for 232 PSI that will be hooked to some old scube tanks I got from a friend.
NickSG November 1st, 2003, 05:02 PM

Im guessing none of you ever shot at a car, whether it be the windshield or door. Ill tell you right now it is LOUD. A lead pellet
@ 650 PFS makes a (very loud) thud when it hits a car door, and even when hitting the thick windshield it still makes a pretty
loud noise, although it is usually hard to recognize as glass getting hit. CO2 guns arent all that quiet either. My P-23 is
uncomfortable to shoot indoors without hearing protection, and my friends reported that they could hear me shooting inside
my garage from all the way across the street, at least 25 yards away.
If I ever wanted to do that kind of damage, a semiauto converted fullyauto .22LR pistol with some kind of suppresor would do
many times better.
Firing a bb gun at trained professionals wearing bullet resistant body armor! LOL!
xyz November 1st, 2003, 09:30 PM

NickSG, it is not designed to be deadly against SWAT style armour, it is only designed to be unpleasant enough that they will
not enter the hallway where it has been deployed on an automatic turret like NBK said.
FragmentedSanity November 2nd, 2003, 01:25 AM

Aaron-V2.0 - Thats a pretty nifty idea, I cant wait to see the pics and the drawings - I dont spose you could manage a short
vid of it firing? Some pic's of damage would be nice too :)
Could you describe the BB hopper? - is it just a lenght of PVC that fits in the T section with a removeable cap that uses gravity
to feed the BBs into the barrel? - Im assuming that the hopper would need to withstand the 125 psi, or am I missing
something?
Do you have any problems with the ammo feed - like jams or irregular rates of fire?
I spose I'll have to wait for the pics - But Im keen to hear more about this one... It all just seems too easy, or maybe thats
just wishful thinking :p
Anyway - good work, keep us posted.
Aaron-V2.0 November 2nd, 2003, 02:33 AM

Sorry FragmentedSanity, it is that easy! :D
The gun has proven to be very reliable and as long as you can pump air in it will rarely jam. And any jam is fixed by a little
shake. The longer the barrel the higher velocity on the BBs and the way the BB's flow into the barrel a higher pressure source
would increase both the Rate Of Fire and the FPS of the BBs.
Pictures at http://aaronewf.tripod.com
I'm going to do a technical drawing tomorrow.
EDIT: An explanation of the photos...
The first shows the gun in it's whole, the BB hopper is not directly above the firing chamber but it's offset. If you set a Tee
down where all the sockets lay flat and put an elbow into the offset T section facing upward and build your hopper off that.
The only technical part is the BB level adjuster. You take a 1" dowel and cut it 1" long and so it's a half circle like a D
Now with BBs they will rise only up to the level of the wooden dowel and the rest wont fill the fireing chamber becase of it.
I found this out by making a simple and a last ditch attempt at a BB gun, I took a 6" long piece of 1" PVC with an endcap on
it. I then drilled through both sides of where the endcap rested over the pipe and thread a blowgun and the barrel into both.
Now it would fire but I would have to manually adjust the level of the BBs so they'd flow out just right. From that I figured out
the hopper system with the level adjuster.
Ask any questions, I'm happy to help you guys build these as they're one hell of a toy for $30!
rubberchiken November 3rd, 2003, 04:12 AM

wow, sounds like one hell of a gun for a homemade under 30 bucks, Aaron-V2.0! id be really thankful if you could write up how
to build that. airsoft is illgeal over here (in australia) and me and my mates have been looking into smuggling some over. but
if you could show me how to make that gun, it would solve all of our problems!
rubberchiken November 3rd, 2003, 07:57 AM

oh yeah, i can give you my email address for the info on how to build that gun if it would help
Aaron-V2.0 November 3rd, 2003, 04:50 PM

I'll make the plans public here, I've just been real busy with work.
sauvin November 6th, 2003, 08:10 AM

A recent trip to the shooting range led to the discovery of the .177 caliber rifle. The rounds it are identical in form and function
to the ones used in my Winchster 30-30, with obvious differences in scale and some subtle varations in relative geometry.
Although described as a "varmint rifle", its projectiles, according to the apparently knowledgeable clerk explaining it, wouldn't
even know they had hit a human body (they would simply pass through without deformation if fired at short range) and have
damned flat trajectories for impossibly long distances.
It occurs to me that the modern powder-powered firearm and the modern internal combustion engine share a fundamental
principle of operation: the release of large volumes of gasses within very short time frames to propel a projectile, be it the
untethered rifle slug or the firmly restrained cylinder piston. The gasses are released by a reaction initiated by spark.
What I am about to propose, in broad concept only, is the possibility of bypassing some of the shortcomings of using the
relatively slow decompression of compressed gasses by reacting some gas or set of gasses in a confined area. My first
thought would be introducing liquid oxygen into a combustion chamber with subsequent addition of something that reacts
hypergolically with it.
It seems to me that such an approach would reduce the need for large containers of compressed gasses. Granted, regulartors
and suchlike would still be needed, and the firing chamber itself would likely be radically impacted, probably an adaptation of
existing semiautomatic mechanisms. The rate of fire may suffer somewhat BUT I'd expect muzzle velocity to be much higher.
A-BOMB November 6th, 2003, 09:30 AM

You probably saw a .17cal HRM(HornadyRimfireMagum) or a old .17cal bee or remrocket.

How is a LOX powered gun going to be more practical than a current cartridge firearm?
NickSG November 6th, 2003, 05:45 PM

I dont know if hes talking about the .17 HMR or not, but ill tell you right now its not accurate for any than several hundred
yards, and it WILL NOT pass through a human. Ive seen the little .17 bullets stop in squirrels.
Aaron-V2.0 November 6th, 2003, 11:53 PM

Ok, my website http://aaronewf.tripod.com now has a quickly drawn picture of the BB gun's firing chamber based in the Tee.
Considering the skill levels of the members here you should all be able to make sense of the design. Once you understand it
it's so simple, one moving part and it hoses BBs.
rubberchiken November 7th, 2003, 04:15 AM

i dont see that diagram, aaron V2.0; is there a link from that page?

It's at the bottom of the page.
rubberchiken November 7th, 2003, 10:57 PM

sorry Aaron, but either your talking about the picture of the hopper, my browser isnt displaying it, or its not on there. have you
checked the link?
Aaron-V2.0 November 8th, 2003, 12:13 AM

Right click save target as....
http://aaronewf.tripod.com/images/bbgunschematics.jpg
Anthony November 8th, 2003, 08:32 AM

It is at the bottom of the page, you're probably viewing an older cached version of the page. Hitting ctrl+F5 should have
loaded the new one.

Nice pictures, Aaron.
What I don't understand is how come no-one here has spotted the really obvious?
Yes, .177 BBs (Ball Bearings, rather than the shot size!) are cheap and plentiful, but they aren't going to do that much
damage. How about 6mm BBs (plastic, for airsoft or indoor use), or .38 or .44 steel BB (commonly found for catapults like
Black Widows). Yes, they are more expensive, but the muzzle velocity you get is always going to be quite limited, even with
air, as the pressure can't go too high with PVC. Hence, use a bigger projectile. You could even use lead (or steel, or whatever)
shotgun shot in the various sizes. You can buy that by the 5Kg tub in the UK, and you could find the best trade between air
pressure, muzzle vel. and shot size for your personal "toy". .44 or bigger is getting a bit silly, but SG (00 buck) shot size
might be a good step up. The sizes are here (http://www.eleyhawkltd.com/Custom.htm) and lead has more inertia than steel.
Oh, and Suavin, using LOX would just be silly. It would probably eat through your gun as it reacted with the Iron in your BBs!
Any spark, heater or whatever would react really badly if LOX got on it. Try Liquid Nitrogen (LN) as it is a tenth of the price, and
won't react with much, but will still let you get to a serious pressure.
Actually, I think I will start a thread on that...

You could easily make the barrel 6MM and use 6MM steel BBs to get lower velocity, lower range but more impact. A 1/4" is the
largest you should go with a blowgun as your trigger as you only have 1/4" of airflow. I've made an upscale version of this gun
to fire paintballs and they travel about 100FPS.
Everyone's free to do what they want with the plans, it's just I use them for 4.5MM BBs because here, where I live that's the
cheapest bulk ammo. I may go get a 25lb bag of lead shot that's BB sized....
dana_m_h November 10th, 2003, 06:46 AM

i see what he means by using liquid oxygen. liquid oxygen+gasoline = the absolute biggest boom ever. a couple sticks of tnt
perhaps. i cant try it out no access to LOX
___________________________________
"the absolute biggest boom ever"
Yeah shure, let me know when you've experiensed any descent ammount of HE.:rolleyes:
DBSP..
dana_m_h November 10th, 2003, 06:50 AM

anyone in the us with $200 burning a hole they should check here: http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=91887 this
would be nice if it ran on a 9 or maybe 12 oz tank but who cares it would be fun to have anyway

For $200 dollars, it's a waste of time.
It shoots up to 600 rpm, but only holds 30 BB, and the gas is good for "up to" 60 shots?
So you get a gun that empties in 5 seconds, and after one mag change you have to change the gas cylinder??
Don't know about anyone else, but I think it would be something you used just twice, cos it was neat. Then you would take it
back or sell it on as too much pointless hassle.
Oh, and the spare mag is $50!! :eek: :eek:
Try a Mauser barrel (http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?bt=C&a=36644) instead. $20.47, and you would probably be
entertained for longer. You could use it for one of the other threads in this section, too.
rubberchiken November 12th, 2003, 03:40 AM
well, ive got most of the parts for my gun (based on aaron's plans), but im having trouble finding suitable pipe for the barrel. i
went to bunnings ( dunno whether you other guys outside of australia have this) and i couldnt find it there, which has stumped
me; bunnings is like a super-hardware store. any ideas where i could find pipe for the barrel? i'd like it to be about 6mm for
use with airsoft BB's
Jacks Complete November 12th, 2003, 06:37 AM

If you are only using 6mm airsoft, you could probably use a copper pipe from the plumbing section. You could also look in a
model shop, as they tend to have small sections of stock pipe, angle, rod, etc. in various short lengths, made from various
materials.
You will pay through the nose for it, though, and beware the steel tube, as it tends to have a very obvious weld seam on the
inside, which jams your BB big time. I would go for a nice bit of brass, and perhaps sleeve it with the steel if I thought the
strength would be needed.
Failing all that, or if you wanted to increase the range somewhat, you could buy an airsoft gun and take the barrel out of it.
Get the HOP-UP one, and it spins the BB so that the range is greater, too! (This means you have to install it the right way up,
as well as being careful with the projectile weight and velocity, though, so you are probably best to get a none HOP one.)
Edit:
Just a thought/comment: Has anyone else noticed that getting steel tubing is nearly impossible, or is it just the UK? I
managed to get some, but it was an 8m length minimum (1 section!) and was about 1.5" in diameter, with a pretty thick wall.
More like a scaffolding pole! I cannot find anywhere that stocks or supplies narrower steel pipe.
Axt November 12th, 2003, 07:39 AM

Yeh, as Jack said hobby shops is where to go for thin Al & brass pipe. dont go to plumbing stores as the small diametre pipe
is sold off a roll, which you will never get straight. The brass should be good for a few hundred psi (I use the 1/8" brass in the
pengun - guns link in sig).
I couldnt go to anywhere and buy thin steel pipe <8mm off the shelf, and anything stocked is seamed. But you can order
nearly anything, at least here in Aus. you will pay for it with about $200AUS for a 8m length (minimum if your ordering!) of
20mm pipe with 9mm seamless bore.
dana_m_h November 12th, 2003, 09:05 PM

jacks complete in the us you can buy almost any length of pipe in almost any diameter you could probably even order it
through www.lowes.com or www.homedepot.com but the shipping charges to the uk would be horrific
axt your jet trike is kick ass howmuch thrust do those pulse jet engines create? and what are the sizes and lengths of pipe in
that shotgun pistol? is it on one of these threads? it should be. truely improvised...
(me) "man this schools corn stinks" "it must grow inside the can" (my friend) "it doesnt grow it multiplies" "how often do you
see corn multiply?" (me) "how often do you see corn drug and sedate its prey before it eats it?"
something to think about
Axt November 14th, 2003, 02:22 AM

Theres already threads on both - 12 ga (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?
s=&threadid=575&highlight=screw+action) | Pulse jets (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?
s=&threadid=2181&highlight=pulse+jets)
As for thrust - dont know, havnt found the motivation to finish it . Carry on discussion, if any, in those threads.

Guess what?
I was at a fair the other day, and there was a stall "Shoot the star out to win!"
Can you guess what you fired your 100 BBs through? It was a BB Machinegun!
The gun was styled very like an old Thompson, and ran off pneumatics.
I so nearly did it on my first go, too. I am so going to make one of these things next week!
Note that the hundred round hopper ran out in about 4-5 seconds of fire. It also means that these things are legal! (in the UK
at least)
NickSG November 16th, 2003, 08:47 PM

Ive seen those before. If you can shoot a small star completely out of a sheet of paper you win a prize. It fires about 25
rounds a second, and when I was a teen I used to hang out there watching people waste their money trying to shoot it out. I
did BTW shoot one completely out.
They arent that powerful though. I would guess about 250 FPS.

ive seen those too. they run off an air-compressor and are totally legal they are probably sorta pricy to buy bot with sone ipie
and an air-compressor it would be quite easy to make

Please learn to spell check your posts and use capital letter Is when referring to yourself.
The mods are much less likely to ban you if you do this.
Aaron-V2.0 March 12th, 2004, 12:59 AM

Well, I feel like an ass.
I was working with a large group elsewhere solving the Strafer feed system and I never got around to manufacturing one or
posting it here for all to see.
So.... here's two pages of home-brewed Strafers, the feed system works, qoutes of 40RPS to 75RPS have been reported and
apparently it's a bit of a gas hog compared to the original Strafer, but it works!
http://www.burntlatke.com/bb.html
&
http://www.koolpages.com/potatohell/bbgun.html
Anyway, I plan to make a gun of that design when I get some free time, sorry for the delay in sharing the goodies comrades.
Beethoven_1983 March 12th, 2004, 08:26 AM

I was thinking of buying a replica of a ww2 stengun and cut of the barrel and attach the barrel from my old airrifle (22.), and
hope that the 22. hole is sufficient to get the full-auto to function right, and weld an airsoft clip rail magasin to it (300
bullets)....would the power from blankshots drive the bb's in full auto in a good Velocity??

Beethoven_1983,
sorry, wtf?
For a start, you can't get a 6mm airsoft BB down a 5.5mm .22 rifle barrel. For a second, why waste a good barrel on a toy?
Thirdly, being a very loud blank firer, why waste time spitting out a half a dozen low velocity BB's?
Try thinking for a second before posting, eh?

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > "Like a swiss watch"
Log in
View Full Version : "Like a swiss watch"
Arkangel Novem ber 11th, 2002, 09:43 PM

W ell, this is a minor point, but it m a d e m e s m ile. The Swiss are known for their craftsmanship, and it was interesting to read
this article on their "n ew" assault rifle.
<a href="http://www.biggerham mer.ne t/sigam t/550/idr550/" target="_blank">http://www.biggerham m e r . n e t / s i g a m t/550/

idr550/</a>
The part that caught m y eye was halfway down, where they discu s s M a g a z i n e d e s i g n . Q u i t e a p a r t f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m a g s
are transparent (as if anyone here would forget to count their rounds, or have tracer as the last two <im g border="0 " title=""
alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), it was the way they clip together that im p r e s s e d m e. I've seen ple nty of people tap i n g m a g s
together, but never one designed specifically for that purpose - Neat!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > OSS sleeve knife
Log in
View Full Version : OSS sleeve knife
mark November 15th, 2002, 01:02 AM

Hello. Im looking for one of those triangular bladed ice-pick style knifes NBKs alw ays talking about. Does anyone have a link to a store that sells them in the US? I'm looking to
spend about 20 bucks on it. Thanks

<a href="http://www .onestopknifeshop.com/store/cold-steel-fixed-blades.html" target="_blank">http://www .onestopknifeshop.com/store/cold-steel-fixed-blades.html< /a>
Scroll to the bottom. There's the dart and the tanto style, both plastic. :)
I've had the "letter opener" one, and could stab it into a phone pole w ith only a very slight blunting of the tip, easily fixed w ith an emery board.

****Triangular (and square) needle files sell for 99 cents each at the local hardw are store here. They're made from insanely hard steel, since they're files, come down to
extremely nasty points, and are dirt cheap to boot. I picked up three of these for legitimate purposes but they're good dimensions for concealable weapons: A hair longer than
six inches long and about a quarter inch thick. They're fun to chuck at the dartboard, too...
~Zero

The problem is a file is metallic and it is to hard; it will break. You can make shanks out of anything. Plastic resins a widely aviable

****Harder metals are indeed more brittle, but in the case of a file I think it would be more than durable enough to shiv somebody once or twice. If it hits a bone and you do
manage through some happenstance to make the point snap off that will just make it that much more painful for the target. At 99 cents a pop you can carry around tw elve of
the things.
****In all reality, though, I've found the needle files to be very durable. I throw them like knives, probably the second most stressful thing you can do with a weapon, and
haven't even managed to blunt much less snap one yet. The biggest problem with the things is their lack of handles, which makes it tough to stab someone and keep a firm
grip on...
****Professional knifes will probably always be a better option, but these work for cheap.
~Zero

Plastic spikes and tantos cost less than $10. Can't get much cheaper than that.
Plastic has the singular advantage of being undetectable by metal detectors, so that's one up over files.
Plus, by putting the spike in a plastic sleeve, you can quister it (hide it in your ass) and pass through a frisk or strip search, as long as they don't give you a finger w ave. < img
mark November 16th, 2002, 01:12 AM

That plastic dart is pretty nifty. Is it sharp along the sides though? Could it be used to cut things, or is it like a plastic ice pick? Are they liable to snap? And finaly, could it go
through a balistic vest? (not that it matters, i just like knowing that) Thanks

You could make a version of the dart for the price of an old tooth brush. It w ould give you an Idea if of what they are like before you buy.
I have seen women w earing sticks in their hair. Frostfire you should get some made up of polycarbonate... just an idea.

A ballistic vest is designed to stop bullets, not blades. That's w hy ice picks, arrows, chisels, and other "pointy" < img border= "0" title="" alt= "[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> objects
are more feared by police at close range than a bullet. Their vest could stop the bullet from a distance, but the maniac sitting on their chest with the screwdriver is going to be
killing some pig. :D
Prison guards can get BA that'll stop a pick, but it won't stop a bullet. Hmmm...vitamin C tablets in the quarterly package...some dirt from the yard... :D
So, yes, the spike could probably penetrate a vest if you're strong enough. The Tanto can penetrate a vest as w ell. Back in the early 80's, w hen it was first being advertised,
they'd show the knife punching holes in steel drums, car doors, and body armor. :) Don't do that anymore because of the P.C. of the magazines in refusing to carry any ads for
things that might "be used against LEO's" :barf:
The letter opener I had didn't have a razor sharp edge...that is until I broke down some shaving razors and melted the blades into it. THEN it w as razor sharp. :D
You could likely do the same thing with the spike. Though these are more stabbing than slashing weapons. Besides w hich, stabbing is more lethal than slashes, so you don't
want to deviate from that useage pattern anyways.
I never managed to snap mine, though I w as only stabbing trees and such. I don't think it'd be possible to snap it, it'd just get bent like plastics tend to do. Snap off in
flesh...not very likely.
A nifty mod to the spike w ould be to include poison sacks. A notch is cut along one side of the spike, into which is laid a bit of latex tubing w ith a liquid poison inside. The end
closest to the point has a small barb attached so it'll remain inside the wound when pulled out.
As the spike is pulled out, a small bit of razor blade near the tip (inside the notch) would slit the tube, releasing the poison inside.
The italian courtiers had a nifty w eapon similar to this. It w as a triangular dagger (like the spike) that was made of glass with a hollow chamber filled with poison. It w ould be
stabbed into the victim, then broken off inside, releasing the poison w ithin. < img src= "http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/icons/icon21.gif" alt=" - " />
[ December 03, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
Anthony November 16th, 2002, 11:07 AM

According to the website, these knives are tagged with metal rings now to comply with laws regarding non-metallic knives. Can these be removed?
I've heard rumors before about the manufacturers selling out the customer by embedding a metal plate w ith "knife" stamped into it in the handle.

From w hat I've gathered, the ring is just a removable split keyring type.
As for the metal plate...hmmm...that could be possible. But, since the things are so cheap, you could just buy tw o, then melt one down to look for any metal objects embedded
within.
I know that there's several gun manufacturers who embed metal inserts in the polymer frames of their guns so the frame itself can't be snuck through a metal detector.
Harry December 2nd, 2002, 10:57 AM

Since fiberglass body filler is available at your local auto parts supplier, just be creative.
My oldest standby, from my high school daze, is a knife carved from wood. In those days, w e all carried pocket knives; but when I show ed up with a wooden dagger, the guys
went nuts. Of late, it has occurred to me to impregnate one of my wooden friends w ith fiberglass resin, for added strength.
Harry
Fear December 2nd, 2002, 04:45 PM

A brief history of some specalised spikes and shivs. <a href= "http://www .donrearic.com/covertw eapons.html" target="_blank"> http://www.donrearic.com/
covertweapons.html< /a>
Agent Blak December 2nd, 2002, 05:46 PM

well fuck...
The government has to get its gredy little paw s on everything don't they.
This is why I am such a fan of makeing my own shank. I have seen collapsable tent poles made out of Carbon Fiber
Zach December 2nd, 2002, 10:42 PM

fashon a triangular spike out of PVC. simple and cheap. use a belt sander or dremel tool. or, if youve got tons of time, use a file.
EDIT: btw, I bought one of those triangular spikes (me thinketh stabby) at a garage sale for 50 cents. I think my mother threw it aw ay. I recall it being made of fiberglas... I
might go buy a cheap 20lb draw fiberglas bow and cut it up w ith my bandsaw.
[ December 02, 2002, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Zach ]
Agent Blak December 2nd, 2002, 11:04 PM

I was reading a book I dow nload from the FTP awhile back...
"Kill Without Joy" Upload by one of our very own Sadists :D . It discusses the use of hollow shanks.
They leave round wounds and allows the blood to flow out throught the center. This makes the traditional Doughnut style bandage ineffective. I would assume the one of these
lovelies can by fabricated out of plastic.
Hell you good just use as bic pen with the guts removed, and I ask you how many situations is Ball Point pen out of place? Prefered would be a Throat shot....Anyone watched
Casino... < img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ...?
Zach December 2nd, 2002, 11:16 PM

good luck punching a hole in my hide with a plastic tube while I destroy you with my hands.
nbk2000 December 3rd, 2002, 12:54 AM

Well, with the proper w eapon, it'd be a simple case of STABSTABSTAB (all of two seconds to stab kidneys and liver) then run like the devil. You'd have three bleed tubes stuck in
you, plus a hemolytic poison or anticoaggulant like MSG, EDTA, or VitC injected in the wounds to keep the blood flow ing.
Any kind of running or fighting will simply pump out the blood out of you even faster. :) Bleed out could be w ithin a minute, death shortly thereafter.
Reason for three tubes is because people only have two hands, thus leaving at least one tube unplugged. :D
Also, a lot of the larger hardw are stores have stud finder demo models on display. Simply bring some batteries with you (their's are always dead) and w ave it over your plastic
implement of choice to see if it has any metal in it. RTPB "Anything free must be exploited" < img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
[ December 02, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
mark December 4th, 2002, 12:57 AM

Well, I bought both items. The tanto is a travesty, the point bent permentnantley after being jamed into a magazine, flimsy peice of shit.
The spike is much better. It has a pretty good point, but it goes pretty fast. Its very sturdy and light though, although Im still hesitent to start carying it around. Does anyone
have any sugestions for sharpening he point without sanding off to much plastic? Thanks.
jelly December 6th, 2002, 02:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:< hr /> Hello. Im looking for one of
those triangular bladed ice-pick style knifes NBKs alw ays talking about. Does anyone have a
link to a store that sells them in the US?< hr /></blockquote> Do you have a friend in Germany? He could buy the
dagger here ( <a href="http://w ww.roedter-messer.de/schwerter.htm" target= "_blank">http://www.roedter-messer.de/schwerter.htm</a> ) and then
send it to you :)
<img src="http://ww w.roedter-messer.de/homepagepics/agentdendolch.jpg" alt=" - " />
Agent Blak December 6th, 2002, 03:42 AM

But it is made of metal. In that case you might aswell carry a regular blade which are easily found.
<a href="http://www .spy-store.com/Knives7.html" target="_blank">http://www.spy-store.com/Knives7.html</a>
But maybe I missed the point... Doubt it though.
nbk2000 December 6th, 2002, 04:46 AM

You may be able to heat a flat metal surface and press the plastic to it to melt it back into shape. Shave a little off with a razor blade and use that to determine how hot the
metal is so you don't get the metal so hot as to melt or burn the plastic, just soften it.
Glad to hear the little review as to the products. I'll avoid the tanto in the future. Though I know the coldsteel Tanto is an excellent piece of steel to ow n.
Zero December 6th, 2002, 12:27 PM

Quote by NBK:
"Also, a lot of the larger hardw are stores have stud finder demo models on display. Simply bring some batteries with you (their's are always dead) and wave it over your plastic
implement of choice to see if it has any metal in it. RTPB "Anything free must be exploited" "
****Stud finders are ultrasonic, I believe, and designed to pick out a hollow spot from a place with a wooden beam (stud) in it. They don't detect metal. Well, they do, but only
as well as they detect wood. I suggest just sticking a strong (hard drive) magnet to the thing. If it sticks, there's your first clue...
~Zero
Anthony December 6th, 2002, 03:24 PM

I believe that those "stud finders" will also pick out a copper w ater pipe, or electrical wiring set in solid plaster. So no hollow there.
[ December 07, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Anthony ]

The decent studfinders (not the magnet on a pivot types) are actual METAL DETECTORS. They detect ferrous, and non-ferrous metal, and are density meters as well to detect
the wood studs.
Zero December 6th, 2002, 09:52 PM

****I've never seen a metal detecting stud finder (as all of mine are cheap), but I'll take your word for it...
~Zero
jelly December 8th, 2002, 04:13 PM

John Minnery describes a nice weapon in his book "CIA Catalog of Clandestine
Weapons, Tools and Gadgets"... a dagger temple arm :)
<a href="http://jelly146.tripod.com/glasses" target= "_blank">dagger temple arm</a>
..... This pair of glasses contains several blades and cutting weapons.
The temple arms conceal two daggers, and the lenses act as cutting
instruments that are ground sharply along the lower portion that rests
within the frame. The tangs are embedded in the earpiece section, and
the narrow daggers are nestled within the temple arms, replacing the
reinforcing strip that is common in eyeglasses. The lenses can be
prescription-type; in fact, this is preferable for ruse purposes.
The frame must be softened by heat or broken away to release the lenses.
Glass may be honed to incredible sharpness, and the concave shape of
eyeglass lenses allows them to be gripped easily. They are brittle, like
any glass, but if they are ground from industrial safety glasses, they
tend to hold up a lot better. The cutting edge may be used offensively
(held against a throat, for instance), but its primary use is to cut bindings.
The blades are double-edged, made of hardened steel. They are flat and
triangular at the cross section, with the spinelike apex adding some rigidity
and strength. Although the dagger can cut and inflict slashes, it is intended
as a one-time piercing weapon; hence, the desirability of the second backup
dagger. These follow the pattern and use of assassination daggers, w hich are
thrust home and then snapped off (leaving nothing to help the potential
aid-giver determine what occurred and perhaps disguising the location of the
wound long enough so that treatment will be ineffective).
These glasses have the ability to pass through metal monitoring checkpoints
and even body searches, allowing the agent to be equipped with an escape aid
that is overlooked because it's so transparent .....
kingspaz December 8th, 2002, 05:20 PM

various non metalic knives:
<a href="http://www .spytech-uk.com/" target="_blank">http://ww w.spytech-uk.com/</a>
frostfire December 10th, 2002, 12:11 AM

NBK, there's stab/bullet proof BA; <a href="http://bodyarmour.safeshopper.com/24/40.htm?454" target="_blank"> http://bodyarmour.safeshopper.com/24/40.htm?454< /a>
edit: never mind...
[ December 10, 2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: frostfire ]

"...tough knife proof material on the strike face..."
The strike face would be referring to a hard plate armor insert. This is made of a hardened steel, titanium, or ceramic. So what? That's obviously stab proof. I'm referring to a
vest that protects against stabbing attacks from all angles, not just the ballistic plate.

most military flak jackets are stab resistant/proof, and just because of the nature of kevlar it would seem logical to assume that so are police BP vests. but why go for the chest
when you have a perfectly open neck? < img border= "0" title="" alt= "[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . = that is why riot police are afraid of the blades, also they'd rather arrest you
than have you killed by your own blde in a struggle

AFAIK, no current issue vest offers both full bullet and stab resistance.
Ctrl_C December 10th, 2002, 07:45 PM

On the subject of metal being implanted in plastic shivs, is this also true for ceramic kitchen knives? They're brittle but can be sharp as hell, never dull, easy to conceal, and easy
to get now also. Any idea?
Nico December 12th, 2002, 08:46 PM

I had one of the 'executive ice scraper' models, and it was a nice weapon, er, tool. It is used with a natural punching motion ... only problem, is the flat shape tends to rotate
(pronate?) along your palm.
<a href="http://store1.yimg.com/I/urdefense_1719_275226" target= "_blank">http://store1.yimg.com/I/urdefense_1719_275226< /a>

Am I the only one here that has ever heard of Plexi-Glass or what?!! I don't know about how it is in other countries, but here in America you can get the crap just about
anywhere!!! It's cheap (depending on the thickness...), easily cut, easily sharpened with a emery-board or small file, keeps a pretty damned good point on it, and is usually
see-through to boot! It rarely ever likes to snap either! Therefore you can both slash AND stab w ith it. I don't mean to sound offensive or anything, but come on...I made my
first one of these when I w as in like 2nd or 3rd grade...The best thing to usually use is usually also the easiest to thing to get ahold of.
nbk2000 January 22nd, 2003, 11:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:< hr /> ...triangular bladed ice-pick style
knifes...< hr /></blockquote> That's w hat this thread is about. Yes, I'm fairly certain everyone here know s about
plexiglass. So what's your point?
(polycarbonate or delrin might be a better choice)

Plexiglass AKA acrylic is very brittle. It will snap if you stab with it, but maybe if it was 1/2" thick... But I've never seen it available in sheets of that thickness.
Polycarbonate defintely wouldn't break, but it's pretty soft.
I haven't looked into detail on their construction - to see if they include any metals anyw here, but a cermaic kitchen knife may be an option. E.g.:
<a href="http://store5.yimg.com/I/bestknives_1721_27494625" target= "_blank">http://store5.yimg.com/I/bestknives_1721_27494625< /a>
heaton3805 January 23rd, 2003, 09:42 PM

Yes, I did get abit away from the triangle part didn't I? :( Anyway, I don't think that I've EVER seen a brittle piece of plexi-glass. I use to use these things quite often in the
streets growing up as one of the only white kids for nearly a mile around, I'm not racist or anything, but that has nothing to do with this..... Anyhow, I usually prefered a piece
of 3/16" most of the time, and they w orked GREAT for a quick bit of "slash & poke" . If you don't trust the thickness, you should be able to get it thicker with out much
difficulty...I recently acquired 2 LARGE pieces that were just under 1 1/4" thick to use for growing tropical plants.
As for breaking off...Alot of people use this stuff for ballistics tests, and are often used for "supposed" :D bullet proof window s. This is quite a bit stronger than most people tend
to give it credit for.
True, polycarbonate or delrin w ould probably be a better choice, but I don't have the slightest clue where to get it around here, and the Plexi is pretty much readily availible up
to a given thickness (usually around 3/8", then it has to be ordered).

The stuff you have *is* polycarb for 99.9% sure!
It's the only transparent plastic I'm aware of that's used for any kind of ballistic purpose. Plexi aka perspex aka acrylic will shatter like glass if impacted.
There's tw o similar ways w hich w ould help determine what it is:
1) shave a sliver w ith a sharp knife, if it shaves a continous strip, remaining fairly clear then it's probably polycarb. If it breaks and/or turns white it's probably perspex.
2) a variation: Make a very thin cut along one edge, three cm long. Try to pull off the piece by hand. If it snaps its acrylic, if it bends easily its polypropylene or polythene, if its
hard to pull aw ay and break its polycarb.
A smell of almonds indicated polycarb, a smell of pear drops indicates perspex.
nbk2000 January 24th, 2003, 12:07 AM

Plexi w ill burn with a smokey flame, and w ill extinquish as soon as you remove the flame, leaving a bubbly black char.
Poly doesn't.
Plexi w ill shatter like glass if you hit it HARD w ith a hammer, right where you hit it, leaving powdery bits. Poly might fracture, but w on't powder.
The almond smell with polycarb is because of the residual cyanide trapped inside of the resin. It's made from hydrogen cyanide, don't you know ? :D
heaton3805 January 24th, 2003, 04:52 PM

I suppose I should try out those tests...Though I have dropped the thick pieces already since I got them and they didn't show much of any effect from the fall (about chest
high), so maybe I got lucky and got the good stuff :)
Agent Blak February 5th, 2003, 04:00 AM

I have recently uploaded to a yahoo brief case info regarding "Non Metal Shanks"(called Shanks). Aswell there is info on harnesses for concealed carry(called Strapped).
Yahoo Brief Case:

user: cspec_pdfs
pass: 4rogue
Aimaz February 10th, 2003, 07:11 AM

If you want to detect metal in an object get a compass (the north finding variety :) ) and wave your object over it, if there is metal in it the compass needle should move a bit.
Agent Blak February 11th, 2003, 12:19 AM

Yeah Some funny Mofo Changed the PDF's to Gay Porn(very hardcore)... I think it i kind of Funny.
Oh who could it be...*looks at NBK* is that your style?
James February 11th, 2003, 05:03 PM

Aimaz: A compass won't find all metals. It should find iron, all steel, cobalt, nickel and some others. It would also find some plastics.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Grenade/Delay igniter
Log in
View Full Version : Grenade/Delay igniter
stanfield December 10th, 2002, 08:14 AM

I don't know if I shouldn't post this is the "Tools, Techniques, and Plans" section but never mind, here it is :
In a military grenade (frag, explosive, incendiary,...), what is the delay igniter made of ? (schema, plan...), how the delay is made ? electronic ? two chemicals in contact like
permangante and glycerine ?
I did a search before 'cause I though it was discussed before but apparently, I was wrong : I found nothing about this subject...
thanx !
xi December 10th, 2002, 08:27 AM

Hi!
There is a good description on <a href="http://w ww.how stuffworks.com/grenade2.htm" target="_blank">http://www .howstuffworks.com/grenade2.htm</a> It might give
you some ideas...
xi
[ December 10, 2002, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: xi ]

"chemical delay" doesn't help me :)
How can I make a delay grenade at home ? Again, I really like the permanganate/glycerine method...
zaibatsu December 10th, 2002, 11:45 AM

This is how I believe it works:
The striker hits a percussion cap and the impact-sensitive comp in the cap ignites. This ignites a starting mix which ignites a delay composition that burns for the required time
(3-5 seconds?) and then sets off the det. The delay composition has to produce little gas.
However, I'm sure people can refine (or downright change!) that explanation. Also, there's some info on grenades on the FTP I think :)
VX December 10th, 2002, 11:51 AM

If I were doing it, I would use a <a href= "http://www .eleinmec.com/article.asp?3" target="_blank">555 timer in an astable circuit< /a> . An exact time delay can be calculated
this way and the circuit is very reliable. You w ould simply replace the 'device' in this circuit w ith an electronic igniter of some sort. It would make sense to use a small 12V
camera battery to pow er the circuit as they can provide more current than a 'normal' battery. However it may be necessary to connect the output of the chip via a relay to
protect the chip from failing(or literally exploding < img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ). Also if the output goes high, then low, this would not be much use
as a delay. In this situation you w ould simply connect the 'device' to the + ve instead of -ve which would reverse the timing.
Another advantage of doing it this way is cost, the whole thing (excluding the battery) costs less than a pound. Also this same circuit can be used re-used just like a normal
ignition box. Assuming that it was connected to the igniter via a couple of lengths of wire.
If you were feeling more adventurous, you could use an astable circuit (set to cycle every 1 sec. to run some 7 segment displays. You can have Day: Hour: Min: Sec etc count
downs. (Just like in the films.) In GCSE electronics a few years ago I actually designed and built the circuit, but now I've bloody lost it. That only cost about 5 pound. If I get
some time I'll re do it, and post it.
Bitter December 10th, 2002, 01:14 PM

You could always have conventional slow burning fuse taped over the mouth of a cheap, disposable cigarette lighter so a flick of the lighter will set the fuse alight w ithout too
much messing around. Or you could have the percussion cap system mentioned by Zaibatsu to ignite a conventional fuse rather than the complex mix of black pow der,
zirconium and a dozen other things you're not going to get hold of any time soon. I've tested a simple prototype of this system and it w orks okay as far as I can tell. This might
even prove safer than the military design, providing it is made properly.
stanfield December 10th, 2002, 03:45 PM

VX, I w as thinking to this idea long before but I don't like NE555 so I always w ork w ith the Jum ala's 4541 tim er circuit, so, the igniter cos t me 5 (= 5$) each time ! it's too expensive but
works very well...
Bitter, I don't like NE555 but I really HATE fuses ! is there is some wind, impossible to light the cigarette lighter ! secondly, if the grenade "fall" on the fuse it can snuff out the
fuse !
no no no ! :) I dont like fuse at all !
I think an easy grenade could be made by putting permanganate and glycerine in two compartments. When you pull out the ring, it mixes the two components, after 5 to 7 sec,
the mix start burning and ignites some lead azide or DDNP too, which will ignite the HE next...
Another question, my detonators are made of 1g PETN and 0.1g of Lead azide. When i will throw my grenade, it will fall on the floor, right ? :) :) Will shock detonate lead azide
on impact ? it could be very dangerous... do I need to change my primer ? Maybe something more resistant to shock...
see ya :

The grenades shouldn't go off on impact if you use LA for the primary, but there's only one way to be *sure*....
IMO the best way is VISCO and pull-string ignition - either party popper or matches + striker.
Glycerine and permanganate is likely to be unreliable and possibly dangerous. What if your vials leak over time, or from external knocks? You w ouldn't know about till the
grenade went off, possibly taking your nads w ith it. This kind of delay would also be rather unpredictable as regards to w eather. On a real hot day, the delay might become
<1sec, in winter, the reaction might not ignite at all.

If you use a potato masher style grenade, you could mount the electronics in the handle, and likely recover them intact after explosion.
Chemical delays are fine if the time of explosion is irrelevant, as long as your not around.
But for a grenade used in the normal fashion, reliabilty of delay is vital! You have to know to the second how long you've got to hold onto the grenade (cook-off) before it'll
explode.
Visco fuse and pullstring ignitor is utterly simple and reliable.

ok !
Essential question : how to make homemade pullstring ignitors ? :)
see ya !
EDIT : I ask this because, in my bloody country, it's nearly impossible to buy pyrotechnics from Skylighter or Fireworx,... shitty governement !
[ December 11, 2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: stanfield ]
<a href="http://isuisse.ifrance.com/emmaf/anarcook/igbook.htm" target="_blank">http://isuisse.ifrance.com/emmaf/anarcook/igbook.htm</a>
I feel dirtied for having to provide a link to an Anarchist Cookbook article. <img src= "http://www .roguesci.org/ubb/icons/icon26.gif" alt= " - " />
LEARN TO SEARCH! :mad:

I browsed google before ! but found nothing ! sorry !
Anthony December 11th, 2002, 08:45 AM

stanfield, you know Party Poppers - those things w here you pull a string and it shoots out a load of paper string?
Disassemble on of those and remove the string attached to the propellant, w hich is wrapped in paper. Buried in a starter mix, such as BP, will ignite when the string is pulled.
Apparently it w ill also work if inserted into the split end of visco.
Mr Cool December 11th, 2002, 03:11 PM

Cut a slit down one side of the party popper thing, so you know which way the hot gases will go. Otherwise you might get unlucky and get no sparks etc falling on your igniter
(unless it is surrounded by BP).
Edit: and for god's sake, don't use a KMnO4/glycerol delay! Tiny changes in the ambient temp., mixing, proportions, moisture (glycerol is hygroscopic) etc w ill have quite
massive effects on the delay. On a warm day under certain conditions it can be <1 sec, under different conditions it can be a few minutes. And also it'd be a lot better to have
a small source of flame to ignite the detonator, otherw ise it might take an extra few seconds to burn until it reaches the detonator. You can't use KMnO4/glycerol in small
amounts, it never gets hot enough to ignite.
[ December 11, 2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]
BoB- December 12th, 2002, 07:16 AM

For a simplified electrical grenade, the E-match w ould ignite the fuse train, its connected to 2 switches, 1 is a normally-on switch and the other a micro-toggle w ith a clear on/off
indicator, even possibly an LED to let the user know w hen the fuse train has ignited.
The user would hold down the normally-on sw itch with his thumb, and flip the toggle, when throw n the normally-on switch is released (duh) and the fuse train is ignited.
The battery, switches, and fuse train could be imbedded in Bondo, or fibreglass in the top of the grenade. For w aterproofing of the switches, see-through plastic wrap could be
wrapped around the top of the grenade body.
Providing you stay clear of Radio-Hack, the w hole deal shold only cost you a few bucks.

I have some sodium azide for lead azide production... I know this stuuf produces lot of gases when ignited. Is there a way to use this stuff in a grenade or a delay igniter ? this
could be fun...and reliable !
see ya !

You could press it into a tube to create a time fuse, but many pyro comps are good for that. But, this kind of fuse for a grenade is inherently dangerous.
Save the LA for blasting caps...
Agent Blak December 19th, 2002, 11:21 PM

I will beuploading a PDF to the FTP around new years Called C-Spec_A1. In it there are several(4) ignition Systems. Watch For it.

ok, say w hen it's up and w here it is ! the ftp is huge :)
thanx...
Tcell December 20th, 2002, 09:48 PM

Admittedly, this is a bit late... AFAIK, the chemical fuses in a hand grenade is a vial of acid w hich is broken w hen the handle pops up, and this eats through a sheet of metal at
as specific speed w hich then ignites the explosive.

You're thinking of the delays used for sabotage. All modern grenade fuses are pyrotechnic (burning) delays.
SMAG 12B/E5 December 27th, 2002, 03:01 AM

Although the modern grenade fuse is composed of exotic "gasless" compositions, the WWI and WWII hand grenades used a compressed or tamped fusetrain of black powder or
modified black powder. Finely ground coal is an example of a modifier commonly used.
The fusetrain mixture must be moistened very slightly (alcohol/w ater) and then compressed into the fuse body with a small ram. The mixture and ram pressure must be
duplicated with each fuse if repeatable performance is to be expected.
These fuses must be vented but waterproofed (glued disc of AL foil). The primer must be light but hot (addition of AL or MG pow der).
The most convient source of fuse bodies are the expended fuses from "practice" grenades generated during troop training. The same fuse bodies may be easily cast from AL or
"pot" metal. The striker, striker spring, pin and spoon are easily fabricated.

could you give me an example of what chemical ignites with sulfuric acid ? Chlorate, no ? is there another ?
thanx !
vulture December 27th, 2002, 02:45 PM

Both chlorate and permanganate compositions ignite w hen reacted w ith concentrated sulfuric acid due to the formation of ClO 2 and Mn 2O7.
[ December 27, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]
10fingers December 29th, 2002, 05:09 PM

deleted
[ January 01, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: 10fingers ]

Hmmm... so it's basically a sort of thermite. Have you tried it? I remember you saying that you'd bought some silicon a while ago...
I like BoB-'s idea for an electric grenade, I'd definitely use something similar to that if I was making one. But the toggle switch (the equivalent of the pin on conventional
grenade designs) w ould need to have a safety mechanism attached to stop the grenade from being initiated by accident. That'd be easy enough to arrange though.
more of that, on the "ground impact", if the switch goes off, the timer w ill stop...

As long as the switch w as recessed, or locked on, then it's be OK.
Obviously the grenade would have to be designed so that the enemy you threw this at couldn't turn it off before it exploded.

ofcourse, but if the timer is 3 sec, on the "ground impact" it maybe remains 1 or less second,... a bit short to defuse ! :)
Yeah, I think the ideal time is 3 or 4 seconds, no more.

unfortunately, I believe that with Jumala's Timer I cannot use short time like 3sec, damn... I will look at this.
vulture December 30th, 2002, 05:29 AM

Just turn around the principle....when the enemy thinks he's defusing it, he's actually engaging the mechanism... :D
Mr Cool December 30th, 2002, 07:00 AM

Ah, well if you had some sort of 555 timer to set off the detonator, then turning it off could stop the timer, depending on how it was designed. But I would have a pyro delay
pressed straight on top of the primary in the detonator (w ith a little vent hole somew here), so that as soon as both switches were "on" the delay would be ignited, and the only
way to deactivate it w ould be to open up the grenade, find the detonator, and dig it out, in three seconds!
10fingers December 30th, 2002, 12:29 PM

deleted
[ January 01, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: 10fingers ]
BoB- December 31st, 2002, 03:00 AM

It w ouldnt matter if either switch were played with, after the fuse train has been ignited the switches are useless. Thats the beauty of combining the 2, the "un-armability"
(Thats a w ord, right?) of fusetrains, and the simplicity and versatility of modern electronics.
You could even fabricate a "spoon" design with some coat hanger wire.
Mr. Cool- I didnt think of that :) a safety would be vital, you could drill a tiny hole through a push button toggle, and stick a paperclip through it to prevent movement. They
also make switchs that have hinged doors on the top to prevent accidental pushing.
aster December 31st, 2002, 09:42 AM

I have an idea of to make a hand grenade which will explode upon throw ing and hit the ground. Below is a simple diagram to explain:
<blockquote>code: <hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> @@@@@@@@@*---|
@ @ ( |
@ @ ( | @=metal casing
@ @ ( | *= hinge
@ @+ | -/|=metal lever to hold the
@ @ | firing pin in cocked position
@ @ | (= firing pin in cocked position
@ @@# | +=hinge and string that makes
@ # | the firing pin strike when
@ @@# | released to hit primary exp.
@ @ | #=primary explosive that impact
@@@@@@@@@ | sensitive</pre>< hr /></blockquote> This simple diagram maybe made into real grenade casing with the
help of a metal and mechanical expert.
This should help - Anthony
[ December 31, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Anthony ]
aster December 31st, 2002, 09:46 AM

oops the diagram looks strange, sorry...
Eliteforum December 31st, 2002, 11:35 AM

I can't make it out, do the diagram again in Paint as a picture. :)
aster January 1st, 2003, 10:14 AM

ok, i can make the diagram on a bitmap file in my floopy disk, but how to send/ display this image in this forum? the image must contain http//...
(Go to <a href="http://w ww.boomspeed.com" target="_blank"> www.boomspeed.com< /a> and get an account. It only takes 5 minutes to set it up. Then upload the picture
and post a link to it. ~ MrC.)
++ ++++ +++ ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ +++ ++++ +++ ++++ +++ ++++ +
Also, since you're doing it as a bitmap, that means it's going to be huge. If it's more than 50K in size, you have to provide a link to the file, rather than directly displaying it
here. Otherwise, it takes forever for the topic to load while the giant BMP file downloads. Not everyone here has broadband. NBK
aster January 2nd, 2003, 09:16 AM

thanks all, i have made my another idiot picture, :D (http://www .boomspeed.com/donnebedian/improvisedgrenadediagram.bmp)this diagram seem far more simple than i
have ever seen at "How stuff works", this diagram based from a simple mechanism, like toy...he..he, but this is reliable, and dangerous too, <img border="0" title=""
alt="[Eek!]" src= "eek.gif" /> because there is no safety pin, only idiot (like me!) makes a simple toy became dangerous /lethal stuff <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]"
src="w ink.gif" />
Eliteforum January 2nd, 2003, 09:42 AM

From 224kb, to 4.1kb.
For those of you on dialup:
<img src="http://ww w.boomspeed.com/eliteforum/improvisedgrenadediagram.gif" alt= " - " />
chemofun December 6th, 2004, 09:20 PM

Would a mix of potassium chlorate and sugar be sensitive enough to burn if it was hit by an improvised firing pin/hammer (made of some nuts and bolts powered by a spring
that powers the pump of shampoo and lotion bottles). I had started making an improvised hand grenade, but I'm not sure w hat to use for the percussion cap. It needs to be
sensitve enough to ignite from the aforementioned hammer and hot enough to ignite a BP or Potassium nitrate/ sugar fuse. I w ould buy fuse but I cant find any anywhere.
If anybody is interested in my design, I'll try to put up pictures of the prototype when I finish it.
Skean Dhu December 7th, 2004, 07:56 AM

What about a Spring and Gear assembly that as soon as the spoon is released it starts
unwinding and when in the correct posistion it trips a spring-loaded center punch or hammer of sorts which in turn hits a rifle primer detonating the booster/main charge? It is
both reliable and if design properly near impossilbe to set of due to jarring and such.
SweNMFan December 7th, 2004, 02:05 PM

I was thinking of toy gun caps.. Alot easier to get than real ammo.. When I w as little I used to scrape out the stuff from a few caps and put in one, and my toy gun alw ays
made the largest bang :-)
tiac03 December 21st, 2004, 03:34 PM

I know this is an old post and should probably be forgotten but:
First thing, learn about grenades, you can learn some things on sites such as
http://ww w.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/index.html
then if you want to make your life more simple you go to a site like
http://ww w.e-gunparts.com/search.asp (type grenade in the search bar)
and buy a dummy grenade. (most come w ith everything except the striker/spring, w hich they acually come with the replacement heads which they also sell.)
Only thing with the dummy grenades is that they have a hole drilled in the bottom, w hich can be easily fixed by welding.
They are pineapple grenades.
First thing to do is drill out the spent primer

-fill "tube" with delay element of choice (black powder, smokeless powder) anything that burns. If you can put it in a tube or straw and it burns consistantly and right to the
bottom, then it will work.
-test out delay length by lighting it in that state.
-if satisfactory cool, clean and refill.
-place new primer back into spot, if for some reason you screwed up and it's slightly loose ,glue it into place with just enough glue to hold it.
Now all you have to do is bring the striker back, lock it into place with the spoon and pin.
Connect a detonator to the bottom of the "tube" (crimp it into place on the given indent.
Lastly screw it back into place in the body of the grenade. (with high explosive filler of choice, nothing heat/spark sensitive or you will get what you deserve for being so stupid)
Most new grenades use Comp B.
Finally you pull the pin and throw it, follow first link for exact method of holding and tossing. No hollywood "cooking off the grenade" in home made ones unless you can
guarantee (with your life) that the delay element provides you w ith the delay expected. Lastly you pray to whom ever you pray to that you didn't screw anything up, (make it
a quick one though, because if that grenade doesn't make it 5 meters, consider yourself dead, and if it doesn't make it more than 15m then you will have fun explaining your
story to the local police w hilst the doc pulls what is left of your grenade out of your ass.
(Procedure, is what I w ould do with my dummy grenade, if I ever wanted to use it for "making holes in ice"...)
armchairsapper May 25th, 2008, 01:52 AM

I realize this is a rather old post but it is a pretty good one and I have my "tw o cense".
As Tiac pointed out, the bes t way is simply rearming an inert practice grenade.
However, rather than filling in the fuze hole w ith blackpow der or w hatever. A better method is to drill out the fuze hole to accept or 7/32 in. safety fuze. Instead of using a
rifle primer, a .25 acp round with the bullet removed works much better. The fuze assembly has a cavity just above the fuze and bellow the primer; fill with smokeless powder
or black powder. Also, the grenade bodies are cast iron, which is hard to w eld. JB Weld is sufficient, especially if you are using HE. This method works very well.
Charles Owlen Picket May 25th, 2008, 10:53 AM

This is indeed the technique that is a w ell trodden road. < Cast iron can be brazed.> Additionally the mold for the Mk 2 pineapple bought as a paperweight is so extremely close
to original that it MAY be taken from an inert; way back w hen....The basic problem is that grenade bodies break from the inside out so the scores on a "pineapple" really have
less impact in the break up than most folks think.
file May 25th, 2008, 11:17 AM

I remember reading something on that. The reason they kept the scoring after discovering that it didn't do anything was because it provided a solid gripping surface and because
it certainly can't hurt. And it can't hurt performance.
A pull type ignitor like was mentioned or something like on the Japanese grenades(you would hit the end against something hard to trigger it and then you had a three second
delay) would be best. A jap type ignition system w as a typical pyrotechnic ignition system like in a regular grenade, but without the spoon and it's mechanism.
armchairsapper May 25th, 2008, 10:45 PM

There is more than just the "pineapple" available. The "baseball" is the same size and shape as the current frag used by the US Army. If you are looking for fragmentation; then
just add some ball bearings to whatever HE you use.
But honestly if you were to rearm a "practice" grenade you really shouldn't be to concerned w ith fragmentation as a 1/4 lb of HE is pretty sufficient for most uses.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Road Patriot
Log in
View Full Version : Road Patriot
Nico December 12th, 2002, 12:16 AM

I just saw this on a show about police this evening, but this reminds me of the comic book character Punisher with his remote control cars rigged up with all kinds of gear.
It's called "Road Patriot", and police are using it to stop high speed chases.
Here's a link to the picture on the maker's homepage:
<a href="http://ckent.org/patriot.jpg" target="_blank">http://ckent.org/patriot.jpg</a>
<a href="http://ckent.org/rp.html" target="_blank">http://ckent.org/rp.html</a>
A description from another site:

"This device came at the request the many law enforcement officers who have been involved in high speed chases who wished the runaway vehicle would just... stop. The
Road Patriot as it is called, was designed to make a vehicle do exactly that. The actual electronics behind it are still classified (I'm sure for patent-related reasons), but the
fundamental idea is public information. A device that looks like the chassis to an off road remote controlled car with a big metal coil on the top of it is strapped to the front of a
patrol car. At the push of a button, the car is launched via a small rocket engine (the kind used in model rockets probably) from the front bumper of the patrol car toward the
underside of the runaway car. Once the coil on top of the Road Patriot comes into contact with the chassis of the car, the manufacturers of the device claim it shorts the ignition
of the car which then comes slowly to a stop. How this happens is a mystery, so it is unsure whether this process endangers the occupants of the vehicle or whether there is a
spark to ignite the gas tank or some other potentially catastrophic side effect. In any case the vehicle is moving at highway speeds when the driver suddenly loses power,
power steering, power breaks, and anything else that's electronic. It sounds like a potential recipe for disaster, but it could work."
<a href="http://www.honors.unr.edu/~jschind/weapons.html" target="_blank">http://www.honors.unr.edu/~jschind/weapons.html</a> (scroll down, there's other
interesting tidbits here as well)
There's an archived thread from back in 1996 here: <a href="http://www.audifans.com/archives/1996/09/msg00071.html" target="_blank">http://www.audifans.com/
archives/1996/09/msg00071.html</a>
It must not be in widespread use yet, but I thought it looked interesting. I'm not sure if it's EMP or what ...
As far as application to The Forum, I think it shows the possibilties for small packages that are capable of disabling vehicles without a lot of unnecessary damage. If these guys
with their silly website can invent the Road Patriot, I'm sure the folks here can whip up something equally sweet.
One could have one of these guys mounted on their getaway vehicle, facing aft. The best defense is a good offense, right?
Radio Shack may see sales of their RC toys go up this year. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
I'm sorry if this seems a bit too much like "Battle Bots" ... I searched for 'patriot' and 'remote control' and nothing came up, so I figured it was okay to post.

Years ago, on a TV show called "RealTV", I saw a clip of this thing in actual use during a police pursuit.
The thing is rocket propelled, and hauls ASS! The cops where chasing this guys at like 80MPH and about 100 feet back.
Then FWOOSH! Off it goes in about a second under the car and it's lights blink out as the electronics fry the cars "brain".
Countermeasures that came to mind were to either block the device from getting under the car, trigger prematurely, or render it moot by driving an electronics free car.
Blocking could be to go lowrider, heavy chains or bars hanging from the rear bumper like on a merkva, or some other way of keeping the damn thing from scooting under your
car. Naturally, whatever you use can't draw piggie attention, otherwise it'd be counterproductive if it was the thing that instigated the chase in the first place.
Shorting it out would be simple enough. Have a plastic rear fender that's well insulated from the car body. The bottom edge of the fender is covered with copper. When the
probes on the patriot contact the copper, it triggers, dumping its power into shorting itself out. This assumes the thing can't be continuously zapping.
You could also have a plastic skid plate under the car body that would insulate it from the patriot. The skid plate should be designed so that it traps the patriot as far to the rear
as possible so it could be shed at the first bump in the road.
A strictly electro-mechanical ignition system is pretty immune to electronic shock if I remember right. A '57 chevy may be the best getaway vehicle after all.
Energy84 December 12th, 2002, 01:22 AM

Fleeing in a '57 chevy would indeed be fleeing in class! I love those cars so much...
But for those who can't afford to risk losing a 50 year old classic car (myself included), why not have a rearward projecting 'Sticky Foam' nozzle from the back of your car?
(From the site in Nico's original post <a href="http://www.honors.unr.edu/~jschind/weapons.html" target="_blank">non-lethal weapons</a>)
When the foam is sprayed backwards while travelling at high speed, you would probably get an effective range of at least 75-100ft.(Would probably depend on how much
turbulence your car makes as it travels) And when it hits the target vehicle, it would render it useless as the wipers will just get jammed up, blocking their view. And I'm sure
that if it hit one of these Road Patriots, the expanding foam would create enough drag to either slow it down or curb its direction of travel, just as long as the foam doesn't
blow off too easily at high speeds :rolleyes: ...

Lets assume that you can't blind the operator, but rather have to deflect/defeat the weapon itself.
Given the extremely short reaction time you'd have to respond with your defense, it'd have to either automatically triggered, or constantly on.
Short range radar like that used to measure baseball pitch speeds could possibly be modified to serve this purpose. Since the relative speed is key here, anything approaching
you from the rear at more than 20MPH (faster than your speed), and at less than 10 yards is either a car about to ass end you, or a patriot attack.
Lets not go overboard with a mini-PHALANX firing out the rear license plate, shall we? :p
I'd think something simple like long bars of light plastic or such dropped across the roadway would cause the wheeled patriot to jump or flip, rendering it useless.
As a weapon, considering how fast the thing is going, I think wheels are obso.
Rather, ground effect could be used so it would skim just a few inches above the pavement, never actually touching it, thus immune to road defects (or simple
countermeasures like bars) which could cause the patriot to miss.
Think it as a road torpedo! :D
If one was using offensively, an upward firing EFP would be good to disrupt the fuel tank, break the drivetrain, or kill the operator. And the undersides of vehicles are the most
vulnerable.
BoB- December 12th, 2002, 07:38 AM

Hydraulic pumps could be used, when not being chased by the police :) the car would sit at a legal, heterosexual height off the ground, then with the flip of a switch the
vehicle drops to 1" off the ground. Sheet metal protects the drivetrain and vulnerable underdside from bumps, and spikestrips.
Anthony December 12th, 2002, 11:13 AM

Like NBK said, anything with a mechanical distributor would likely be invulnerable, although the ignition coil might be damagable by an extreme discharge. Diesel would be
totally invulnerable, but then old diesels suck power-wise and then new ones would be loaded with sensitive engine management black boxes.
I still don't get how it works. Putting a volatge across those two brass prongs would only create a local disturbance. Unless both prongs have a positive charge, and the power
will flow to the negative side of the battery, which is earthed to the chassis. That would probably fry electronics. Not sure if it's physically possible to make a circuit like that
though.
john_smith December 12th, 2002, 12:06 PM

The easiest way to trigger the defense system would probably be those parking aid thingies (aka Bosch Parkpilot etc). As much as I know, they're basically little rearward
facing short-range radars. Not too fancy but easily obtainable and easy to adapt. Anything that comes closer than x feet behind your car during a police pursuit normally has
something to do with cops, so additional discrimination isn't likely to be necessary.
As for the defense system itself, I've been thinking about variations of <a href="http://members.tripod.com/selousscouts/antiambush_devices.htm" target="_blank">this</
a> lately.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />One such measure involved
mounting devices similar to claymore mines facing outward from the sides of vehicles. The vehicles were protected by reinforced backing plates and the mines were detonated
electronically from within the cabs. <hr /></blockquote>Or, basically, a bumper-mounted claymore. IF it would
work, it would probaly be effective against the cop car itself also, as well as being useful in various situations like crashing roadblocks etc. Could a somewhat reinforced civilian
car or truck stand the blasts I don't know. If somebody has more information on the vehicles described above...
PYRO500 December 12th, 2002, 05:37 PM

There are a number of ways I think this device could work. I believe is is probobly just a capacitor or bank of them that rapidly pulse in series through a coil when the thing
ends up under the car. From the picture of the thing I am guessing those three prong things sticking out of the top could be for determining when the device has gotten under
your car and triggers the discharge of the capacitors. If this is a simple capacitor discharge through a coil thing shielding may not be easy.
The coil when pulsed induces very high currents in nearby metals/wires. In fact I'm guessing this little device would repell itself away from metal objects due to the eddie
currents it induces in them. I'm not sure the power of the device so I can't tell you what the best way to shield would be. If you covered areas in copper plating the copper
would have the currents induced in it and still have a magnetic field that could induce currents in nearby metals but would be signifigantly reduced.
McGuyver December 12th, 2002, 10:56 PM

Keep in mind that if the wires touch ANY metal on the car it will be rendered useless. High voltage/amperage will probably kill pretty much any car. Old or new.
I'm really not sure what is does exactly, but I'm pretty sure if high voltage is dumped into the ground on ANY engine it the mixture could pre-detonate or something like that.
Because the spark across the spark plug will happen at the wrong time. That doesn't seem to be what it does though. If that happened a few cars might blow up or something.
:)
I believe it might have something to do with the ignition wires being shorted or cut-off by a fuse blowing or something. High amps will take care of the ignition fuse in any car I
think, and if the ignition is cut off everything will stop because it's like the key is no longer in. Then again I don't really no if there is an ignition fuse, I suppose there is. Seems
reasonable.
john_smith December 13th, 2002, 12:45 AM

As much as I know, no car has a fuse in it's ignition circuit.
The logical solution for this might be replacing the car's wiring that uses the chassis as a ground with common "household type" + and - wires. Of course, this "logical" doesn't
mean practical in real life...

Unless you could totally insulate the drive and power train from the chassis, the wiring wouldn't make any difference.
Insulation, and premature shorting of the patriot, would be the best defenses.
Another thing that might work would be to have a spare ignition system that's electrically isolated till manually engaged. I've seen electronic ignition systems that come in a
portable case that you can hook up to a car and use to control the engine when the normal system is shot out. They cost like $500. Such a thing could be built into the car and,
after a patriot attack, a switch is flipped to engage it and off you go again. :)

You could build a second very well shielded, and rugged ignition system... Or You could just use a diesel engine and protect the electroincs of the fuel system and such.

or you could just destroy the thing before they have the chance to use it

In order to destroy it before they can use it, you'd have to destroy the cop car that's carrying it. Hmmm, on second thought, that's not a bad idea. <img src="http://
www.roguesci.org/ubb/icons/icon23.gif" alt=" - " />

I found a patent for the device. The link is below:
<a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5503059" target="_blank">Vehicle disabling device and method </a>
Tcell December 19th, 2002, 09:34 PM

Just get an '85 F150 farmer package.... Great engine, lots of guts, and doesn't even have an FM RADIO electronics-wise.... it's pretty much invulnerable to electronic
countermeasures.
Energy84 December 19th, 2002, 09:40 PM

And if you had one of them, you wouldn't even need to worry about getting into a highspeed chase :p Besides, I think you'd have more worries driving a Ford <img
border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .
But seriously, if it's a gas engine, you're fucked because it still has an ignition system. Even with a diesel I don't think you'd have much of a chance because there is still a fuel
pump that can get fried. Older ones will have mechanical pumps, I know, but there is still some sort of electrical system (you still have to turn a key right?). So once you're
zapped, you'd most likely be SOL. Even if you had some sort of backup system that wasn't turned on at the time, with a 1000+ Amp jolt, I don't think there's much chance of
anything surviving...

From the patent, it seems that the weapon's primary means of attack is direct HV cap discharge to the vehicle's underside, and secondary through the EMP produced.
The designers intend it to knock out Electronic Engine Management systems, or send it into limp home mode by messing with its sensors.
Preference seems for it discharge on the underside of the engine, as the charge has to pass through wiring to get to the chassis. A lot of European cars built nowadays have
plastic trays covering the bottom of the engine bay, to prevent oil drips. So it wouldn't work on these.
Also, I doubt this thing could dissable anything non-IC based. Fuel pumps, ignition systems (points), mechanical driven fuel injectors should be fine. Considering it's deemed
highly unlikely to activate an electronic ignitor/blasting cap which is inside the vehicle.
Still, a 10+ (pre engine management) year old tubo diesel, with mechanical fuel pump should be bullet proof (not literally...)
Still, a plastic skirt on the back number would be the simplest and most reliable. It could be hinged up under the vehicle in normal use and realeased by solenoid or cable
(sprung down) when needed. Being hinged or made of flexible material, it'd move upwards instead of getting ripped off my any bumps.
Positive Electron December 27th, 2002, 02:08 PM

Relateing to the Parking Radar thing, imagine if you could rig up some sort of trigger to that product, where once its triggered, some sort of a blocking impliment drops down
from the car, and diverts the foward motion of the "torpedo".
I'm thinking some sort of wheeled block, that just hits the thing going 100 MPH, thus destroying it, and givng the police something to dodge, and at 80 MPH that could do some
serious damage.
Or maybe, when you hear to rocket going off, you could turn your car, and it would just slam into your back wheel, and be destroyed.

How are you going to hear a rocket being fired at your ass while going 100MPH? And trying to do a bootleggers turn at even 50MPH is goiing to flip your car.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Mini-more
Log in
View Full Version : Mini-more

Winston "Evo" cigarettes now come in a plastic flask. When these came into the store, I noticed how they had a nice curvature to them, very similiar to that in a claymore
mine.
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<img src="http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/minimore_top.gif" alt=" - " />
This shows how the flask curves inward. This would be good for focusing the direction of the fragments into a highly concentrated "beam", rather than a divergent spreading as
they normally would.
Since this would be intended as an indoors weapon for defense of hallways and other structural choke-points, the fragment load wouldn't have to be of large caliber. BB's are
more than adequate for the under 10 yard range I'd anticipate. This gives the weapon a dense cloud of fragments, increasing the vital hit probability against armored targets.
<img src="http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/minimore_side.jpg" alt=" - " />
Given the small size (about actual size in the pictures), it'd be easy to conceal beneath furniture, behind paintings, inside of vases, and other such camouflage.
The explosive weight is only a couple of ounces, no more than a grenade. This would minimize structural damage.
carbonated December 16th, 2002, 07:16 PM

Maybe my monitor is screwed up, or we have different monitors, NBK, but what are the (approxiamte) dimensions?

3.5"H x 3"W x 3/4"D
Keyser Soze December 18th, 2002, 05:27 PM

Did you do that with photoshop nbk? If i were to make a claymore type device would Picric Acid be a much better choice for the charge than APAN because it has a higher VoD?
And if you did need more range/fire power, stores like Sports authority and Gallians sell 1/4 inch steel balls for slingshots.

picric acid would be a much better choice for many reasons. its a proven safe secondary. there is already data on sensitivity to work from. it has a higher VoD and is quite
brisant. so all in all its good shit. but better yet you could neutralise it with NH3 to make ammonium picrate. this would then be safe to put into direct contact with the steel
shot and achieve the highest shot velocity and still be a very good explosive. the disadvantage would be that it would require a booster charge. a couple of grams of picric acid
would be sufficient for this though.

Yes I have heard that PA is a good booster and it is relatively easy for me to make(i would use Mr. Cools syth.) I recall someone on the forum said they used 10g AP with a
30g PA booster to detonate ANFO. The only thing I was worried about was the contact with metals and PA will form metal salts. I will most likely be using steel or copper shot
but i could make Ammonium Picrate like you suggested.

the only problem i can foresee as a possibility is this:
R-O- + NH4+ <=> R-OH + NH3
where R = picryl group
its an ammonium salt so maybe the slight amount of TNP formed during the equilibrium could react with the metal to some extent. i beleive this may be catalysed by the fact
that the ammonia also formed would form a complex with the metal removing it as an ion from the metal surface.
maybe i'm talking crap....can somebody who knows stuff about chemistry help here? Pu?
[ December 18, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]
Crow December 18th, 2002, 06:55 PM

I have not heard of "Evo" brand cigarettes, nor have I seen the package on any shelves. Is this product available in the Northeastern US? I have been thinking of using a rum
bottle with a similar curvature, but it is about twice the size of the package you mentioned. Another draw back is that it is glass, but with some brown spray paint on the inside
of the bottle it will look like an ordinary rum bottle, not a small plastic tin placed strategicly in a hallway.
The circular cases my CD-R's come in would be nice for a 360 degree blast radius. They are 4 inches tall and could easily take off the feet of any threats.

Yes, the picture is a photoshop creation. I'm out of BB's at the moment, so used a scan of some instead. But you get the idea.
Being a plastic case, you can fill it with your explosive without worry about any metal interaction since the BB's are on the outside of the case.
You wouldn't want to use 1/4" shot since that would reduce your frag count to just a couple dozen at most, compared to hundreds of BB's. Also, the ratio of explosive weight/
frag weight must be large as possible to ensure high velocity. Ideally, your explosive weight is equal, or greater, than your frag weight.
The case is the perfect size for indoor use. It's no larger than my palm, fits easily in a pocket, and wouldn't be overpowered.
Now, as to availability, it's a rather rare brand. Most places don't stock it. Try the larger retailers or a cigarette store. Plus, once you have one, you could use it as a form for
making plaster molds to make them as needed since it's not the case itself, but rather the shape of the case, that is important.
If someone had $350+shipping, you could get an inert copy of the real thing <a href="http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976212625.htm" target="_blank">HERE</a>.
THIS would be the shit to have. :)

In another thread on claymore mines, i believe it was said that one gets the best results when the explosive was actually touching the shot, but in this case with it being thin
plastic would it make a significant difference? hmmm i guess 1/4" shot is too big for this application, but do you know what the military mines use?

3/8" steel shot.
A millimeter of plastic isn't going to make any difference. A couple of millimeters of steel like that used in the other thread would because it takes energy to deform it, energy
that's not going into projection of the fragments.
If you made the mine from NIPOLIT, you wouldn't need a case since the explosive would be holding the fragments in direct contact with it.
THErAPIST December 19th, 2002, 01:38 PM

Great idea. I've made a few small claymores just for fun. I just tape two match boxes together. The one in front is filled with small pieces of wire clothes hanger, or bbs, or
lead shot , and also some small craft brads. The box in the back is flled with explosive (wasnt that a given though?). I have used PA a couple times but I usually use HMTDAN
since its easier to make and less time consuming to make. If you want house protection then the matchbox type could come in handy with a door. Tape the matchbox more to
thedoor frame at face level. have a party popper inside the box with the string connected to the door so that when the door is opened the claymore goes off and plays with
someone's facial features. Since about the only place a match box playmore would be useful is on a door jam I'm going to say that your cig carton idea would be a much
better choice. I've only tested my claymore on targets that were about 5 feet away and the pattern was tight but it was by no means focused. Since the cig carton would have
the ability to focus and hold more projectile and explosive the carton would be the much better choice. And by the way... doesnt winston have a hard flask type case now too?

Do Claymores really have "Front - Towards Enemy" written out on them like that inert one?
I suppose it is a good idea really since it could be pretty embarrasing, not to mention painful, if you put it facing the wrong way, but don't soldiers have any common sense?
It's like putting "This end is dangerous" on rifle barrels :D .

Yes, they do.
Claymores, unlike rifles, aren't intuitive in which "end" is dangerous. It's just a curved piece of plastic and could easily be set up facing the wrong way in the dark or confusion
of battle.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />And by the way... doesnt
winston have a hard flask type case now too?<hr /></blockquote>A little late to the game, aren't we? Did we miss
reading the very first sentence in this thread where I say:
"Winston "Evo" cigarettes now come in a plastic flask."

I also have a rum bottle of that curvature... Captain Morgan's maybe? I would not use the bottle as the case but perhaps one could use it as a mold and heat platic to form
around it( It would be great if you had one of the hobby vaccum formers). I remeber somebody used plastic plates heated in a toaster and formed around a lightbulb to make
shell casings so maybe this concept could be implemented to create your own cases.
DBSP January 1st, 2003, 08:24 AM

Here is something for you NBK.
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47804009/mini_clay1.JPG" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47804009/mini_clay1.JPG</a>

<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47804009/claymore_arrangement.JPG" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47804009/claymore_arrangement.JPG</a>
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47804009/claymore_hits.JPG" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47804009/claymore_hits.JPG</a>
I fastened about 500 small lead balls (2,0-3mm) onto a candy box, measuring 45x50x15mm. Filled it with APAN as I hand't got time for anything else. The claymore was put
next to the tree in the second pic. It was about 2m from the target,the target was the same as used for the trinade tests. I allso put a tincan behind the target. After it had
detonated about 40 (haven't counted them yet) bullets hit the target and 3 hit the tincan, all of them penetrated the can. The aming wasn't the best either so I haven't got a
clue about how good this thing is, i might try it again some time.
Mr Cool January 1st, 2003, 09:39 AM

"It's just a curved piece of plastic and could easily be set up facing the wrong way in the dark or confusion of battle."
Ah yes, I suppose in some extreme circumstances you might be concentrating on staying alive more than anything else, I can see it could be easy to make mistakes. But in
confused darkness would they actually take the time to read the...
Oh, I'll just shut up and accept it :) .
What about the bottom of butane tanks? Might make good EFP's/Claymores...
nbk2000 January 1st, 2003, 08:43 PM

A slight modification should make it more effective.
<img src="http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/mini_clay1.jpg" alt=" - " />
Since you used a tin, you could cut a hole in the bottom, leaving a half inch border. Cover the hole outside with a piece of plastic sheet cut from a 2 liter soda bottle, taped into
place. Place the frags inside of the case, directly over the hole, leaving the 1/2" border empty. Fill the case with the explosive, then rear-center prime.
Since the frags have an unobstructed way out of the case, are in direct contact with the explosive, and have a border of explosive, this should be the most effective use. The
border of explosive serves to keep the fragments constrained to a central cone, without extraneous lobes, as per the patent.
Further range would be good too. 2 meters is awfully close, grenade range. 15 meters would be better. With 40 hits on a torso at 2, that should give you at least 1 at 15.
How many targets did you make up anyways? Or did you knock your brother out again to make up some more? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :D
It's easy to tell if a claymore is pointed in the right direction in the dark. If your fingers are curled back towards you, you're fine. If they're pointed forward, you're fucked.
Axt January 11th, 2003, 09:46 PM

"It's easy to tell if a claymore is pointed in the right direction in the dark. If your fingers are curled back towards you, you're fine. If they're pointed forward, you're fucked."
Actually, for an actual claymore its the other way around.
---------------------------------------
Is it a referenced fact that by placing the shot on the inside curvature that you will get a tighter pattern (did you source is info from somewhere, tested it, or is it just what you
would expect would happen?)
What is the principle that makes the shot follow a tighter pattern, is it a straight line from the surface (so that all surface should be facing target) or is it working simularly to a
shaped charge?
nbk2000 January 12th, 2003, 05:35 AM

Oops, my bad. :o I was probably holding an Evo flask when I was typing that up, thus the mistake.
The frags from any explosive charge will diverge within a 15 degree arc from the surface of the charge. By providing a slight concavity to the shape of the charge, it tends to
nullify this dispersion.
This isn't guesswork, it's known FACT. A convex shape (like a circle or part thereof) will disperse it's energy in a radial manner. A concave shape will focus its energy in an
almost linear manner. This is similar to how glass lenses focus light.
By having the fragments on the concave side of an explosive charge, you'll focus the fragments into a tighter pattern than would otherwise happen naturally. Read the thread
(by me) called "<a href="http://d106112.u27.qwknetllc.com/cgi-bin/ewforum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000017" target="_blank">Multi-Point Initiation and
Asymetric Effects</a>" for further details.
Also, spherical frags, while easy to obtain in the form of ball bearings and such, are not the most efficient shape for either distance, nor penetration.
I've read of experiments with a flechette claymore that had flechettes arranged so that they'd be projected in a similar pattern as a conventional claymore, but the flechettes
would provide much greater range and penetration of protective vests than a round ballbearing would.
[ January 12, 2003, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > W hite Noise
Log in
View Full Version : White Noise
ggeneral D e c e m ber 18th, 2002, 09:33 AM

Does anyone have a list of wh ite noise frequencies and what the y do to the hum a n b o d y .
I know this topic was discussed before but i can't find it in the archive. Please help.
Eliteforum D e c e m ber 18th, 2002, 10:09 AM

Perhaps you should have used the search engine a little, hm m? :rolleyes:
<a href="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000295#0000 17" target="_blank">http://

www.roguesci.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000295#000017</a>
mr.evil D e c e m ber 18th, 2002, 11:16 AM

uhoh, you haven't read the rules... :(
wait.. do i he ar the kewl exterm inator coming? :D
zeocrash D e c e m ber 18th, 2002, 12:58 PM

/me rubs his hands in glee
i'd u se the edit tool rather quickly k3\/\/l boy
anyway what were you planning to do with these frequencies. build a hom e m e a d e version of high tec million dollar R & D
weaponry. hehe nice try
seriosly though, you'd have thought th at if these people were actually serious about their question, they'd also try to find ou t
the best way to get it answered (obeying the ru l e s )
now where did nbk go
Anthony D e c e m ber 18th, 2002, 03:53 PM

Registered July 2002? So, in the m any m o n t h s t h a t h a v e e l a p s e d since your registration, it was still beyond your capacity to
o b s e r v e , a n d t h e n a b ide by, the Netiquette of this forum?
On top of everything, you don 't even know what your asking for!
But, hang on , y o u s e e m awful familiar...
I'm sure I recognise you from somewh ere...
W as it... Yes! It is!
You're the one on the right, aren't you!?
<img src="http://roguesci.org/im ages/faggots_are_fantastic.gif" alt=" - " />
[Hahahaha! Lol. Nice one Anthony <im g border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ~ Mr C]
[And faggots wonder why norm a l p e o p l e h a t e t h e m . :D NBK]
<sm all>[ Decem b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , 1 2 : 4 6 A M : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : n b k 2 0 0 0 ] < / s m all>
megalomania D e c e m ber 19th, 2002, 12:55 AM

I h a t h b o r n e t h y b l o o d u p o n t h e g r o u n d am idst the light of the darken m o o n .
I visualize th e g a t e b e f o r e m e.
I b e s e e c h t h e u n h o l y h o a r d t o r i s e a n d d o m y bidding.
I com m a n d i t !
B e h o l d t h e s e a l b r e a k s , t h e g a t e o p e n s.
I b e s e e c h y o u take this soul on m y be half to devour.
C o m e f o r t h A m d u c i o u s a n d c r u s h m i n e e n e m y.
I call upon Andras to end this quarrel.
I call the bitch Meriha m to steal his breath.
C o m e A b b a d on drag him to your pit.
Arise general Satanchia rend his spirit with your hoards.
C o m e forth Lucifage Rofocale claim his wealth.
Arise general Agaliarept defeat him utterly.
Ride lieutenant-general Feurety trample this buffoon.
Brigadier Sargatanas I im plore you defeat this waste.
Arise Naberius strip the fool of all knowledge so he m ay not resist.
I call upon king Baal to expose this man for what he is.
I call the bitch Sonnilion to consum e him with h ate.
Arise bitch Tezrian conquer his spirit.
C o m e forth Mephestophiles and destroy.
I b e s e e c h D u m a h l e a d your dem ons against th is filth.
I c a l l q u e e n P r o s p e r i n e t o d a m n h i m forever.
I b e g o f y o u B e l p h e g o r , m y m aster and patron, giver of m y secrets, rot the m ind of he!
A s s e m b l e d h osts of hell, lords of m isrule, wraiths of pain and su ffering, accept my pitiful bribe. Consum e his soul for all
eternity. Bathe his breast in the lake o f hellfire. Tear his soul to shreads.
By R onwe, by Pytho, by Lucifer on high , by Leviathan, by Baalberith, by U nsere, by Delepitorae, by Mesphito, by Luithian, by
Abbadon Verrier, by all your hoards and servants, legions and soldiers, I beseech you grant m e yo ur knowledge and secrets so
I m ay rule in your nam e.
By a ll that which shou l d n o t b e s p o k e n I c a s t t h e e i n t o t h e g a t e .

B a c k d e m ons my desires are fulfilled!
Take thee away from my flesh.
I stand within the triangle protected!
I see the gate close the seal bindith.
I await the rule of Versus Cristus.
Pu239 Stuchtiger D e c e m ber 19th, 2002, 01:28 AM

That was highly entertaining... fucking hilarious. :D
nbk2000 D e c e m ber 19th, 2002, 06:46 AM

Y e s M e g a ! Y o u h a v e f i n a l l y j o i n e d m e o n t h e d a r k s i d e ! M W AHAHAHA!
Together we shall rule the univ...*psst*..what?! Oh...sorry, wrong movie. :o
:D
Crow D e c e m ber 19th, 2002, 10:16 AM

I'm sure I've heard a quote of Ggeneral's, it went as so:
"Girls are icky."

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Zapper - the shooting ZIPPO lighter
Log in
View Full Version : Zapper - the shooting ZIPPO lighter
jelly January 11th, 2003, 01:17 PM

The developer of the Zapper, Sardaukar, advertised this one as "the ultimate concealable weapon", because it is a
fully functional lighter as well as a fully functional and deadly single-shot derringer pistol.
"Except for possible legal technicalities, you can carry the Zapper and be armed and undetected. It looks, feels, smells
and lights just as a lighter should.... But there is one deadly difference - it fires a single .22 round".
<a href="http://jelly146.tripod.com/zapper" target="_blank">Exploded isometric drawing of the Zapper</a>
[ January 11, 2003, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: jelly ]
Agent Blak January 12th, 2003, 03:58 AM

That looks like it was scanned in form "Zips, Pipes, And Pens".
I Personally like the Belt Buckle Gun featured aswell as the Cane.
DaRkDwArF January 14th, 2003, 11:08 AM

Anyone seen a prebuilt kit or better diagram of the parts for one of these things?
jelly January 19th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Agent Blak... I like them too :) But the Sardaukar belt buckle gun is just a simple clone.
The original version of the "Shooting Belt Buckle" is shown in the first two pictures... developed and patented
in Germany during the WW2. Each of the 4 barrels has its own firing pin and own trigger.
<a href="http://jelly146.tripod.com/belt" target="_blank">Shooting belt buckle</a>
Mic January 22nd, 2003, 05:58 PM

Hello,
Does anyone here actually make this device ?

If yes, could you explain me how the thrigger works ?

I think I just found a new "dream" toy to put into my "hypothetical" toy box of goodies. Thanx for putting this lighter up on here...I think you just might have been the first
person to give me a good reason to start smoking :D
ssblood88 February 4th, 2003, 02:50 PM

Anyone ever been picked up with a zippo? They always open mine up and look and it, never could understand why till now:)
Zach February 4th, 2003, 06:39 PM

more likely is that they looked in it to make sure you dont have heroin or some other drug stuffed in there.
I'd be concerned about the gun going off unexpectedly when cocked.
seems a bit unreliable is all.
ssblood88 February 4th, 2003, 11:07 PM

<a href="http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7294586" target="_blank">http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7294586</a>
<a href="http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7269145" target="_blank">http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7269145</a> <
this one is really awsome.
<a href="http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7295544" target="_blank">http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7295544</a> <
how hard could this be to make on a lathe?
All of these are really nice:)
<a href="http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7337242" target="_blank">http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=7337242</a>

In most situations wouldn't it be just as easy to conceal this? Would be just as likely to show up on a metal detector, slightly bigger then the zippo and it's 5 shots.
nbk2000 February 4th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Well, if the piggies ALWAYS open the zippo, then why not make it a boobytrap? If you're getting picked up for something naughty, then it'd provide one hell of a diverson to
distract their attention, while you split.
ssblood88 February 5th, 2003, 01:08 AM

In my experience they always take the wallet out first and lay it on the car hood, now if he opens the zippo after looking at my wallet... I'm in aloooooottttt of shit. lol
concrete feet February 21st, 2003, 02:41 AM

ssblood, if you where going to do soemthing "naughty" then you might just aswell not bring your wallet, or you id at any rate.
chemwarrior February 22nd, 2003, 10:33 PM

If your foolish enough to bring an ID with you on an 'outing' then you ought just make yourself some reservations at your local prison.
But good idea NBK. I think I'll whip up a little 'toy' tonight.

At first glance, I noticed a couple of problems with that zipp design.
1. There is no barrel. Even if you're only using it at close range, you need some sort of a barrel. The barrel actually increases the bullet's velocity. Even a small smooth-bore
tube is needed to get it going in the approximate direction. Think about the M-60 bullet booby trap in used in Vietnam. You put an M-60 bullet in a piece of bamboo with a nail
on the bottom. When they step on it, the nail acts as the firing pin, which shoots the "gun." The bamboo acts as the chamber and barrel. Without the bamboo, it would not
work.
2. It is not strong enough. It seems like the entire lighter would explode. ALOT of pressure is created in the chamber and barrel when a rifle or pistol is fired. That's why they're
made out of such thick steel.
I think that your design could use a few minor modifications, but it still has potential.

I have to disagree. The M60 fired the 7.62mm round, which is bottlenecked. In the chamber of a firearm which fires a bottlenecked round there has to be support of both the
wider part of the cartridge and the neck. The bamboo in one of the traps would only support the wider part, not coming close to supporting the neck. As it isn't supporting the
neck, and is of far greater diameter than the 7.62mm round there will be no sealing action behind the bullet, letting the propellant gases escape and provide no further
acceleration to the bullet. That is of course ignoring the fact that the bamboo couldn't take the pressure of a firing round, and so even if it had the rough dimensions of a
chamber it would rupture.
However, I agree with you that for any sort of accuracy you would need a barrel. I don't believe the strength is that great an issue - it is only a .22 round.
Boob Raider May 7th, 2003, 02:16 AM

one could use the zapper to blow one's head off while offering them a light, or stick it right to the vert column and fire.
I was looking at my MAG LITE recently and suddenly I realised, hmmmm...... this could be more than just a flash lite. I am currently boring a shaft to fit a .22 cal LR round, the
only problem I have at the moment is rifling it. Is it possible to use a a CO2 pistol rifled barrel and put a smooth bore sleve on it to provide the necessary strength.
Also for these close range guns shouldnt it be better to replace the Pb slug with an Al or Zn slug as a lighter slug will attain higher velocities in a shorter time (shorter barrel) and
as KE = 1/2 mv^2 .... a higher velocity and lower mass is more effictive than a higher mass and lower velocity. The only drawback I can see in a lighter slug is the range
which is not all that required as the accuracy is crappy anyways of a short barrel.
So what do you guys think ?
nbk2000 May 7th, 2003, 04:53 AM

Use a plastic slug of nylon, or teflon, and drive it as fast as possible. As it'll be extremely light, yet tough, it can be propelled at extremely high speeds and, on impact, the
hydrostatic shock causes very dramatic wounds. :)
Also, the formula I have for kinetic energy is:
KE = (W * V squared) / 450400
KE = Foot-pounds
W = Weight in grains
V = Velocity in feet per second
Got it out of American Rifleman, the NRA magazine, so I'd assume they know what they're talking about.
Boob Raider May 7th, 2003, 03:27 PM

Access to .22 cal rounds and I need a FAC to purchase them ..... I was thinking of using powder actuated tool rounds (they are basically .22 cal blanks) but the most powerful
round in .22 cal is #4 extra heavy load low velocity (they are all low velocity) So I'll be emptying out the rounds and fill them with something like AP or something more stable
but high velocity ... any suggestions (the barrel is about the thickness of a MINI MAG LITE, so it will resist the explosion of 100-150 mg AP) and also any comments on my
rifling idea in the previous post.
Anthony May 7th, 2003, 04:18 PM

Why do you need rifling in a mini maglite pistol? Do you need to hit a torso sized target at 800yds? :)
AP makes a very poor propellant, the "gun" will be destroyed and the projectile doesn't go far. Unless you use a minute amount of AP, in which case the projectile defintely
won't go far.
The charge in nailgun rounds is smokeless powder (possibly double base, I can't remember), so I'd use that if I were you.
Boob Raider May 8th, 2003, 03:34 AM

thinking of using a light slug of something like teflon, Al or something similar, I think there is a very good probablilty of the slug swaying to a weird direction as soon as it exits
the barrel which is why the spin should stablize the slug. Actually varnish coated Na metal would make one hell of a close range slug. As soon as the slug penetrates the body,
the varnish is rubbed off and Na metal reacts exothermically with the tissue H2O and then the NaOH with the other tissues :D .
Anthony, I have used AP before as a propellant. What I did was ... take a regular .22 cal pellet and fill it up with solder to make it solid then wrap a thin paper tube around the
back of the pellet with about 1 cm of space behind the slug. There I packed the AP. I would load the spring of my air rifle, put the modified pellet in and fire it. The air pressure
would detonate the AP somewhere down the length of the barrel and provide the slug with a 5 km/s impulse. This pellet would break a hole in 1cm thick acrylic glass sheet at
about 12 ft.

I looked and looked on the net that I may encounter a slug diameter : bore diameter : barrel thickness chart of some sort, but I didn't :( . Most importantly a caliber/cartridge
type to barrel thickness ratio. Does anyone know some basic caliber and cartridge type ratios ? It would be really helpful. :)
zaibatsu May 15th, 2003, 06:12 PM

That kind of ratio wouldn't make any sense. For example, the 7.62 standard NATO load has a higher pressure than a 45-70 govt BP load, yet calibre is smaller. Just figure out
the chamber pressure of a specific loading, and work out how much steel (whatever type you want to use) you'll need with a 1.5x saftey factor.

Zaibatsu ... I know about the NATO round as it is bottle necked. I was talking about regular handgun rounds with various loads as this thread is about a derringer. This is the
type of round whose shells I can buy and is centerfire. I think it is a .38 cal as I have one live .38 cal speer next to it for comparison. http://www.boomspeed.com/boobraider/
DSCF0020.JPG
Also here is a pic of the shell in the MAGLITE http://www.boomspeed.com/boobraider/DSCF0022.JPG
The barrel will be machined from a car axle as I believe it is Moly-Chrome steel.
irish May 15th, 2003, 10:26 PM

That shell is a 9x19 mm nato round also knowen as 9mm luger or 9mm parabellum.
They are a very commonly used round for pistols and SMGs. Altho they are somewhat low powered, they are about the maximum pressure for blowback action gun's so your
barrel is still going to need to be fairly thick at the chamber at least.
good luck with it.
Boob Raider June 24th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Oh well .... I am kinda disappointed. I tried to bore the car axel I had gotten from a junk-yard only to find out that the WC facing bit would barely scratch it, forget about
drilling a 9.78mm X 4" hole in it. Any suggestions ??? All the barrel making sites I've read make it look so easy. Or do I have to work with some other grade of steel.
Bitter June 24th, 2003, 10:42 AM
What is the size of the lathe you have ? Maybe it isn't powerful enough. That is really tough steel you are messing with and I think you might be better buying some seamless
4130 steel tube with an appropriate thickness and internal diameter.
Edit : I hope you have annealed the metal before you tried boring it. Otherwise I'm not surprised it didn't cut.
yt2095 June 24th, 2003, 11:13 AM

many years ago i was bought a pen paper set, the pen was steel as was the cap, a bit like a metal Bic pen, but slimmer and more girly :(
well there was no way! i was gunna be caught even dead! using a pen like this!
so i gutted it, and inserted a party popper with the string coming out of the tip where the ball point was.
i drilled a tiny hole in the cap and threaded the string through and tied a knot just under the clip that hangs it on your pocket.
10 finely powdered match heads went into this tube, followed by a small amount of cotton wool then a perfectly fitting ball bearing i had in my junk tin.
another wad of cotton wool to follow the BB so that it didn`t fall out.
we tested it in my mates shed, it punched clean through a 5 layer sheet of plywood at 2 feet!
ok, so it wasn`t or wouldn`t be a lethal killer (not my intention anyway) but it would sure as hell make a good diversion/distractor!
if you DO try this, wrap your pen in leather and gently clamp it in a vice for 1`st 3 shots!
NEVER try an untested weapon like this by hand 1`st!
subsequent hand test AFTER it had proven itself worth, will result in aHOT pen, a scortch mark (superficial) on your string hand, and a mild numbness from the shock in the
tube.
Boob Raider June 28th, 2003, 06:02 PM

I was wondering about an automotive part called the Gudgeon pin, aka the pin that connects the piston with the piston rod. The are available in different ID's and slightly
different lengths. Can this be a suitable barrel of a derringer ?
Begste March 8th, 2004, 12:57 PM

Anyone seen a prebuilt kit or better diagram of the parts for one of these things?
I used to have plans for it. Wasnt too complex. The firing mechanism is a flat piece of clock spring. The firing pin is a screw positioned to hit the rim. The lighter was a special
model that no on uses these days. It was an old OSS design I think. One problem was you had to drill a hole in it and fill it with lead. Another hole was drilled to hold and a of
pipe as a barrel. The barrel of these kinds of guns were often made from a dissassembled lamp. You unscrew everything and the cord pulls out of a pipe... Takes longer to
explain than to just find a old lamp and take it apart. You'll end up with a length of pipe. Anyways. These plans you had to use only a .22 short. Its not practical at all because
the firing pin lays on the rim. To load it you slide the clock spring to the side and put the bullet in. You then swing it back over and when you want to fire you point, pull back
the spring steel and let go. Because of hte design yo have to use a .22 short or cb cap to prevent backpressue.
Practical? Hardly. There is functional safety. Its totally useless unless to shoot someone in the head when they sleep or something. Same goes for the other pipe pens. You cant
load it and carry it around waiting to use it for self-defense.

Why do you need rifling in a mini maglite pistol? Do you need to hit a torso sized target at 800yds? :)
AP makes a very poor propellant, the "gun" will be destroyed and the projectile doesn't go far. Unless you use a minute amount of AP, in which case the projectile defintely
won't go far.
The charge in nailgun rounds is smokeless powder (possibly double base, I can't remember), so I'd use that if I were you.
Rifling isnt just for putting a spin on a bullet. Its to keep the gun from blowing up when you shoot it. Think about it. Making a gun like a spitball launcher is a bad idea. Except
maybe .22. You can make a .22 out of a length of telescopic radio antenna. Just cut it down till you get the length where the antenna will fit the round and the bigger part will
have the firing pin and hold the round. But even that things good for maybe one or two shots. If you have a bit of lint for instance in the barrel and the round goes down, it hits
the lint and it lodges and creates friction. Enough of a delay perhaps to create a backpressure and "boom". A totally smoothbore is bad news. If its clean and its a low pressure
round. Fine. But the marvel of some kind of rifling will allow the bullet to turn or push any small bits of dirt or lint into the grooves and allow the bullet to pass through.

At first glance, I noticed a couple of problems with that zipp design.
1. There is no barrel. Even if you're only using it at close range, you need some sort of a barrel. The barrel actually increases the bullet's velocity. Even a small smooth-bore
tube is needed to get it going in the approximate direction. Think about the M-60 bullet booby trap in used in Vietnam. You put an M-60 bullet in a piece of bamboo with a nail
on the bottom. When they step on it, the nail acts as the firing pin, which shoots the "gun." The bamboo acts as the chamber and barrel. Without the bamboo, it would not
work.
2. It is not strong enough. It seems like the entire lighter would explode. ALOT of pressure is created in the chamber and barrel when a rifle or pistol is fired. That's why they're
made out of such thick steel.
I think that your design could use a few minor modifications, but it still has potential.
There is a .223 derringer (other rifle calibers) and there is barely any barrel. Some but not a lot. There are rounds you can buy that convert most rifle cartriges in .22 and .30
caliber to fire .22 rounds or .32 ACP. Its like a empty case where you put the bullet. The rimfire rounds have a rimfire pinalready. A center hit fires it off. I cant believe these
things are legal because you can easily make one to shoot a round and the "neck" of the casing is pretty much a barrel.
Bigfoot March 10th, 2004, 03:04 PM

Begste, you wrote that: used to have plans for it. Wasnt too complex. The firing mechanism is a flat piece of clock spring. The firing pin is a screw positioned to hit the rim. The
lighter was a special model that no on uses these days. It was an old OSS design I think.
I have both designs. You (Begste) are referring to the OSS assassination lighter. Everyone else is talking about the Zippo ZAPPER from Sardaukar Press, which is made from a
Zippo or similar lighter. The only commonalities in the 2 designs are 1. short barrel 2. best using .22 short 3. made from a lighter.
True, the OSS model is obsolete, as lighter of the required type are near-impossible to find. The ZAPPER design includes a pin safety, and firing involves opening the lid as far
as it will go.
As for this post: But the marvel of some kind of rifling will allow the bullet to turn or push any small bits of dirt or lint into the grooves and allow the bullet to pass through.
It just shows your ignorance. The bullet actually fills the grooves. Crud in bore most likely equals damaged or destroyed firearm, rifling or no. I know a gunsmith who keeps a
museum of firearms destroyed by crud in the barrel.
Not to put too sharp a point on it, ;) but you might apply the 10 Commandments of Firearms Safety to your posts. :cool:
Let's shoot guns, not our mouths.

Geronimo was ignorant; Custer was stupid.
Rhadon March 11th, 2004, 12:52 PM

Begste, don't be a post whore and don't quote whole posts! We don't need to have each post multiple times. Banned for 10 days from now on.
akinrog March 19th, 2004, 10:08 AM
Oh well .... I am kinda disappointed. I tried to bore the car axel I had gotten from a junk-yard only to find out that the WC facing bit would barely scratch it, forget about
drilling a 9.78mm X 4" hole in it. Any suggestions ??? All the barrel making sites I've read make it look so easy. Or do I have to work with some other grade of steel.
As far as I remember you should anneal/soften (which are some sort of heat treatment) the steel before drilling. Since Automobile axles are hardened steel, it shall be a pain in
the ass to drill a gun bore into it. Sorry I lost my gun related files so I cannot give you the exact procedure to anneal/soften the steel before boring. Anyway since I cannot
obtain the files from here, I have started downloading the files via overnet and many of them attained good percentages of completion though this is a nasty and slow
procedure. If I get the files I may post the procedure here.
In addition, I saw on the Bill Holmes video (which I have lost too), after hardening certain parts (in this case the sear) it is impossible/difficult to scratch the hardened sear with
a file!.. Rgrds.
dougdrums March 30th, 2004, 07:20 PM

If I remember right, in order to anneal metal you heat it up very quickly and then let it cool slowly. My way might be crude, but in order to anneal metal I just use an acyteline
torch and torch the metal to a cherry red as evenly as I can, then let it set until it is luke warm. Although, I am thinking that this method would warp the metal and make it
unusable for a gun barrel.
xyz April 2nd, 2004, 06:52 AM

So long as the metal is heated evenly then it won't warp. The method of annealing that Bill Holmes uses in his home workshop firearms books is simply to put the parts in a
wood fire and leave them until the parts and the ashes are cool.
ninja42 June 4th, 2004, 03:58 PM

I found no image of the zippo gun as described before...
Could somebody please repost that image ?
The seems to be a booklet from Paladin press about a CIA lighter gun.
Does anybody have a PDF or an image of this ?
ninja.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > cartridge flame thrower
Log in
View Full Version : cartridge flame thrower
A-BOMB January 12th, 2003, 12:02 AM

Well has anyone seen those 12gauge "flame througher"(I think they call them "dragons breath") round that shoot out a 50-100' long stream of burning material. Well I have a
old .36cal BP colt replica and though if I took the barrel off and just had a small snub of a barrel and loaded in this"flame througher"
comp it would make a cool devise/weapon. So does anybody know what the hell is in those "Dragons Breath" flame througher cartridges?
[ January 12, 2003, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Anthony ]
Fl4PP4W0k January 12th, 2003, 03:17 AM

Removed, due to popular demand :p
[ January 12, 2003, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Fl4PP4W0k ]
Agent Blak January 12th, 2003, 03:53 AM

Fl4PP4W0k,
Who the fuck are you...!? Show some Respect...Slut!
It would be a type of Fine powder. You Options would be Flamable Metal(ie. Al,Mg) or a Hydrocarbon(ie.Napthalene). Being able to produce this effect for a distance of 50' or
more could be difficult.
You could use a projectile with an open end(most likely to the back), The Powder would be pressed lightly into the projectlie.
Another option is to Press the powder into a grain. The Air Ruhing Past it a it ired would leave a dust trail of your powder.
Just my thoughts...

Sheesh, its called a _joke_ :rolleyes:
Take ya pills man :p
Aaaanyway...
<a href="http://cobraysbad.freeyellow.com/DRAGONSBREATHorder.html" target="_blank">http://cobraysbad.freeyellow.com/DRAGONSBREATHorder.html</a> are what
you're talking about? Yes?
I am guessing that there may be a thermite like composition - possibly pressed hard, or bound with plaster, which is ignited by a small amount of BP delay + Mg dust in the
center.. so it burns outwards(after leaving the barrel!).
This would be housed in a sabot - to protect the bore of the gun.
I am not sure of the best composition, though standard thermite sounds promising. Fe2O3 + Al would make sense, as this composition is cheap,
simple and effective. Probably would not be able to be extinguished by the passing air?
Having a solid grain, as mentioned by Blak, and burning from the rear forwards, could also be an option. This would probably make more of a trail of flame... than a growing
fireball (central ignition).
[ January 12, 2003, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Fl4PP4W0k ]
nbk2000 January 12th, 2003, 06:11 AM

Blah, blah, blah...fucked myself off!
:mad:
I leave it to you to remove your disrespectful post. Saying "It's a joke" doesn't cut it. And, judging from your other post at the former Forum site, you may have been drunk at
the time. So you'll be given this chance to correct yourself, though drunkeness will be NO excuse for future stupidity.
Also, it's stupid to NOT search for a patent first. No sense in recreating the wheel, now is there? :rolleyes:

I wasn't drunk... smoked a bit of resin with my (almost finished!) hookah though.
Ill edit it, though I cant really see how 'twas disrespectful - was just meant to be a joke. Oh well :(
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Also, it's stupid to NOT search
for a patent first. <hr /></blockquote>That was kinda my point... but I digress
inferno January 12th, 2003, 08:28 AM

Obviously fl4pp4w0ks link is a real "dragon's breath", but I swear I have read about something along the same lines which uses flash paper (nitrated paper). I suppose the
"fireball" of some flash paper would be rather minimal, but simply as an effect or even a long range firelighting device, it would be very cheap and simple...
I'd much prefer to make some flash paper and have small yet cheap fireballs, than pay US$20 for 3 of them!

Flash paper would be too fast burning for a 'Dragons Breath' type device... (The "Flash" part of the name hints towards that :p )
For a "long range firelighting device" I would think a small cylinder of pressed \ bound Thermite would do the trick. Though depends what the devices intentions are...
If you just want to light... say... a gas ballon or something :confused: from a distance, then I guess a flash paper fireball may be enough.
If ya want stuff to BURN then an incendiary like thermite or phosphorous comp would do the trick. Even KNO3\Sucrose could be used effectively.
BTW, I have seen (a while back) a theatrical prop which shot out small fireballs. You flicked a lever on the top - it was a staff - and a fireball came out of a figures head. Neato
:D
Is that what your talkin about?

You'd need a good priming composition, and probably several intermediate prime layers to get a grain of thermite to ignite from a gun propellant discharge.
Thermite is hard to ignite as a lose powder, but pressed into a grain it's going to be hard to locally overheat a spot and get it to ignition temperature.
simply RED January 12th, 2003, 12:45 PM

This looks like the well known firewoks. The shell may have 1/4 black powder and other part full of small "stars" made by pressed slow burning flash...
Haggis January 12th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Perhaps the name 'dragon's breath' from the device might be borrowed from the common name of lycopodium powder, 'dragon's breath'. Perhaps the round is just loaded with
pressed lycopodium powder with a small layer of gunpowder near the primer to enhance ignition. The primer shatters the pressed lycopodium and the powder layer aids in
ignition. It may be worth a look for the home loader's.
nbk2000 January 12th, 2003, 06:26 PM

I think there's a patent for this, but I don't remember the number.
IIRC, the charge is misch metal compressed under great pressure with a binder to form a slug. As the slug is fired, the flaming propellant gases heat the misch metal to red hot.
Once it exits the barrel, it instantly reacts with oxygen in the air to ignite in white hot sparks.
(Misch metal is a generic term for a combination of rare earth elements used in lighter flints)

I've tried looking for a patent under "dragons breath" and compressed metal flame thrower. But came up with nothing, so maybe they called it something else. Any idea what
they might of called it in the patent? When I'm at the gunshow at the end of the week I'll pick a couple up. But heres what I think, I think what it is a fixed block of fuel metal
and some kind of propellent, made into a rocket like pellet(like a pyrodex pellet) and as it burns the metal fuel it expelled creating the stream of fire.
Marcus January 13th, 2003, 07:45 PM

Hi there
found this mpeg a while ago. Dont know if its of intrest.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marcuschurch2000/" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/marcuschurch2000/</a>
nbk2000 January 13th, 2003, 09:18 PM

It's not going to be patented as "Dragons Breath", but rather something like "Incendiary compound comprised of rare earth metal complexes and alkaline nitrates" or some
other techno-babble term.

Well I tried "dragons breath"/"Fireball" under the trademark search, then I tried rare earth metal incendiary flame thrower/shell, metal incendairy shotshell/bullet, under patent
but still nothing. I think I might just have to shell out $20 for three of them at the gun show coming up. Though the package they always but them in is rather small and theres
alot of people there for a distraction, you never know I might be able to get some for free. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Harpoon Gun
Log in
View Full Version : Harpoon Gun
Axt January 12th, 2003, 12:36 AM

<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/harpoongunfront.jpg" alt=" - " />
The problem is with the trajectory of the harpoon. What happens is it travels approx. 15m then typically the rear kicks up and it plunges into the ground, sometimes it will fly
off to the side but never straight.
The harpoon is all Al construction and seals the bore via tassels. Its tethered with fishing line on a reel.
Any ideas as to why it doesnt fly straight?
[ January 11, 2003, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Axt ]
Flake2m January 12th, 2003, 01:25 AM

We discourage newbies from posting new topics, though I am prepared to explain. :rolleyes:
The harpoon dosen't travel striaght because of the weight distribution. The front end of the hapoon would be heavier then the back.
[ January 12, 2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Flake2m ]
Axt January 12th, 2003, 01:48 AM

The front is heavier then the back.
Note that although the pic shows a brass "catch" to carry the line out it is now plastic as the brass was too heavy and would take half the velocity off as soon as it was hit.
It does the exact same thing even when there is no "catch" and untethered.
[ January 12, 2003, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Axt ]

The pic take to long to load on my cable modem. Though it does look nice.
[ January 12, 2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: A-BOMB ]
Energy84 January 12th, 2003, 02:56 AM

Although the harpoon may be balanced or even a little nose heavy, it's like trying to fly an arrow backwards because there are no fins on the back.
I think that if you were to keep the shaft aluminum but changed to point to something heavier that it might help. But you'd still have problems I think over long distances.
The reason why real harpoons work I think is because they have a heavier line attached to the back, making it fly straight. Pretty much the same way that a tail on a kite
keeps the nose pointing into the wind.

I agree with Energy84, you need to have the line heavier as to balance the harpoon in flight.
If a heavier line isnt an option... have you thought about flexible\folding fins?
For example, have three fins made from bendy plastic at the rear of the harpoon; to load - insert the harpoon with a slight rotation so that the fins get folded around the shaft.
Hard to explain... though its fairly simple.
This way, when the harpoon flies out, the bendy fins flip back into their (somewhat) original shape - aiding the harpoon in flight.
Axt January 12th, 2003, 11:33 PM

Thanks for the replies.. Sorry the image size is quite large for such a small pic..
Heres a scan of the rear -
<img src="http://ww1.ft100.com/~45653/guns.ft100.com/images/tassels.jpg" alt=" - " />
As you can see my plan was to stabalise it via the use of tassels, but obviously this didnt work.
Energy84, from what you have said, the large broardhead could be acting like the flights on an arrow, this probably explains it. Since I dont think I should make the point nor
the line heavier the first thing i'll try is to do away with the broardhead and use a sharpend barbed stake.
Fl4PP4W0k, I cant add fins to the rear as the "catch" must slide down the shaft when fired, although it may be possible to add them onto the "catch" so they are grapped as
carried away at the muzzle, the bad thing with this is is dead weight that will take away considerable velocity.
Energy84 January 13th, 2003, 12:16 AM

By the look of that rear, it should fly straight. How coarse are those fibers though? They might be too fine and just get pushed back really easily by the air. If they are coarse
though I would have to say that the airspeed just isn't great enough for them to be effective, but if the airspeed were so low then the broad point would not have much effect.
My guess then is that the fibers on the back are too fine. Can you lengthen them by any chance? I would probably start off with fibers about a foot long and see if it flys
straight. With that much length it should forsure. Then just trim them back about half an inch to an inch at a time and watch closely for any indication of instability.
I once fired a ski pole out of my 6' potato cannon with a shopping bag attached to the back end. The ski pole flew beautifully and stuck about 8" into the ground 200 yards
downrange. :D
Good luck.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Bottles
Log in
View Full Version : Bottles
mark January 18th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Hey all. Im not exactly sure if this is the right forum for this, but I was w omdering if anyone has ever broken a bottle over some ones head? I've always wanted to, but I'm not
exactly sure w hat the efect w ill be. Does the person just drop and its lights out, or does it just realy hurt? If the bottle breaks, does it cut the person up(stitches) or does it just
give like a light standard fighting cut. Im sorry if this sounds like a stupid topic, but I know one day I'm going to be drunk and do this, and I dont w ant any suprises. Thanks.
P.S. Does a bottle fall under a lethal w eapon?
shooter3 January 18th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Bottles don't usually break like in the movies. Consider them to be trunchons.
You w ill probably kill the guy you clobber, so be ready to pay the price. Unless you are defending your life, then anything goes. (Except that you are planning ahead to do it, so
if anyone connects you to this post it may be considered premeditated).
[ January 18, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: shooter3 ]
knowledgehungry January 18th, 2003, 09:48 PM

It all depends on the bottle, one of the thick coke bottles will not break. A cheap beer bottle will if you hit right. I am sure that this is an inappropriate question and should have
been asked w hile there were no rules.
mark January 18th, 2003, 10:10 PM

Inapropriate post? No rules? I dont see how this is in inapropriate, and I cant rember a time here with no rules.
knowledgehungry January 18th, 2003, 10:14 PM

perhaps the post is not inappropriate but merely a question that could be answered by simple experimentation < img border= "0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . Mark
you missed it, while the server was being changed we had a brief stint w ith no rules. Forgive me for speaking harshly
Kriegsminister January 18th, 2003, 11:06 PM

A few years ago a friend of mine had two bottles broken on his head by two guys he was having some trouble w ith. He was a little drunk but it had no effect on him, he just
continued fighting...
Later I accompanied him to the hospital but there was nothing, not even a cut. I think he was very lucky, it could have seriously injured him....
nbk2000 January 19th, 2003, 12:52 AM

There's a lot of variables to this. The shape of the bottle, the thickness of the glass, type of glass, filled or empty, angle of impact, force behind it, etc.
Champange bottles are usually very strong, being strong enough to take multiple hits on ship bow s to break, so would make excellent bludgeons.
Assume that the bottle isn't going to break, and it'll kill the person you're hitting, since any head impact that causes a knock-out can either be fatal, or near fatal.
Also, the bottle may shatter into many pieces. Those pieces may end up stuck in your hand. <img border="0" title= "" alt="[Eek!]" src= "eek.gif" /> So, if possible, w ear gloves
or wrap it in a cloth to avoid cutting yourself.
Haggis January 20th, 2003, 11:21 PM

If you are going to hit someone over the head with a bottle, you shouldn't follow through. If it is just for effect and you don't w ant to cut them, the follow through will dice up
their scalp. Try to 'snap' the bottle similar to the motion you would make while snapping a towel. The sudden jerk backw ards should seperate the bottle halves if you indeed
cracked it in the first place.
EDIT: I found a video of what Madoc was talking about. It's some Steve-O guy smashing a bottle over another guy's head. <a href="http://ww w.fhm.com/img/mailout/img/
december20/bottle_smash.mov" target="_blank">http://ww w.fhm.com/img/mailout/img/december20/bottle_smash.mov< /a>
[ February 16, 2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]
BoB- January 24th, 2003, 05:35 AM

As a kid breaking bottles on the railroad tracks we found that it was nearly impossible to break a bottle that had its cap put back on, slingshot missles w ould bounce off, and it
would take multiple herculean throws against the steel tracks to break them.
A bottle is the only weapon I can think of that becomes another w eapon when broken.
A-BOMB January 24th, 2003, 05:52 PM

I think a gun becomes a club when broken <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Maddoc January 26th, 2003, 05:53 PM

If anyone has view ed the "Steve-O" (retard from MTV's Jackass) DVD, they w ill know the part where they try to crack a beer bottle over another guys head.
The guy is wearing a baseball hat to "protect himself" from broken glass shards :rolleyes: as if that w ould do much... It took around 4 attempts to smash the bottle on his head,
resulting in large round lumps appearing on his head, as w ell as multiple lacerations to his head from the broken glass.
As much as a bottle has the use as an "instant weapon" in certain situations, causing immense pain and possible lacerations, for "pre-meditated" assaults, an more sturdy
weapon w ould be more useful.
Though the presence of a broken glass bottle at a crime scene w ould possibly make it look as if the deceased had suffered at the hands of some "random drunken braw l", not a
planned assault. Though if one was to be accidently cut by the glass shards, one would leave more than their fair share of DNA at a crime scene.
THErAPIST January 26th, 2003, 09:03 PM

Here is a video of a guy slamming himself in the head with a glass bottle until it breaks. This video w ould give you some idea of how hard a bottle can be and how hard you
can hit something/ someone with it without it breaking. You can hear the bottle clanking off of the guy's head.
<a href="http://movies.ogrish.com/bottlehit.zip" target="_blank">http://movies.ogrish.com/bottlehit.zip</a>
nbk2000 January 27th, 2003, 01:08 AM

Well, no matter how hard he may have hit himself, he's not going to be able to do it as hard as someone else could with intent to kill.

Also, they ban toenail clippers from aircraft because thay are "weapons", but you are allowed to carry a heavy glass bottle (liquor from duty free) in your hand luggage...
THErAPIST January 27th, 2003, 03:21 AM

NBK I know that noone will hit themself as hard as someone with the intent to kill. My reasoning for linking to the video was to show that bottles are pretty hard and can cause
some major damage. I mean the guy WAS trying to break it but all he was doing was bashing a hole in his skull. As was said before curvature and thickness of bottles are two
variables that must be considered when thinking about how much a bottle can take and how much damage it can deal. while Budweiser bottles are kinda thin and have flat
sides, something like Michelobe w hich has thicker glass w alls as well as being more curved can stand up to impact stress more and w ill inflict more damage. And as far as cutting
damage goes, ive seen a few people who have been cut with bottles. (i live in a large tourist tow n that's full of bars that are full of drunks) ive seen people get cut pretty bad
but ive never seen anyone who was cut bad enough to be rushed aw ay by an ambulance. Stitches COULD be given to many of the wounds that ive seen though.
nbk2000 January 27th, 2003, 03:52 AM

If I took one of those thick-ass german lager bottles w ith 1/4" thick glass and wound up to clock someones skull with it...I might break the bottle, but not before shattering the
other guys skull like an eggshell.
Pissy little beer bottles would shatter, wasting the strike energy in breaking up. If it breaks, you're not getting anywhere near the same impact as a bottle that stays intact.
If you had one of the rectangular "flask" type bottles, use the narrow edge to hit them, rather than the flat face. Square bottles, use the corner, rather than a flat face. Round,
use the edge w here the bottom joins the side.
darkdontay January 27th, 2003, 07:05 AM

I have tried once in the past, during a fight I w as in at a party to, smash a budwieser bottle over a guys head and have it smash... I hit him with it a couple times and it
knocked him dow n and made him dissoritented but it never broke... Not sure the static or dynic breaking point for glass cylinders. Might be somehting to look into. But form the
experinces I have had with them, it takes a nice ammount of force to break them.

If you really w ant to clock the guy, a full bottle w ith the cap on w ould be better. There's the added weight and the liquid inside supports the glass, strengthening it. If it's a beer
bottle and hasn't been opened, the internal gas pressure w ould add additional support to the glass.
NickSG January 28th, 2003, 10:06 PM

i know that in the old western movies, "glass" was made of sugar binded with a weak glue, and pressed. Now they use some kind of plastic (i forgot the name) that easily
shatters. The person holding the bottle has to practice holding the bottle, becuase when you swing, you have to hold the bottle hard so it doesnt fall out of you hand, and often
breaks from just swinging it too hard.
Rat Bastard January 28th, 2003, 10:39 PM

I have one of those "sugar bottles". While I w as in Vancover I picked it up from a film effects supply store. They had everying, sugar w ine bottles, sugar beer bottles, even a
whole fucking labratory setup with every imaginable piece of lab glass....in sugarglass!
Unfortunatley, this stuff ain't cheap!
BoB- January 31st, 2003, 07:13 PM

In an old science projects book I have it says that movie glass can be made by slowly melting sugar and adding food coloring. Sorry to drift off topic, I noticed this comment;
"Also, they ban toenail clippers from aircraft because thay are "weapons", but you are allowed to carry a heavy glass bottle (liquor from duty free) in your hand luggage..."
Thats true! If a group wanted to take over an aircraft, there weapons could be purchased at the airport! Of course you still have the air marshalls to worry about, bullets beat
bottles :( w ith signifigant practice though I think glass could make a handy slashing weapon. You could break a bottle over a guys head, and then slash/stab him with the
remnants.
nbk2000 February 1st, 2003, 12:58 AM

A few molotovs made from high proof alchol in the confines of an airliner would do some damage. Especially once the foam seats caught fire, releasing hydrogen cyanide, since
they're made of polyurethane foam of all things. :rolleyes:
Firebombs beat bullets. :p
Flake2m February 1st, 2003, 10:55 AM

Actually you have got a point there NBK.
A group of Chechen Rebels could purchase some Russian Vodka from the duty free store. A hankerchief could be used as a w ick and its piss easy to smuggle a box of matches
on board.
If they want to bring the plane down, all they need to do is throw a few molotovs.
The ironic thing about this; the Russians lay claim to invented the molotov yet the chechen rebels would be using the w eapon against them!
Anthony February 1st, 2003, 12:45 PM

You might be thw arted by the discovery that vodka doesn't burn like that. Maybe when heated in a wick, but molotov fashion. Brandy w ould be a good choice - think christmas
pud :)
mark February 1st, 2003, 03:40 PM

Think everclear grain alchohol. As for moltov cocktails in the plane, I don't condone such activities, or at least not in the coach section of the plane. Also, I'd imagine hundreds of
foam seats and bags of lugage w ould probobly cause the bottle to just bounce off and spill(something Ill be thankful for should my next flight turn disastrous.)
Anthony February 1st, 2003, 11:13 PM

Hmm, if it wouldn't disolve, or break in normal handling, maybe a sugar-glass bottle?
I thought there were stringent rules regarding flamable materials on aircraft, I'm amazed that the seats w ould be made of anything that would burn, let alone release toxic
gases!
nbk2000 February 2nd, 2003, 12:06 AM

You'd think, huh?
But, in most crashes, it's the toxic smoke that kills the majority of the people who die. Stupid, ain't it? :rolleyes:
Apparently alcohol doesn't count as a dangerous w eapon. Though we see what that line of thought lead to in regards to boxcutters. :)

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > CBU version 2
Log in
View Full Version : CBU version 2
nbk2000 May 16th, 2003, 04:07 AM

Original picture was deleted by free host. Attached archived copy.
mongo blongo May 16th, 2003, 10:59 AM

Does CBU stand for Cluster Bomb Unit? Since there is a centrifugal safety switch it's meant to be fired from some sort of gun right?
nbk2000 May 17th, 2003, 04:36 AM

Sorry for the delay, but I wanted to get the picture posted before I went to bed last night.
Anyways, I've been doing some more study about the design and construction of cluster bombs and the submunitions that go in them, as part of the DVD.
Originally, I thought of using empty soda cans as forms to make the submunitions in, being of the appropriate size and shape.
But then I re-read my own article from an RTPB perspective, and realized that anyone with the finances to fly a plane, and the will to drop a CBU on a crowd of people, would
be willing to invest the proper time and money to do a "bang-up" job of it. (sorry for the pun)
So someone who isn't me redesigned the CBU submunitions with that in mind.
Firstly, the exterior shell is made of thin stamped steel, as obtained from (find the link yourself), which (someone) was kind enough to provide here on the Forum.
Next, the interior electronic fuze was inspired by two different toys, imported from china. One was a personal fan that had the blades light up in different patterns, the other
was a yo-yo waterball that blinks when you smack it.
Well, Google is a wonderful thing, because searching for "centrifugal switch china" yeilds a nice source of dirt cheap switches that will activate at different RPMs. Samples are
obtained of 1,200 RPM switches, which are about the thickness of a matchstick, and half as long.
Slightly different switch detects strong impact.
By combining these on a small PCB board with a capacitor and an electric detonator, you get an centrifugally armed-impact activated electronic fuze. :)
The steel shell is lined with 1/4" steel slingshot ammo, rather than BB's, and filled with a cast explosive. The inner fuze sphere (made from small polycarbonate shells obtained
from hobby store) is pressed into the explosive while still soft.
After setting, the electronic fuzing is inserted into the inner sphere, the other half of the inner sphere (with the detonator hole) snapped into place, and the other half of the
explosive filled submunition is superglued into place.
The steel shell is then inserted into a plaster mold and encased inside a polymeric rubber coating of 1/2" thickness. This is a high durometer rubber, like superball, which
provides an airbursting rebound.
The mold has been made by laying strips of modeling clay cut into the shape of flettner (SP?) rotors and laying it on a sphere of suitable size. This is then cast into a plaster
mold.
When the submunition is encased in the mold, and the rubber cast around it, the rubber takes the shape of the rotors, which provide the aerodynamic drag that provides spin to
arm it.
The way the submunition works is that, when dropped, the rotors cause the submunition to begin spinning around an axis. This axis of rotation is in line with the centrifugal
switch. The switch engages once it reaches a high enough RPM, allowing a current of electricity from the battery to begin charging the capacitor.
After a few seconds of spinning, the cap is fully charged, and now contains enough juice to function the detonator, when the impact switch detects impact with the target.
The impact switch is mounted so that it is parrallel with the axis of rotation. Thus, it's effectively not moving while spinning about the axis, but any impact off-axis will cause it
to function.
Upon impacting, the rubber and high spinning, cause the submunition to rebound into the air a few feet before the fuze has time to explode, causing a near-surface airburst.
This greatly increases effectiveness against personnel.
Combining the two different types of switches, in addition to the need for several seconds to charge the capacitor to function the detonator, provides a much higher degree of
safety for the manufacturer and (presumed) pilot, since it's highly unlikely to arm and function from even rough handling.
Enhancements would include the inclusion of incendiary pellets of the type described in any number of patents, to cause fires among suitable targets.
Now, with the development of low-cost GPS guided cruise missles (LLCM), the whole thing falls together.
Imagine a scenario where Allah Rag-head launches a LCCM targeting the tarmac of a busy international airport during a holiday rush.
The LCCM is optimized for payload, since it doesn't have to fly hundreds of miles to hit its target, so fuel can be replaced by submunitions.
Each submunition is loaded with 3/8" steel shot, with a matrix of incendiary pellets mixed into the high explosive filling.
The LCCM overflies the tarmac, where a half-dozen 747's and 777's are lined up, filled to capacity with passengers, and fully loaded with fuel for the long flight ahead.
Flying parrallel to the tarmac, the LCCM begins to eject its payload of 100 submunitions, right on top of these fragile flying gas tanks. :)
Each plane, having a surface area the size of a football field, are impossible to miss. Each one catches at least a half dozen submuntions on the fuselage and wings.
The wings, made of thing sheet metal, are shredded by the direct impact of an explosive device on the wing, with dozens of steel balls ripping holes through the fuel cells,
turning them into leaky seives.
This wouldn't be so bad...if it wasn't for the flaming zirconium/teflon incendiary pellets that happen to be propelled into the fuel spills...burning at 4,000°F...at the same
time. ;)
Several of the jets are turned into giant crematoriums, with the majority of the passengers being burned alive in the massive fireballs that ensue from the strike.
Cost? Tens of thousands and a few months.
Results? Priceless!

One thing that would help these be more effective is a random-decay timer for 10% or 15% of the CBU's that are missing their impact fuzes.
This turns them from into random time-bombs scattered amoungst the debris, complicating rescue efforts, as the CBU's will continue exploding at intervals during recovery
operations. :p
Thing that always stymied me was the complication of timers and how to get them randomized.
Well, thanks to one of the books from that jihadi site, I got the answer.
Use a 4-way mechanical tilt switch (http://www.photologic.ca/swballsm.jpg), and solder a resistor to each of the four legs of the switch. The resistors are in a range that,
when connected to a relay-decay timer, causes the relay to function between a few minutes to an hour.
Then, after dispersal, each CBU clearance delay unit will have 4 different time delays built-in. Which one is used depends entirely on which way the unit rests. :)
FUTI February 26th, 2007, 01:33 PM

NBK you are the pure evil genius. If you could use such amount of brain "processing" time to earning money for some big firm...I'm sure I would see your name some time in
the future among richest 100 in USA.

Slight snag with that picture: I get the message Attention: **** Free Hosting Customers
On March 1st, 2004, **** discontinued free Web hosting plans. If you had a free hosting account and did not upgrade, your account has been taken offline. when I go to the
hostname.

Of course it's gone, it's been 4 years. :p
The picuture is irrelevant now anyways, as the idea of the random decay timer was the point, but I've attached anyways to the original post.

Hahaha, ok, my bad. I thought it was a new thread, but now I see FUTI bumped it. Still, it's a good idea.
As ever, the scope of useage is more important than the weapon itself. I don't think I'd bother with a LCCM for this scattering application, but itstead go for a giant cannon, of
the type the IRA developed from gas canisters. Load a few of these up, and aim roughly (like a shotgun mortar) at your target area(s) and set timers to fire them all within a
few minutes.
The scattering and the randomly tripping delay charges would be good, and then a final mortar could trip a few hours later, for maximum effect against the troops securing the
area.
sdjsdj March 1st, 2007, 07:30 AM

Excellent idea, but I have my doubts abouth the effectiveness of the random-decay timed submunitions; as a battlefield weapon (I believe MLRS saturates an area with
something like this?) troops are trained to deal with it - once they realise what it is, every individual within a mile of the attack epicentre will be wearing enough ceramic/kevlar
to survive the detonation of a submunition of optimal launch size, and giving any suspicious-looking objects a wide berth.
With a shorter-term fuse (minutes not hours), you may, however, be able to target survivors and the first few to respond - probably unarmoured rescue crews - who will be
vulnerable.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > What have you made lately?
Log in
View Full Version : What have you made lately?
A-BOMB May 23rd, 2003, 11:58 AM

This a thread to show off you new 'Toys' and things you have made lately. I have been working one a 12/20gauge shotgun for
launching bird bombs and stuff, I was orignialy a 11gauge, but then you say 11gauge? well when I got it I tried chambering a
10 gauge shell and it wouldn't fit in without me hammering it in, but a 12 gauge shell would slip in almost to the end of the
chamber but what do you expect from a gun made in a shed in spain the 70's(and thats before my uncle got his hands on it
:rolleyes: ) I'm also working on a mini-gatteling type gun useing a old .22lr 10 round revolver. The barrel what bent so I cut it
off and the main spring was gone so I cut the frame and made a 10 spring firing assemablies, and I mounted them on a
plate behind the barrels, so I wind up the springs and pull the trigger and it should fire off all ten round FA but it jams so I
have to figure that out. So what things are you guys working on?
A_W May 23rd, 2003, 01:30 PM

Not really a weapon, but I've just completed my 100% homemade, full tactical ghillie suit. It took me near 24 hours to
complete the suit (it was hell!).
The effectiveness of this camouflage device is amazing. I have pics. of me wearing the ghillie about 20 feet away, standing
straight up in some light bush. I'm pretty much invisible. If I can get my hands on a scanner, I'll get the pics. posted.
It was all inspired by the "Predator" movies! :cool:
zaibatsu May 23rd, 2003, 03:54 PM

Naturally all of the things I work on are in theory, but some more than others ;). What I'm working on completely in theory is
a small, dumb (not guided etc) Anti-Armour rocket launcher, however mechanical ignition is troublesome, as I am planning on
it being semi-automatic (kind of anyway - not true semi auto but one pull of trigger = one shot). Also a pistol built completely
from scrap, and detailing the various stages ie barrel making, reaming the chamber, making the chamber reamer etc.
Unfortunately at the moment I don't have the required tools, so everything has to be theory :( Oh, and in the mean time
trying to get my head around pump-action shotgun mechs and belt-fed machine gun mechs.
stickfigure May 23rd, 2003, 06:48 PM

I too am working on a ghille suit, using a nomex flight suit, surplus net and some burlap from cut up sand bags. Also I am
building an M-4 A3 Carbine, using an FN upper 16" Flat-top with GG&G Front and Back Flip Up Sights and a SIR system. This is
to be mounted on a Colt Pre-Ban Lower (vote for the aw-ban sunset!) and I'm purchasing a Elcan M-145 scope built just for
the rifle. To support this I'm piecing together a Molle 2 LBV set up to carry all my ammo, gear and such. This, among a couple
of other small projects like sooping up my AK with some of the new accessories that have come out on the market, adding a
Insight M-6 Laser/Light for my Beretta and picking up some parts for my SPAS-12. I figure that I need to taylor the existing
weapons I have and maximize their usefulness as much as I can, this includes training and familiarizing myself around a core
of weapons and equipment. I'm scoping out an Off-Road vehicle to get out away from the city once I get back to the States
this summer, right now I'm looking at a M-1009 military Blazer which sell dirt cheap and are tough as nails. I got cool video
the other day called Tactical Hand Signals form www.wararts.com this is really a good way for you and your group to
communicate on a small group level silently. Even if you aren't a CQB type group but you have common interests with some
people, get this video! Another project I am working on is self improvement and involves making a major career move from
the Air Force into the Army as a Helicopter Pilot, I should at this time next year be in Flight School which I am really stowked
about!
Mr Cool May 24th, 2003, 09:22 AM

"I am on sand in bright yellow daylight, yet there is no sun. Then I realize I am the sun. My light shines out as a Golden Path.
When I realize this, I move out of myself. I turn, expecting to see myself as the sun. But I am not the sun, I am a stick
figure, a child's drawing with zigzag lightning lines for eyes, stick legs and stick arms."
Sounds like a salvia trip or something :).
I'm not a good engineer, I've only made little zip guns, air cannons, that kind of stuff. Nothing very exciting. I do have a very
powerful crossbow that I made, but I wouldn't count it as a weapon really because it's big, and doesn't have a trigger
mechanism that I would put much trust in. If it's left for a while, it gets bored and fires itself... Currently I have plans for a
sabot dart gun out of plumbing, next time I feel like building something I'll start that if I have any funds. It'll just be a simple
thing, probably electrically ignited BP grains for the propellant, not a very high chamber pressure but a long barel for a long
period of acceleration.
ancalagon May 24th, 2003, 10:38 PM

I'm working on a couple of things, including a maille armor shirt with a scale mail covering of throwing knives, but that one
doesn't have much to do with chemistry (with the possible exception of treating the steel). I am also trying to draw up some
plans for a theoretical gun combining an "ice cube system" (quote from the Fifth Element) with a flame-flower. I started out
with an idea for a double tank/double barrel gun with a valve which would cut off one or the other of the barrels, and a small
self-igniting propane torch under the barrel attached to the napalm tank. For the freezing tank I want to use liquid nitrogen,
but of course that would make things very difficult, not to mention the havoc that would be wreaked by accidently combining
something as cold as liquid nitrogen with flame. I also thought about a simple fire extinguisher tank, but I am afraid of the
image that such a design would make, certainly not something that would put the ol' fear of god into anyone... Anyhoo, I'm
never going to build the thing anyway, so the particulars are less important, although I do shoot for technical accuracy. I even
thought of adding a third barrel of acid spray, and lining the barrel with pryrex, or something similar.
Back to the middle ages, and to a topic that I could use some comments on, I'm trying to make super hard blades. It is
possible, of couse, to make high-carbon steel by folding the iron over and over. Also, often enough the edge of a blade and
the blade itself are cooled at different times to make the edge hard but the blade more springy. There are many other tricks,
and I have thought of several of my own, like twining gold and steel (gold being extremely tough yet malleable, and steel
being hard but brittle) using depleted uranium, rolled homogonous steel, diamond glaze, tiny diamonds in the steel (as
diamonds are the hardest natural substance in the world, but are so brittle they will shatter easily), making just the edge out
of diamond and lazer cutting it to thinner than paper, and so on. If anyone is at all interested in this subject, let me know. If
not, I'll shut up.
-Ancalagon
Mr Cool May 25th, 2003, 08:34 AM

On the subject of hard blades, I read something somewhere about a new steel that had been designed, specifically for blades.
Most steels have been made by trial and error, ie, someone made some dodgy steel and found it to be suitable for a
particular purpose, or someone wondered what would happen if X and Y were added to molten iron. This is because most
steels, and other alloys used today, were invented before good computer simulations etc for metallurgy were available.
But this new steel (Ferrium 60 is the trade name IIRC, 60 being something to do with it's hardness) was designed for the
purpose using electron microscopes, X-ray crystallography, simulations and all sorts of other things to analyse different steels
and design the perfect one. They found the best ration of iron to iron carbide to iron nitride to other substances, the best sizes
and shapes for the grains of each, and thus the best way and time to cool it in to form these crystals, etc.
Anyway, in a test they hit a blade made from Ferrium 60 with a Samurai sword, which are famous for their quality and strength.
The new blade cut into the Samurai sword by 6mm, but it was not even dented.
stickfigure May 25th, 2003, 11:31 AM

I'm gathering parts right new for a flame-thrower and any information I can get my hands on. I'm waiting until I get back to
the States before I put it altogehter, my dorm room is really small and not a proper workshop. And I don't think Uncle Sugar
would appreciate, me testing it out in the parking lot. I've got two high pressure Oxygen bottles and I'm thinking of modifing
a scuba tank to hold the gas, I've got a M2-A2 pressure regulator and an emergency pilot's breathing bottle to hold the
propane for the wand. I'm going to go to Knob Creek during one of the Shoot Outs to get some pictures of how they are set
up, just to put some ideas together.
About one of the earlier threads quote:
"There are many other tricks, and I have thought of several of my own, like twining gold and steel (gold being extremely
tough yet malleable, and steel being hard but brittle) using depleted uranium, rolled homogonous steel, diamond glaze, tiny
diamonds in the steel (as diamonds are the hardest natural substance in the world, but are so brittle they will shatter easily),
making just the edge out of diamond and lazer cutting it to thinner than paper, and so on."
I highly recommend grabbing a couple of Blade or Knife magazines they are full of great information, my Uncle is a
professional knife maker and he gets most of his information from them besides 40 years and a machinist. My Grandfather
was also a knife maker while he was alive, so I've had a lot of mentoring in this area. One metal that makes very hard and
durable blades is Titanium and Ti-Alloys also it is very cheap these days, a lot cheaper than DU or gold. Your thoughts on DU
are kind of scary, first of all where are you going to get it? Uranium isn't something that is easy to come by and if you had
enough of it to make a blade it's heavy as all hell and knives need to be light and easy to wield. Also while you are grinding
and sharpening your blade your going to need to where a resperator as the flakes will cause cancer. You are also looking for
hardness and mallability which are two qualities that really don't go toghether, hardness and flexibility do go together. On the
Rockwell hardness scale 57-60C are typical quality hardness more than the average joe needs as they border on being too
brittle. Damascus is a alternative way of making steel cable hard and flexiable. The japanese used a damascus process in
folding their swords, also their swords were not just one piece of steel but two. They would forge outer blade then inner blade
then sandwich them together, actually more like a taco, and weld them together during the rest of the process. Another way of
making a knife tough is with a coating, Ti-Ni coating which has a hardness of 80C and when you sharper the blade you only
expose the steel cutting edge which you want soft enough to shapen anyway. Like I said before pick up some of these
magazines they have a lot of information on forging and knife making, I've been buying mags of eBay and I'm sure that
someone is selling off their collection or will be.
Da Boom Doctor May 25th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Recently I have built a match lock musket with a 0.88 inch bore, a .22lr zip gun - using solder "sucker upper" for the firing and
trigger mech, and reloaded some 12ga rounds with rock salt.
All of the above are not brilliant quality, but served very well in preventing me from revising, which I believe is the main thing
(apart from massing firepower).
In the future I would be interested in making my own heads - using dense metals or their salts. And also would like to
research more into kit guns such as the sten.
Ps - Last month I also made a sleave for a Brocock me38 chamber in order it could fire "blanks", however these blanks are
rimfire, and when i came to try out my new "blank firing replica" no sound was produced as the firing pin had only struck the
center of the cartridge. Any solutions?
Thanks

Damascus is pattern welding, and some find it too brittle (as supposed to toledo steel), and though they are very good
blades, I think of them more as an art than as combat blades. As for DU, if I ever got my hands on some, I would only use a
tiny bit to make the edge, or a thin layer to cover the blade, or something similar. It is far to heavy to use even for a knife.
Also, the Japanese did not use damascus. The samurai swords were made by soft layers of iron covered by watered steel.
Folded steel and damascus create similar effects, because the both increase the quality of the steel, but they use very
different techniques. I was thinking about using titanium as well, as it is very strong yet light. Also, by twining steel with gold, I
could get some of the toughness and malleability of gold, with the hardness of steel. Gold is useful because its toughness
allows for using very thin wire. However, as was said, all this would be extremely expensive. If you search in google for
dragonslayer blades, there is a group of people trying to make blades that cut modern steel the way samurai swords cut
medievel steel. Also, the celts used to make blades by taking rods of iron and forging them into one blade. Unfortunately,
these blades often burst apart, until someone came up with the idea to twist the rods together. I'm looking through all kinds
of techniques to make the best blades. Thanks for the comments, and I hope there are more.
-Ancalagon
Hehe, you're wanting to make your ME38 fire blanks eh: :D
Where abouts are you from - the UK?
Just checked out a S&P revolver of mine, and found that you would have the change the shape of the firing pin, possibly to a
rectangular shape, extending till it will cover the rim. However, that would involve changing the firing pin, and the area around
the pin. Not impossible, and I reckon you could do it by hand, but might be a bit fiddly taking it apart.

zaibatsu
Hmmm yes I did consider changing the shape of the firing pin, but as you say it would be very fiddly. But following your
comments i've just had another look at it and it does seem to be possible. I would have to remove the circular disc that
surrounds the firing pin, cut a slot in it - that would enable me to change the shape of the firing pin.
To alter the pin I would probly add a "foot" that would face outwards to engage with the rim. This does look a bit tricky though,
which is a shame since I don't want to ruin it, as it does look very sweet - (atleast to point at the mirror with):cool: It is nickle
coated and has walnut grips.
Yes I am from the UK. I take it I am talking with a fellow brit, who understands the burdens we have to carry (or not as the
case is).
Thanks for the advise though zaibatsu.
ps. What firearms have you been able to fabricate that might be in my field of interest?
Thanks:rolleyes:

Yes, cutting a slot in the disk surrounding the firing pin was what I attempted to explain, albeit in much more complicated
terms :) I'm not sure it would be that hard, thinking about it again, as firing pins are designed to be replaced. I'd take apart
my S&P again but last time I nearly lost a spring, and my brocock Specialist seems to be held together with drift pins, and I
lack the correct drifts.
I am also from the UK yes. As to whether I have constructed any firearms I can neither confirm nor deny that :p but I can tell
you your biggest problem will be aquiring ammunition, however this can be overcome. What firearms you can make depends
on how much you wish to spend and what you have access to. With more information I can probably help you further.

zaibatsu
I think it really seems far too findly. Well atleast for me. My main reason is that I don't want to risk breaking the gun,
especially as I got it for a very reasonable price (60), and within the next few months the second hand market value should
increase considerably for the ME38, As pretty soon they shall be under Firearms legislation, and the import of Brococks has
been band for a few months now.
Sure the challege of converting it would be very fun, but I would like to be able to sell it in working (legal) order, possibly
making enough money to fund something that really would pack a punch.
ps. If I were to do some "fiddling" I think it would be within my reach, as I have access to a lathe (via extracurricular activities
at school) and ammunition wouldn't be a problem.
However with these resources there are much more fun and challeging things to be created than a "Blank" firing Brocock.
Wouldn't you agree?!
;)
Bitter May 27th, 2003, 02:55 PM

"Back to the middle ages, and to a topic that I could use some comments on, I'm trying to make super hard blades. It is
possible, of couse, to make high-carbon steel by folding the iron over and over."
How is folding it going to add carbon to the steel ? You need to carburize it first, or melt it and the add the carbon.
"Also, often enough the edge of a blade and the blade itself are cooled at different times to make the edge hard but the
blade more springy. There are many other tricks, and I have thought of several of my own, like twining gold and steel (gold
being extremely tough yet malleable, and steel being hard but brittle)"
You're going to be in for a dissapointment. Gold is not tough, it is soft and maleable, just like lead. I'm a little skeptical about
the compatibility of steel and gold too, especially electrochemically. Have you thought about twining iron/mild steel wire and
music wire together ?
In order to get the blade springy and the edge hard, try insulating the blade with clay when you heat it. Then when you quench
it, it will cool slower than the edges.
And don't believe the lies and myths you hear about japanese swords- they are no better than anyone else's.

Do you think the price would increase? I now believe the price will decrease for Brococks, as no doubt there will be a
requirement to have a licence in order to own them, therefore decreasing the demand for Brococks.
With access to a lathe and 9mm rounds it would be extremely easy to manufacture a 9mm SMG in the PA Luty form.

-"Back to the middle ages, and to a topic that I could use some comments on, I'm trying to make super hard blades. It is
possible, of couse, to make high-carbon steel by folding the iron over and over."
How is folding it going to add carbon to the steel ? You need to carburize it first, or melt it and the add the carbon.-
Sorry, I left out a step. Iron was was pounded with charcoal first, and the folding was done to eliminate impurities.
You're going to be in for a dissapointment. Gold is not tough, it is soft and maleable, just like lead. I'm a little skeptical about
the compatibility of steel and gold too, especially electrochemically. Have you thought about twining iron/mild steel wire and
music wire together ?
There is a difference between tough and hard. I know gold is malleable, that is why I want it. One of the great things about
gold is that it can be made into very thin wire without just being able to pull apart. This is not to say that gold links on a
necklace cannot easily be pulled apart, because they can. Rather, the wire itself is tougher stuff (though malleable). As to
iron/mild steel/music wire, I'll look into it. Thanks.
-In order to get the blade springy and the edge hard, try insulating the blade with clay when you heat it. Then when you
quench it, it will cool slower than the edges.-
I know. There are many tempering techniques designed to cool different parts of the sword at different lengths and whatnot.
Clay is one common way.
-And don't believe the lies and myths you hear about japanese swords- they are no better than anyone else's.-
Not anymore, at least, because know all quality blades are made out of high carbon steel. Back in the day, samurai swords
were harder and better quality than other swords.
nbk2000 May 28th, 2003, 12:53 AM

I feel I should remind everyone here that it's that ever-busy SWIM (Someone Who Isn't Me) who makes things here, not any
of us. ;)
Just felt I should say that before anyone says "I've made an RPG from toilet paper tubes and bazooka bubblegum...and have
video to prove it!" (complete with their face and recognizable background). :eek:
I wonder how well one of these new superstrong steels would work as an AP core for bullets?
Also, the steel is Ferrium C69 (and others like C53). Sounds like some interesting stuff.
Google Search Results (http://www.google.com/search?q=Ferrium+steel&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Da Boom Doctor May 28th, 2003, 08:10 AM

zaibatsu
On the contrary, I believe the value of Brococks should increase.

The retail price of Brococks has increased by about a third already, this is due to i) Brocock stopping further import of the
ME38. ii) The demand for these weapons increasing due to media coverage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2003/01/05/ngun105.xml
That states the ease and processes by which a Brocock can be converted. Therefore greater demand has been created by
people who want a Brocock in order to convert it.
My prediction is that if I stick my gun on ebay with a warning stating how easy it is to convert and that it will be soon baned. I
should get a good price for it.
Thats my guess anyway.
oh and yes I have to admit, I did visit amazon and "Expedient Homemade Firearms : The 9mm Submachine Gun" does look
rather tempting. Tell me, if this were a dream world we live in, would it be resonalbe to assume that you have some expirence
of using this manual? If so was it easy to understand, replicate??
Dream a little dream for me.

I know, having had confirmation of this from a major Brocock dealer, that one reason the price of Brococks has increased is
due to the stronger Euro giving a less favourable exchange rate - Brococks are made in Germany by HW.
If you stick any airgun on Ebay it'll get taken off within a couple of days - GUARANTEED. Ebay don't allow any airguns, they kill
the auctions very quickly.
Also, the more recent Brococks (IE Brococks, rather than the original Saxby and Palmer (who were taken over by brocock) are
weakened to stop the firing of full power cartridges. .22LR should be ok I'd guess though.
Unknown May 29th, 2003, 01:59 AM

SWIM (thanks nbk2000) has a rocekt launcher made from 4 feet of 2inch PVC and a 6inch PVC handle affixed by means of a
large wiretie. For firing, there is an push button inset on the front of the handle. The button is wired to a 9V battery with two
wires with aligator clips running to the rear (breach) for attaching to the ignitor. The 9V battery is affixed to the underside of
the barrel, forward of the handle, using a small piece of adhesive velcro. Three inch PVC end caps are used for dust covers,
although the rear cap could be left on with the wires fed through small holes and soldered to 2 flat circles of copper glued on
the inside of the cap. When the rocket is inserted, the igniter wires contact one strip of copper in the center and the other
around the outside of first circle. I think the launcher was tested twice with small model rocket engines attached to a stick.
There was flash powder in the front of the engine that made a really loud explosion when the engine exhausted its black
powder. I would post a photo I found with the discription of the rocket if I wasn't such a computer dumbass and could figure
out how to attach stuff here.

Oh yes there is definately enough pressure generated by the firing pin it to detonate rimfire primers - but you know my
original problem...the rebellious firing pin hits the centre of the cartridge.
Hmmm....thinking around the problem a bit, can you think and suggest any ways of reloading .22LR in order that the primer is
positioned in the center.
Should be pretty straight forward just means that I won't be able to use some section 5 ammunition I acquired once in a
dream. oh well.
Yes the more I think about it, the more it seems reasonable, I mean its a revolver, I'm not really going to be getting through
lots of rounds anyway - so having a few rounds that do work in it would be cool. Also means no one else would be able to use
the gun. And if the situation arises " No Mr police man it can't fire live rounds, see it would only hit the inside of the
cartridge".:rolleyes: Innocent as ever.
My sole problem is that the only primary I have access to at the moment is....(drum roll)...yes you guessed it...Acetone
peroxide.
Any comments regarding methods of reloading and choice of primary (I would imagine MF or LA) would be very useful.
Thanks again.
xyz May 30th, 2003, 06:08 AM

If you have access to some other ammunition then why not extract the primer material from it and then use that in your
primers?

yeah I like that idea. Would mean I wouldn't have spend time/money making the primer compound.
Set aside that problem - However how would I go about loading the primary into the case. Do I add some sort of a binder and
"glue" it to the case, or do I pack it tight perhaps with paper wadding? How much primary is needed?
Thanks
p.s I am now faced with another problem, one which I am sure some of the Brits here understand. My FAC application is being
sent of this week, and I want to have my gun cabinet in the same room as my work bench - The police are going to have to
come round to check that my house and that room is "secure" - I think some SERIOUS tidying is in order!
:p
Bitter June 1st, 2003, 05:37 PM

"There is a difference between tough and hard."
Oh really :rolleyes: ? I never knew that :mad: There's a difference between tough and soft too- a big one. Seriously, gold isn't
a good idea. I do recommend you try the music wire idea, though.
"Back in the day, samurai swords were harder and better quality than other swords."
Pattern welding was known in Europe 600 years before it was know in Japan. Enough said.
Skean Dhu June 1st, 2003, 06:13 PM

however true that may be bitter, you can still make a katana without using pattern welded steel.
Most katanas/samurai swords were made out of high carbon steel. what made them so special was that they were sharpened
using a method similar to this; 100 strokes at 1 degree, 99strokes at 2 degrees....... by doing this they(the blacksmith) made
an extremely sharp long lasting edge on the blade. also by coating the sword with varying thicknesses of clay before
quenching it a final time it made the edge extremely hard but left the spine of the blade rather soft thus enabling it to bend
under stress. it also left a pretty hammon along the edge.
ancalagon June 1st, 2003, 08:26 PM

>"Back in the day, samurai swords were harder and better quality than other swords."
>
>Pattern welding was known in Europe 600 years before it was know in Japan. Enough said.
Yes, but the japanese didn't use pattern welding, or damascus, in their medieval swords.
>however true that may be bitter, you can still make a katana without using pattern welded steel.
Yes, you can make any blade using pattern welding.
-Anclagon
Bitter June 2nd, 2003, 10:04 AM

Perhaps this liink will help. (http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm)
ancalagon June 2nd, 2003, 01:47 PM

I recommend a book called "IAI The art of Drawing the Sword," which speeks not only of the quality of traditional katanas, but
has an entire section on the ritualistic and traditional testing of the katana.
-Ancalagon
What did you use to pressurize the tank? I'm not talking about the chemical, I mean how did you get CO2 inside, or did you
buy an alreay pressurized tank?
There is a relatively new automatic assault rifle that uses a blow-back action, is fairly powerful, has an interesting shape, and
is pretty accurate. The intersting thing is, however, the cartridges have no shells. The bullets are encased in a impact sensitive
(plastic?) explosive, and this casing, being an explosive, dissapears into gasses when the gun fires. Therefore, no casing. No
casing means that the action can be much simpler, because you don't need to figure in an automatic casing ejector. Instead,
one could use a simple pin firing system which detonates the explosive, rocketing the bullet forward and the pin back until it
uncovered the next cartridge in the clip. The pin would then slam forward, pushing the bullet into the barrel and slamming the
cartridge against the rim, starting the whole process over again. The absence of a need for an ejector means that the gun
does not require the precise measurements usually present in automatic weapons, making it easier for a moderately skilled
engineer.
-Ancalagon
zaibatsu June 4th, 2003, 02:36 PM

I don't understand how straight blow-back can work with a fairly powerful cartridge - powerful being relative and therefore
comparable to other assault rifle rounds ie 5.56mm or 7.62mm. That would require a substantial bolt weight (yes, it is still
possible though) which would increase the weight of the rifle. I think the rifles are probably either retarded blowback or gas
operated. Also, this technology isn't new, I think H&K were developing it in the 70s. Also, I think there would be great
problems with consistency, a powerful gun is useless if you can't hit what you're aiming at. For ease of manufacture see PA
Luty's straight blow-back 9mm submachine gun - that doesn't require precise measurements and can mostly be built with
hand tools.

I don't understand how straight blow-back can work with a fairly powerful cartridge
I meant fairly powerful for an assault rifle. Germany's H&K G11 used a 4.7 x 33mm cartridge, while most assault rifles use
5.56mm or 7.62mm cartridges, as you say. Also, as you no doubt know, the development of particular technology usually
greatly precedes common useage. As for the accuracy, the G11 is reputedly (or so I have been told) fairly accurate.
zaibatsu June 7th, 2003, 10:11 AM

Oh, yes, there are always teething problems at the start of the development of a new technology. But I think it'd be best to
wait till it's perfected than start testing now. However, I see how useful it would be for expedient manufacture - you can mould/
lathe the bullets, and then just mould the propellant, with no need to purchase/make (which I think would be rather
expensive) the brass.
However, I see one big problem: fouling of the action. This happens in AR15s because the propellant gasses go straight back
into the action, rather than operation on a gas piston (so I believe). This obviously builds up and causes problems. With a
caseless projectile this can only be made worse I would think.
knowledgehungry June 7th, 2003, 10:56 AM

Well my friend(he really is my friend) has been working on converting a blank firing .22 to one that fires real bullets, im not
sure how things are going to work out for him. But ill let you know when ihear his results.
stickfigure June 10th, 2003, 11:06 AM

I hope your friend doesn't have to dig a .22 casing out of his hand. Blank firing .22 aren't exactly build for handling a real
round and they are usually cast pot metal, not a good gun quality metal. Your friend should invest in a good handgun. Bought
from a private individual, no paperwork, low key and not dangerous. I've seen a 20 guage widow-maker that "broke" open
after it was fired and broke the man's finger. I say broke as the action opened from the recoil, it really wasn't made correctly
and also the internals were worn. A 20 guage has a lot of back pressure, either build it right or leave it alone.

I don't know about turning blanks into full cartridges, but I was thinking of something similar (maybe your friend will try it,
because I'd like to hold on to my fingers for a bit longer). Remington makes .22 cartridges to launch nails from nail guns.
Some of them are pretty powerful. I was thinking it may be possible to attach lead or some soft, and maybe lighter, metal
bullet (since accuracy would be way off, lethality may take its place by using a bullet that would smash through the target
instead of pierce), to the end of these cartridges. However, as I said, I don't want to be digging scrap metal from my flesh
anytime soon, so this might forever remain in the theoretical.
-Ancalagon
Killy November 26th, 2007, 03:43 PM

Im working on 9mm submachine gun, PA Luty design, from his first book, by now its just in theory, and little work on some
metal, to see how would it look like when I get real measures materials.
Unfortunately some pipe measures are nearly impossible to acquire, so Im gonna modify original measures by few mm, more
or less.
If anyone here has some experience with Luty designs, or wish to make the same thing, feel free to contact me, or send me
some info, I would appreciate very much.
By now, on net I found just one info (and with some pictures) about that, some guy build it with chambered UZI barrel he
bought, but it was not working auto because spring was no good.
Hope thats not the only info there is.
Shadowmartyr November 26th, 2007, 10:31 PM
Most recently I've been reading into whatever I can find about mortars. My friends and I built a simple one for paint ball that
worked pretty well. It was a 5' 1/2 inch thick PVC pipe with just the right diameter to fit a tennis ball, with a tripod and board for
support. The ball was filled with a normal melted KNO3/Sugar mix with some visco fuse taped on it, just like a pyrotechnics
shell per say.
And anyway, it was basically a cannon, we had pre-packed "charges" of compressed black powder cylinders in bags that we
would load in the bottom (I forget how many grams), somebody would take a dowel with padding on the end and ram it, next
you put a thin layer of styrofoam and finally you lit the smoke bomb tennis ball, put it in the tube and have somebody stick a
fuse in the bottom of a hole we drilled that would fit in the black powder, and then light.
That was basically the entire process. You could actually aim it pretty easy as it didn't have to be dead accurate and smoke
covers a large area.
We had our own mortar team in the back dropping smoke where we needed it was nice to have.
Now I'm looking into a more advanced design perhaps with premade shells with a cap on the bottom of the shell and when
dropped would hit a primer and set it off like a real mortar.
deathbymyhand9 November 27th, 2007, 11:09 PM

My current project will most likely never leave paper and minor tinkering but, I am working on an endothermic bomb that would
have a relatively large area of effect. I will consider my project a success when I can walk up to a flower and snap it off as if it
were frozen. The goal for a blast radius is about 3 yards of noticeable effect.
totenkov November 28th, 2007, 12:31 AM

Demo charges.
SWIM has been experimenting with small linear shaped charges welded directly onto a piece of 1/4 inch plate wired to a timer.
Rare earth magnets hold the charge to whatever it is cutting through. I have made various sizes, different sized plates,
experimenting on penetration power. The shaped charges themselves are based on Axt's charge here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRAbUcUkIc
The demo charge is very impressive, punching through multiple sheets of plywood bolted together, steel plate even poured
concrete!
I have also been working on a few recurve bows, another crossbow and other woodwork projects. I don't really have a hand for
woodwork, making cabinets and stuff, metal work is what I am really good at.
SWIM has been working on new methods of making det-cord in up to 5 meter lengths which I have been successful using ETN
and compressed air.
John gave me a good idea over on the Forum of everything about radio detonation, I would never think of attempting this
though ;)
LibertyOrDeath November 28th, 2007, 01:46 AM

This is really a very long-term goal, but ultimately I'd like to be capable of manufacturing some kind of "poor man's RPG"
(incidentally, a book by that title is on the FTP). It wouldn't have to be a full-sized anti-tank weapon, but maybe something
along the lines of a shotgun slug incorporating a lined shaped charge. This was discussed at some length in the temporary
forum section known as The Graveyard.
Why this goal? To allow for the penetration of any future armor worn by jackbooted thugs that may be impenetrable to even
powerful rifles. Such armor may be based on carbon nanotubes or some other such high-strength material. If such armor is
made available to government enforcers around the world but not to serfs and peons (and this WILL one day happen) then
those enforcers will be able to act with near-impunity against the citizens of the world, and freedom will surely die forever --
unless there are countermeasures.
The shaped-charge shotgun projectile isn't an original idea; there's even a patent on such a design (US 5,000,094 (http://
www.freepatentsonline.com/5000094.html)). Nevertheless, I have some doubts about the effectiveness of this design. There
are three things I wonder about:
(1) The primer in the front of the shell might interfere with SC jet formation.
(2) The SC cavity appears unorthodox to say the least.
(3) The weight distribution of the slug doesn't appear to allow for good aerodynamic stabilization.
Above all, I want to come up with a design that just about any old Elmer Fudd can manufacture in his garage or basement with
a minimum of tools and material. Fancy piezoelectric fuzes are a no-no here.
It may turn out that a shotgun charge will be too difficult due to the rather small size. It could hold a reasonable explosive
charge, but stabilization could be a problem for a non-spinning projectile that's heavier toward its rear. Fold-out fins on a
shotgun slug would be a bit complex, though streamers released from the rear of the slug might be an option.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a shotgun projectile anyway, since the speed at which a shaped-charge projectile strikes a
target has no effect on jet penetration. So maybe even something like a crossbow could be used to deliver a bolt with a
somewhat larger homemade warhead at its tip. Whatever the delivery mechanism or exact nature of the system will turn out to
be, this is my long-term goal.
Currently there isn't much opportunity to work on this, but I've been doing as much research as possible. Once I start making
progress -- or if in the meantime others are interested in discussing this concept further -- then a new thread can be started.

I have thought about this also. To date these are the areas I have experimented with:
1.) A shotgun cartridge when disassembled can be made to propel a wooden stick with varying degrees of speed / flight
characteristics by altering the charge but leaving in the wad. No powder and a 14 gram stick (10gr and 4gr weighted tip) will get
about 50m. BP additions will give a sizable ability to deliver a 40gr payload / stick with some accuracy. Smokeless (starting at
a 5-10grain level of Unique will push a fucking golf cart it seems.
2.) The stick and attached warhead was determined to be a viable starting point as everyone can make them and the
"warhead" would be outside the launching tube.
3.) A serious challenge would be to make the stick more aerodynamic.
4.) Enough power to launch same with workable accuracy seems to make this the more viable choice than preparing a rocket
from the ground up.
Complicating Parameters:
Disassembly of 12ga shotgun shell of consistent manufacturer and starting with primer only, engaging a wooden dowel to
meet with the wad and (using 18" bbl) determining the propulsion of stick with small attached weight on the end at various
angles as starting point for the above. It may be possible to achieve a 2oz "warhead". the "stick" - dowel, needs to be very
exacting in it's weight. This has been a complication as wood varies quite a bit due to density. Also, the dowel needs to fit
snugly but not too snugly and this needs to be a consistent fitting issue. Paper wrapping to achieve proper fitting is very
problematic. There are an enormous amount of variables (angle of approach, length, gas blow-by, etc) with this arraignment
but it COULD be a viable method.
tiac03 November 29th, 2007, 06:43 PM

Well I'm half way through making a Reproduction Panzerfaust, trying as much as possible to make it historically accurate. It
will be mostly to put up on my wall and look at once and a while but I do know that if SWIM gets his hands on it he will
probably drill the holes in the tube for the primer and the pin that holds the charge in place and attempt to fire a dummy
warhead. A dummy warhead because although SWIM is into some shady practices, he isn't stupid and knows that he doesn't
want to become part of the scenery.
So far the firing mechanism is done and all that is left is to weld it onto the tube and to get myself a piece of spring steel to
make the "hammer/pin" probably going to use a hack saw blade for it. Then I'll just have to fashion a Dummy Projectile using
the rest of my scrap metal and a piece of wood.
The Main reason for making one is because I know I'll never get to have or use a real one and I have been interested in
these weapons since I first saw a Documentary with one in it when i was a kid. I also know that the Germans were able to turn
these weapons out pretty quickly even when they were under attack. So I wanted to see how it would be to make one from a
piece of pipe and some scrap sheet metal.
I think SWIM might take all the information I've learned in this project (Mainly how to make 1:1 scale parts using pictures and
some known measurements) to make himself a reproduction RPG-2 that will be 100% functional. But thats in the future and I
still have lots more to learn before he can use it for his non-politically correct ways.
kaiserbill November 30th, 2007, 09:18 AM

I take it then that you are using the Panzerfaust 150 as you pattern model? The Russian RPG-2 used this version as its
design starting point.
Some backround information on the Panzerfaust series:
Panzerfaust 30 was the smallest in the family and was eminently suitable to close quarter urban combat. Range of 30 meters.
Panzerfaust 60 ahd a range of 60 meters.
Panzerfaust 100 had a range of 100meters. Its velocity of 60 meters per second was twice the velocity of the Panzerfaust 30.
The Panzerfaust 150 was a little more complicated in that it had a 2 stage propellant system that gave longer range. I think it
was reusable, whereas the other variants were simple throwaway weapons.
Each of the variants used mild steel tubes of slightly increased diameter, and each had a progressively larger amount of
propellant. The really interesting bit is that the propellant was black powder, making this the most useful anti-tank launcher
for your resistance types. The hard bit would most likely be the construction of a properly functioning shaped warhead with
fuse/detonator.
Tiac03, it would be most interesting to know how this friend of yours gets along with the propulsive side of this project. So to
ask once more, which model are you patterning your project on? I've had a Panzerfaust project of my own in mind for a while
now, but as I keep impregnating the wife, my free time seems to rapidly diminish every year.
tiac03 December 1st, 2007, 03:02 AM

Mine is the closest to the pzf60 firing mechanism wise. Although the tube is only a 32mm so its missing that extra 8mm to be
an exact replica.I would have gone with the Full out 30 (since it was a 32 mm) but I didn't have satisfactory Images of the
firing mechanisms just some sketches. Also Using the 60 (100's) firing mechanism also allows easier reloading if ever I Decide
to.
Just adding to your statement They had the Panzerfaust 30 Klein (faustpatrone) before the Pzf30.
The Pzf 30 was developed because the Klein tended to ricochet off of tanks. So they redesigned the warhead. This also
allowed them to increase penetration to 200mm making it a more effective weapon. Its main downside being that 30 m wasn't
all that far from someone in a tank shooting at you... so they increased the diameter of the tube and increased the propellant
in the 60.
The 100 Is the same weapon (diameter and warhead wise) but the stabilizing fins were shaped differently and I think they
added a second pouch of propellant in the tube further behind the first that was ignited by the first pouch going off.
As for the warhead and Det for it, Most of the people on here have posted very interesting videos and methods with shaped
charges, so finding info on that isn't difficult.
Which leads me to How the Germans Got theirs to explode: The F.P.Z 8003 (Search and see how brilliant the Germans were.
Simple yet safe and effective.)
kaiserbill December 3rd, 2007, 03:30 AM
Thanks tiac03, sounds like an interesting project. I'd completely forgotten about the Panzerfaust 30 Klein, so thank you for
the correction.
Have you used the 32mm diameter pipe due to unavailability of the 40mm pipe where you are? I take it the pipe is
seamless? It would be of great interest to see the finished article and to hear the results of any tests your friend may conduct.
tiac03 December 3rd, 2007, 04:18 PM

I actually came across it sitting in someones basement and they were about to throw it out. I took it and cut it to size. I still
haven't had the opportunity to weld the sheet metal to the tube because I ran out of wire for my welder so as soon as I do get
her running I'll weld it to the tube. I'll post pics of finished product and If it works properly I'll scan the templates I made for
the firing mechanism and sight and post'em up. I can't guarantee the amount of time Before I get to test it since I don't get
out of the city often anymore. Maybe If I get her done by new years I'll test it then.
I'll also post up any other info that I have gathered during this project including the functioning of the fuze and the pictures of
open ones.
kaiserbill December 4th, 2007, 03:25 AM

tiac03, thanks for the feedback. Sorry about the delay, but as I'm a newbie my correspondence must be moderated first as
you know.
It would be most interesting if you did manage to get the infernal thing to work as planned. And if so, those templates and
drawings of your success would be most interesting to a likeminded fellow such as I, and no doubt many others here. It would
also serve as motivation for my own project, which unfortunately only consists at the moment of some pipe, sheet metal, and
drawings.
dougpfaff December 4th, 2007, 08:02 PM

I'm working on building one of Frank Dehaas's Chicopee Rimfire rifles in .22LR. It's a long-term project. Don't know what kind
stock I'm gonna put on it yet.
tiac03 December 6th, 2007, 10:28 PM

Well I got some pics of my "trigger" sight group for the Panzerfaust. It isn't completely done yet so excuse the super heavy
duty holder-togethers and the altogether non-finished look...
This is only pictures of my unfinished part, I didn't bother taking a picture of the pipe because well... it's a pipe.
This is the firing mechanism together and in "ready to be fired position". Note missing safety and the sight holes are not cut
out.
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5572/img1497mx0.th.jpg (http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=img1497mx0.jpg)
This is in "fired" position. Notice I'm still missing the primer well (it looks like a nut sitting near the back end if you see one in
pictures)
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5103/img1496yp4.th.jpg (http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=img1496yp4.jpg)
This is the exploded side view. The Piece of spring steel was made from a hacksaw blade, and still requires the firing "pin" to
be attached. I'm unsure if the thin blade will have enough force to fire a shotgun primer hopefully it will once the pins weight is
added, if not I'll attempt to double it up.
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3760/img1498xk9.th.jpg (http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=img1498xk9.jpg)
This is exploded top view. I still haven't added the notch to the non-business end of the spring steel to keep it from moving
side to side.
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7467/img1499lp6.th.jpg (http://img413.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=img1499lp6.jpg)
Lastly this is a close up of just the base of the firing mechanism. and was the most difficult thing to find information on due to
never being exposed in pictures(the safety was second). The cuts still have to be welded shut (once mounted) and the two
sets of little notches towards the front have to be bent around the safety when it is installed.
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9666/img1500eh9.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?
image=img1500eh9.jpg)
So hopefully in the next couple of weeks I can have it up and running and able to test whether it can fire the primer.
As I've stated before this is a "see if I can do it" project and not a real use every day "tool". So as long as I get one
successful test firing out of it I'll be happy to retire it. So please spare me the "why are you wasting your time making this if
you can make a _______ and use it over and over again easily" posts.
kaiserbill December 14th, 2007, 06:35 AM

Bravo!! Seems like your project is coming together quite nicely. Have you decided to use a shotgun primer as a matter of
expediency, or to try and match as closely as possible the original? The primer/detonator is one of the few pieces on the
Panzerfaust that I have no clear pictures or diagrammes for, apart from your usual military book side-profile cutaways.
Thanks for posting the pictures tiac.
Edit: tiac03, just for interest sakes, I understand why you would want to end up with an RPG-2 type device over the
Panzerfaust. The RPG had its black powder propellant charge preloaded into cardboard holders, which were inserted into the
RPG-2 warhead tube before firing. The obvious advantage is that you do not have to throw away the launch tube. That might
be fine for the government with all their resources, but will be a tad expensive and wasteful to the average citizen. It will also
facilitate rapid reloading, although I would imagine your launch tube would have to be a more substantial and better quality
item.
tiac03 December 26th, 2007, 02:41 AM

Warhead detonator or you mean the Primer for firing the warhead out of the tube.
Primer I will use a shotgun primer, which according to what I read was close if not the thing used. Have side views of the primer
"well".
Detonator I have a cross section drawn view, along with the written explanation and some pictures of one taken apart.
HypocriticalBuddhist January 2nd, 2008, 06:22 PM

A meteor hammer. 12ft of rope with a rusty knife at one end and a monkey fist with a 1" diameter lead fishing weight on the
other.

I went out and bought 3.5 feet of steel tube. Inner diameter 1.75 inches. Wall thickness .75 inches. I had a welding shop seal
one end with 3 inches of 1.73 diameter steel round. It works exactly like a civil war cannon. ie. gunpowder charge, wadding and
the shot. It can fire a golf ball(diameter 1.68 inches) through about 4 inches of plywood. Ive bought truck bearings and fired
them through 1 foot thick cinder block walls. homeade of course, hahah I'm no terrorist. Ive used it like a glorified shotgun,
loading half inch steel shot into it, thats my favorite so far. I wont lie and say Ive built and used these, but I have made full
scale schematics for impact grenades and a special shot that penetrates an object and then explodes, somewhat like a bunker
buster but not at all. I came up with a real clever spring loaded grappling hook. IF, and i stress if, I get around to making it, I
could find my way to the top of just about anything. I'm working on a discarding sabot round right now, very excited. If
anybody would care to help, im not entirely sure on the right materials for the impact grenade. If anyone wants more info im
also willing to provide that. I have plans for a homemade mortar and shells. And recently ordered a book on expedient
homemade sub machine guns. This is my first post, I sure hope i followed all the many rules. Cheers.
Boom-stick March 7th, 2008, 01:11 PM

SWIM made a compressed air projector (air gun)out of a pen shaped precision oiler. It fires a 3" steel wire dart through 3/4"
of wood at 30':) also fires .22 airgun pellets, 6mm BB's and ...well pretty much anything else that will fit in the bore.:cool:
Charles Owlen Picket March 8th, 2008, 09:09 AM

I think I've finally hit upon the method to make a portable Exploding Bridge Wire unit. The professional boxes are about 1-2
thousand dollars depending upon features and manufacturer. Essentially you need high amps and voltage. A serious jolt; to
vaporize the wire. Most of the units actually have a high voltage warning on them. Some are not portable. My unit cost will
average about $250-300 depending upon layout and container.
Most all of this spins around ignition systems for high performance racing automobiles. The coils used for Drag-strip oriented
vehicles are 2 AMP, 45,000 VOLT MONSTERS! (Those are REAL numbers) Additionally the newer CD ignition systems replace
points on cars today and provide a method to get all of this in a shoe-box sized device with a battery large enough to get the
current/voltage devil churning.
My first few setups were very dangerous. I don't think I will ever have a system that is as safe as a stick welder but they DO
vaporize wire up to about 28/30 size and any material that happens to rest on it. Give an idea what 1.5-2 amps @ 40k volts
will do .....it will basically knock all the feathers of any bird dumb enough to land on it, turn a ground squirrel inside out, burn
off a finger completely or stop your heart if it runs across your chest in most any way, etc. It's NOT a lightweight shocker...
With such a thing, ETN become one Hell of an initiator in & of itself.
iHME March 9th, 2008, 06:29 PM

That sounds scary and awesome at the same time.
Charles Owlen Picket March 11th, 2008, 12:04 PM

Most everyone has heard of the booby-trap device that is a simple rifle round in a tube. Buried in the ground the victim steps
on it and the round discharges into the foot.
This has been made into a high art by some countries that actually manufactured some of these very simple devices. What
was utilized was a "ballpoint pen" spring concept within the tube and a well made firing pin to provide inertia enough from a
simple step to fire the round.
The biggest problem was not the spring within the tube but the firing pin. If the pin were just a simple nail type affair the
alignment would need to be exact. But there is a product that is available that makes this device virtually infallible. This is the
"dowel center". These can be very inexpensive (they very in price but there are cheap ones) and a large amount can be
obtained at once.
The dowel center is an all steel cylinder of various sizes that has a very sharp cone that functions as a firing pin. The
alignment no longer has to be perfect to allow the discharge of the cartridge. Since it is a one time wonder, the complexities of
the high level manufacturing process are not needed. To make this work with a SLOW FOOT FALL (the biggest problem) the
spring is used with a cardboard or thick paper cylinder inside of the tube. When the victim steps in it, the inside cardboard tube
is crushed, even if the foot fall is slow, so that a sudden drop of the cartridge against the firing pin is guaranteed; firing the
device.
In fact it can even be made with PVC and still function with as little as a 2x4 falling atop it. Very inexpensive, easily hidden,
and works every time... Very scary indeed....
The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Plans for Rocket Launchers - Archive
File
Log in
View Full Version : Plans for Rocket Launchers - Archive File
megalomania May 24th, 2003, 02:37 PM

Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 10-18-2000 03:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always dreamed of making a rocket high quality rocket launcher which i can use time and time again... ideas have
pondered in and out of my head.
Has anyone out there got any good ideas to suggest on making these devices? I was thinking of making my rockets out of
Estes D class engines but i have had trouble with stabilisation with those things.
A major question which i cant seem to answer is- I want the rockets to have solid fins not flexible plastic shite. So how do i
make the rockets leave the barrel accuratley without flyin all over the place? I would need a type of internal guidance system
within the rocket laucnher maybe like rails or a long wire shaft running down the centre!
anyways this is just food for thought. What im interested in is any ideas which u may have for me, Stats, ANYTHING.
Also for those ppl who have made these... if u use D size engine what weight should the whole rocket be and what length
should the body tube be?
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited October 18, 2000).]
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 10-18-2000 10:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
keep the rocket's center of gravity at the exact center of its diameter.
also, you can attach a peice of string to the rockets center of gravity with some tape,
and swing it over your head, if the rocket's nose remains pointing forward,
and the rocket remains stable,
then the rocket's design is good.

NONE of these methods insure that the rocket will fly properly,
if you ask me,
adding a large explosive charge to a homemade rocket is an "interesting" way to die, so, DONT DO IT (please)!
[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited October 18, 2000).]
MrReTaRdEd
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From: im not saying
posted 10-18-2000 03:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must have tried those damn modle rockets 50 times. I had a program that would design the rockets to that they would have
a correct center of ballance and when i swung them around my head they worked.
unfortuately when they come out of the tube they are going a hole lot faster and have lose all stability. I never put explosives
on it, because im not that stupid.
Look into RPG's they are probly a hole lot easier to make.
Oh yeah I would delet that monkey. The moderators have warned about that.
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 10-18-2000 09:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you put another set of fins on the front of the rocket( maybe about a third the way down its length )that should help in
stabilisation. this would look like the patriot missile
Pyroboy
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: Melbourne
posted 10-19-2000 01:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing you mite want to do is add holes or just one hole to the end of the pipe so as the rocket bilds up power the gases
have somewhere to go. Azazel I mite have already told you about this on the phone I can't remember. But one time I made
this big ass rocket and put it down into a steel pipe closed off at one end. When I lit it up the gases poped the rocket out of
the pipe, then it fully powed up and went all over the football field through some trees and accross a road and into some guys
front yard. (man did we run like hell)
So, my point is if you want it to go straight, your going to have to get the rocket to its full power first. I could explane this all a
lot better, but I just can't spell for shit. (thats what happends when you never go to school) hehe
PYROBOY....
Jhonbus
Frequent Poster
Posts: 351
From:
posted 10-19-2000 07:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Placing extra fins closer to the nose of the projectile will only make it more unstable.
An idea would be to cut 3 slits down the "barrel" and then glue more pipe sections over the slits to make them rigid. (does this
make sense?) maybe a diagram
....
.....V
ok, so that was the shittest diagram ever, but i cannot be bothered to draw a proper one.
------------------
A physicist can make a bigger explosion than a chemist ever did
http://www.geocities.com/jhon_bus/
Ho ju
Frequent Poster
Posts: 308
From:
posted 10-19-2000 08:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
make sure that the fins you make are touching the inside of the tube. this will help stabalize the rocket. you can also make
the nose buldge out to touch the inside of the tube. this will all make it so the rocket does not rattle in the tube. it works.
------------------
-Knowledge is power, power leads to corruption, corruption is a crime, crime doesn't pay... So if you know to much, you will go
broke!!!!
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 10-19-2000 10:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if all the posts i did on my cannon/rocket launcher are still around in the archives. There's a lot of info in there that
might be helpfull, but its too much to resubmit.
I had the same dilema you did. And i settled on folding fins for my rockets. I havnt quite perfected it, as some things have
come up in my life that are taking up a lot more of my time, and also .. the weather is turning shitty this time of year... so i'll
be stalled on any further testing until spring.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 10-19-2000 11:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recomend puting a lanching rod similar to the on the estate lauch pad. Make sure it is fairly rigid though, over wise it doesn't
work very well it stats to shake the rod and then your rocket will shake in flight and not be accurate. Maybe Pred still has that
schematic from his site. I will check if I still do, if he doesn't.
------------------
"It is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his
death or to victory"
--Che Guevara 1928-1967
Agent Blak----OUT!!
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 10-20-2000 01:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok i think i understand what you mean...
so i get an aluminium pipe or PVC and have it nice fitt with the rocket body. Cut 3 STraight slots down the lenght of the tube.
The rocket body will slide down the tube and the fins will stick out of the slots. then put another larger pipe on the outside...
Hmmm very interesting. This sounds good to me... thanx people....
Oh by the way sorry for the monkey thingy i thought it was gona come out small... also thanx for not being a prick to me for
doing that!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 10-20-2000 11:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're saying that if I had, that I would be a prick?
What does a moderator do? THEY MODERATE! That means keeping things smooth in the forum, including giant monkey
heads.
------------------
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 10-21-2000 07:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nah certainly didnt mean to insult
i just often see other people on this forum making unnecessary comments to others for doing silly things. so far i aint copped
one of these yet! im not calling you a prick, actually ure a help to us all for keeping this place in order and for making sure
stupid topics get locked. Great work!
oh by the way if i ever make one of these ill be sure to post them on a site and ill try to put videos or any such on!
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 10-25-2000 02:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm... that idea with the 2 barrels and slits in the inside barrel realy does work. i'm certainly pleased with the result! (and i
also used two sets of fins on the rocket)
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 10-25-2000 04:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm so someone has tried it out
sick!
Im gona build one soon im just tryin to figure out how long my rockets need to be seeing as im using D size estes engines
and shit... for practice i figured rather than use actuall AP or explosive i will fill the war head with flour or something and pack it
down hard just to Mimic the weight of what i intend to have as a warhead...
X=========> Rocket
___________________
X==================)Twin Segmented inner
------------------- Barrel
Hmmmm they look shit !!!!!! ARG
has anyone got any information they could post about body tube lengths for various sizes of engines and weight of payload
ans stuff like that?
hmmmm cant wait to finish this bugger so i can get plans up and running to you guys...
and a good idea i have for the warheads...

once i have properly figured out how to make the rockets fly as straight as i can get em and have them stabelized and shit ill
use a BP warhead with ballbearins for Anti Personal use... hehehehehe im still tryin to figure out what would be a better
warhead but for now that sounds saffer to use than AP or HMTD... maybe in the future ANNM but i think maybe not due to
weight and size of charges etc etc...
Hard part so far is making the slits alongside the barrel DEAD straight...
hmmm might have to borrow the circular saw from friend...
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 10-25-2000 04:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ohh by the way Bob
i have made a homemade explosive rocket before just i didnt launch it from shoulder but from a launch platform on the
ground...
i just used 3 shotgun shells worth of BP and packet it down tight and placed it all the the shotgun shell... i placed this over a c
size engine which fitter perfectly inside...
i think epoxy the whole outside and allowed to dry for a week. I placed an additional layer or carboard coverage around the
whole thing to make body dimmensions even!
i made nose cone and fins etc etc... i got it on video it was nice....
Basically it went realy high up... i lost sight of it because the tracer smoke had finished and it would be an additional 3
seconds before it reached its Apogee! Then i saw a white cloud and 2 seconds later a loud report i was happy with the results...
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 160
From: USA
posted 10-25-2000 04:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnt much want to give this idea up, but im sure (not really, but hope so) that you all would do the same thing for me. For
the fins on a rocket, shape one side flat and the other side slightly bowed, exactly like a jets wing (since we want the same
effect). Not at the first, but when the rocket is going faster I think this will give the rocket spin (and make it more stable)
provided all the fins are pointed the same way and dont counter eachother. This may have already been thought of, and am
sorry if so, but its original to me. I have not had the cash to do, but it really sounds like a good idea. One more item of
intrest it the retractable fins that pyrotek.org sells (along with many many very useful chemicals, if you aint went before GO).
Just order a catalog because their web page has 1/2 of what the catalog has. The page dont got the fins im talking about.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 10-25-2000 10:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I'm not critizing your designs, just using this topic as an excuse for a rant)
See what I've never liked about the design of rocket grain ignited payloads is the fact that if you aim at a target...then your
wasting explosives.
1/8" steel rod could be welded or secured into the head of a rocket, the rod could be sharpened into a hook shape with as
sharp a tip as possible (I'm thinkin 50deg's, tri-sided),
then again, RPG's are usually kinda tiny, so you would have to aim for a very weak structure...okay maybe it wasnt such a
good idea.
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 160
From: USA
posted 10-25-2000 04:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry, but I have no idea whay your saying (maybe becaus im watching Batman Beyond?).
[This message has been edited by Cricket (edited October 25, 2000).]
Ho ju
Frequent Poster
Posts: 308
From:
posted 10-25-2000 05:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
don't even think about using HMTD. it is way more shock sensitive than AP is. i know some of you say people are over
cautious with AP saying it isn't really all that sensitive to shock. well, HMTD is. given the slightest chance it will explode. it is
bitchy that way. so don't use it as a filler for any type of rocket.
------------------
-Knowledge is power, power leads to corruption, corruption is a crime, crime doesn't pay... So if you know to much, you will go
broke!!!!
Energy84
Frequent Poster
Posts: 89
From: Earth
posted 10-25-2000 11:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been building (and succesfully launching) model rockets for a few years now and I've seen a few tricks along the lines of
accuracy... but the best one yet is with the bowed fins. well, actually, just use a sander or somthin' like that to sand your wood
(if that's what your fins are made outta...) and make an aerofoil type of shape. just like an air plane. That should work alright.
It'll give a good spin depending on the type of airfoil...
Hey, how long r u guys making these launchers? coupla feet I hope. 'Cause without a high enough velocity, your airfoils won't
work very well. also, from all the experiments and different articles I read, fins in the front won't help a damn bit. they cause
instability with the rocket by creating too much drag in the front end. bad idea. I mean, they will work but it will take alot of
precision and care to make sure you don't screw it up. Wouldn't think u'd want a bomb turnin' around on you in midair...
anywayz, I'm gettin' tired.
Good luck
Pyroboy
Frequent Poster
Posts: 82
From: Melbourne
posted 11-01-2000 04:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres a link to some pics of that rocket I was talking about. http://www.pyroboy.8k.com/b12.html
Just to proove I was not talking shit.
PYROBOY....
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 11-01-2000 02:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use Quick drying body filler("BONDO") for my nozzles what do you use?
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
From: UK
posted 11-01-2000 05:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey
i've here for monthes....everythings changed and for the better i see.
well if anyone wants rough plans for my rocket launcher which works well with a fast reload capability which i'm quite proud of
then email me at
kingspaz@supanet.com
its for rockets up to 40mm diamter...but i suppose you could soon change the size
i'm sure anyone here could build on my design and make it far better but i'm short of cash and material sources...i live in the
uk
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
From: UK
posted 11-01-2000 05:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the first sentance was supposed to say
'i've not been here for monthes'
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 11-03-2000 01:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah.. what do you use as nozzle material? I need something more reliable!
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
posted 11-04-2000 02:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would be the greatest ammount of AP putty that you could use (in grams) for an Estes C-size rocket?
would regular AP work, or would it be too sensitive?
It would be a really bad thing to use HMTD since the initial shock of firing would most likely detonate the HMTD
what are some other alternatives for the warheads?
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 11-06-2000 04:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm i believe even Black Powder would be good and use BB's in the warhead for a fragmentation effect. May be usefull for
blinding and maiming. Not usefull for armour penetration.
For armour pen use shaped C-4 with a blasting cap.
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
posted 11-07-2000 06:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but when an estes or other rocket is through burning the propellant is obviously gone and the nozzle remains. This is not
good for black powder since it cannot be confined it simply blows out the back of the engine.
a cratermaker (CO2 cylinder bomb) would work good inside of a 3/4" schedule 40 pvc pipe and an estes C size rocket. The
fuse on the crater maker would be really short, and the propellant would be drilled into. The rocket would be epoxied into the
pipe and the cratermakers fuse would be inserted into the drilled into propellant a nose cone and some 1/4" pipe (for guide
rails) would be added
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
posted 11-11-2000 03:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it that hard to scrape off the ejection cap and charge and epoxy a plug on the end with a length of visco going through the
cap touching the delay charge?
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
posted 11-13-2000 06:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is what I always do.
I was just looking for something new to do this time that is all.
and a CO2 bomb attached to a rocket will do a hell of a lot more damage than a simple bp charge.
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 11-14-2000 04:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm crater maker wun do shit, too heavy
too ancient
to egyptian man
ok so they didnt use them but thats not the point ok
do dis
-<----#|
- nail
>< nose cone
# primer
| Solid Backing
if u can understand what i have said above simply place a primary explosive then a secondary explosive... put the primary in
front of the primer...
that way when it hits something it explodes from the back and goes towards the target.
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited November 14, 2000).]
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
posted 12-15-2000 04:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've found a good way to do fins, through a lot of trial and error (mostly error). The trick lies in putting your entire rocket
inside a tube, fins and all, that slides down the barrel of the launcher. There's a link in my signature to my crappy explosives
file. There's digrams in there, if you can't picture what I'm talking about.
------------------
The A Files
firebreether
Frequent Poster
Posts: 110
From:
posted 01-18-2001 03:50 PM
I think that a good way for rockets is like a bottle rocket method where a long dowel of a light wood down the side would
stabilize it. this way when you put it in a tube you can use a tube just bigger than the rocket itself and shoot it out faster. I
think when i get enough materials I am going to start making some missiles that are reg. rockets shot in the open,(with me a
ways a way) that pack with a delay than on to a charge of Acetone Peroxide. Here's a simple preliminary sketch. These could
be made as big or small as needed.C:\Program Files\Gregs stuff\Alpha Centauri\saves\auto\New
Folder\HighGrow\HighGrow\Gregs stuff.jpg

SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 61
From:
posted 03-10-2001 05:25 PM
Being a fng, I misposted and started a new thread, sorry. As to a reusable rocket launcher that Azazel was inquiring about. If
the rocket and launcher are both to be designed, then consider an overcaliber warhead (larger than motor) and a same size
stabalizer fin design that is ducted or surrounded with a tube slightly smaller than the launcher ID. The warhead and stabalizer
will center the rocket in the tube. The 3.5 Antitank Rocket is a good example of this concept. All leading surfaces must be
smooth and rounded.
If this is to be a shoulder fired launcher, the propellant must be totally consumed before the round exits the launcher.
Otherwise, goggles, facesheild and firesuit are reccomended.
Two notes to be mentioned are: A boreridding type safety fuze is advisable and simple and as to spin stabilizing a rocket, the
spin degrades the shaped charge effect to some degree, if this is to be a consideration.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-10-2001 08:09 PM
Do you mean something like this?
The picture was taken after it had been fired and it did not work at all! The fins as well not have been there.
Pendragon
New Member
Posts: 4
From:
Registered: MAR 2001
posted 03-12-2001 02:07 AM
I don't have time to read all of the posts for this message, but if you are trying to make a serious rocket, of high accuracy, did
you know you can by a GPS system out of radio shack for like 109.95 and then manipulate it? It isn't even that hard. It takes
like 4 other Merc switches and a few logic gates.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-13-2001 10:35 PM
yeah, and who's gonna loan you the equipment to decode the lcd panel info? most have built in processors on the back that
change the digital input of the screen to analog coridanate information. of corse you could take the signal from the lcd
processor output, but the wires are so small they are transparent! and even if you get the system to work, all you have is a
bomb that will go off when it is moved into a specific location. this would not be able to guide a rocket. and what are mercury
switches for? you coud NEVER build a rocket with gps guidance, esp since civ. units arent 100% as good or accurate as military
ones. (guess why) you would need a custom built microprocessor, a very good altitude sensor, several powerful servo's and a
hellava good rocket to be guided by that system
Anthony
Junior Member posted 03-10-2001 08:09 PM
Do you mean something like this?

The picture was taken after it had been fired and it did not work at all! The fins as well not have been there.
Pendragon
Junior Member posted 03-12-2001 02:07 AM
I don't have time to read all of the posts for this message, but if you are trying to make a serious rocket, of high accuracy, did
you know you can by a GPS system out of radio shack for like 109.95 and then manipulate it? It isn't even that hard. It takes
like 4 other Merc switches and a few logic gates.
------------------
Pendragon
PYRO500
Junior Member posted 03-13-2001 10:35 PM
yeah, and who's gonna loan you the equipment to decode the lcd panel info? most have built in processors on the back that
change the digital input of the screen to analog coridanate information. of corse you could take the signal from the lcd
processor output, but the wires are so small they are transparent! and even if you get the system to work, all you have is a
bomb that will go off when it is moved into a specific location. this would not be able to guide a rocket. and what are mercury
switches for? you coud NEVER build a rocket with gps guidance, esp since civ. units arent 100% as good or accurate as military
ones. (guess why) you would need a custom built microprocessor, a very good altitude sensor, several powerful servo's and a
hellava good rocket to be guided by that system.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Air Pressure Spud Cannon Good Seal? -
Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Air Pressure Spud Cannon Good Seal? - Archive File

Colza
New Mem ber
Posts: 12
From : New Zealand
posted 02-20-2001 05:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried building an air pressure spud canon but I can't get a good seal between the ball valve and the pressure cham ber
a n d t h e p r e s s u r e c h a m ber and the bicycle tyre valve? has anyon e ever m a d e o n e o f t h e s e s u c c e s f u l l y ? a n y o n e g o t a n y i d e a s ?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 02-20-2001 09:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I h a v e m a d e s e v e r a l p n e u m a t i c s p u d g uns, in order for us to help you, you need to tell us what is exactly is wrong, what
m aterials you have used, how you you've joined them etc.
Colza
New Mem ber
Posts: 12
From : New Zealand
posted 02-22-2001 12:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry
shouldv'e thought of that
its a sm all one (4cm diameter barrel) because i wanted to get it to work before i scaled it up. its m a d e o f p vc pipe with a
plastic ball valve and a 6 cm pressure cham ber and a bicycle tyre valve o n the back.
is th a t m o r e u s e f u l ?
Colza
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 679
From :
posted 02-22-2001 01:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By p lastic...do you m e a n P V C ? S o c k e t o r t h r e a d ?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 02-22-2001 10:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If th e valve is threaded then put som e m astik/caulk/PT FE tape on the th reads. If it's solvent welded, then you're in a spot of
bother.
Is the schrader valve fitted through an end cap? Hopefully its a threaded cap not a solvent welded one.
If its threaded, rem ove it, take out the bicycle valve out of the hole you drilledi n the cap for it, sm e a r a l o a d o f m a stik/caulk
on the circle of rubber and the base of the valve (the part where it's molded to the inner tube). The pressure inside the air
chamber of the cannon will force the rubber circle against the inside oft he end cap giving an air-tight seal.
Colza
New Mem ber
Posts: 12
From : New Zealand
posted 03-14-2001 12:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the tip with the bicycle tyre valve that seem s to have worked. I have g ot hold of a sm all solenoid valve (im
g u e s s i n g t h e y work better than ball valves?) but it is only 3 8ths of an inch i think this is probably too sm all but will it work?
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 537
From : D i z n e l a n d
posted 03-14-2001 03:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use a Motercycle tire valve, you can buy them at all motersbike stores.
they are like an ordin ary tire valve, but have a securing nut and seal, no glue, no s e a l a n t , g o o d s e a l , n o f u s s .
------------------
W hoa, where m y fingers?
-Colza-
New Mem ber
Posts: 19
From : New Zealand
Registered: APR 2001
posted 04-01-2001 06:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I scrapped that piece of shit m e s s ! ( t h e a b o v e s p u d g u n )
The new one W ORKS.
but....
o n t h e e n d o f the pre ssure cham ber is a screw thread PVC end cap. the valve I got is a sp ecial one where the pressure inside
the cham ber forces a little rub ber cup tighter onto the end cap keeping the seal good. the problem is that connecting the
p u m p to it tends to push the vale back the other way and it dissapears into the gun and you have to unscrew it all and fish it
back out! I h ave tried using thread tape(lots of) to help it fit tighter. didn't work. Silicon sealant wo uldn't stick to the rubber.
any ideas on keeping the bastard there?
------------------
Fear no more the lightning-fla sh,
Nor the all-dreaded thunder stone;
Fear not slander, censure rash;
Thou hast finish'd joy and moan;
All lovers young, all lovers mu st
Consign to thee, and come to dust.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 04-01-2001 07:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren't many glues that will stick well to rubber, so try using or mak ing a large washer and gluing to to the PVC cap so
that the whole valve sits inside the hole in teh washer. So what you've got is a ring around the valve that is level with the end
of the valve. Then glue a washer with a sm aller hole on top that the valve will get pushed against:
_______________
|..||.|***|.||.|
***** ****
________________
|.....cap.......|
|***| <- valve
||.......|| <-first washer (m inus dots)
***** **** <- secon d washer
Bow to my alm ighty a rtwork.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > death ray - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : death ray - Archive File

mr_evill
New Member
Posts: 5
From: uk
posted 03-03-2001 05:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GIGANTIC DEATH-RAY PROJECTOR
Big Tesla coils produce arcs many feet in length. These arcs take on
a sort of crawling fractal shape. What if they could be shaped into
perfectly straight lines? Then we would have a "death ray" generator
which resembles those found in hundreds of SF movies. Here's a
possible way for tesla coil hobbyists to accomplish just this feat
in the real world.
Build yourself a squirt gun. Power it with a couple hundred PSI

air compressor. An old CO2 fire extinguisher would make a good
water resevoir. Drive the tilt/pan motion remotely with cables and
pulleys. Give it a mechanical valve, controlled by another cable.
Install the entire thing in the main terminal of a large Tesla Coil. Use
nonconductive materials for the control cables and air hose, of course.
When the TC runs and the squirt gun squirts, the arc discharge will follow
the row of conductive water droplets! Looks just like a Phaser weapon
from Trek! (maybe put some metal salt copper chloride in the water to
give the arc's plasma a green color.)
If you REALLY wanted to get ridiculous, you could install the squirt gun
with its aim fixed axially upwards, then TILT AND PAN THE ENTIRE TESLA
COIL SECONDARY! Here's where a "magnifier" Tesla Coil might work better
than a standard TC.
Remember those truck-mounted beam weapons used in the first Godzilla

movie? Go for it!
The above is totally a thought experiment. Perhaps the arc won't even
follow the water jet for very long distances. Perhaps the steam will
cool things down and quench the arc. Perhaps you'll have to use
WD-40 and magnesium powder instead of water.
Prototyping test: poke a hole in a can bottom, suspend it from insulators,

hook it to a neon sign transformer, fill it with various liquids,
let it dribble into a grounded sink. Turn it on and see what
kind of arcing effects are obtained.
Other ideas: put various salts in the water to color the arc. Sodium
gives yellow/orange, strontium red, copper blue/green, etc. Use
several water tanks with various salts, and switch between them with
a high-speed valve to get a multicolored tracer-bullet effect. Also,
I've heard that there are particular salts which one can inject into
flames in order to cause conductivity. If these materials were placed
into the water jet, perhaps much longer "death beams" could be attained.
Obtain a 100hp gasoline generator, mount the whole affair on a flatbed

truck, shave your head, wear a white lab coat, put some copper sulphate
in the water to get a nice green effect, then go hold up a bank while
screaming:
I HAVE NO USE FOR YOUR PITIFUL CURRENCY, I SIMPLY WISH TO

ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF...
***SUPERMAN***!!!
YOUR PUNY MENTAL-WARDS AND EXCESSIVELY SMALL PROJECTILE WEAPONS

ARE USELESS AGAINST THE POWER OF MY PLASMA BEAM GENERATOR!
SUPERMAN! WHERE ARE YOU! LEX LUTHOR SAYS COME TASTE

KRYPTONITE DEATH!!!!!
(If you forget to wear a flak jacket under your lab coat, don't
come whining to me!)
any more idears
Ctrl_C
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 03-03-2001 10:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hrmm...i'm guessing the medication wore off halfway through the post.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 03-03-2001 11:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Way to impress the whole forum with the first post.
To me, it sounds more like the purple plasma beam in the arcade game, Raiden II.
I suppose a tracer type projectile that leaves conductile material after its wake will be faster, cleaner, cheaper and furthur than water jet?(a small rocket that leaves sulphur
vapor and metal salt particles in its smoke for example).
Well people will tell you that the high voltage will wear off soon and taser and ion
beam have been around for ages but HEY, wacky
weapons are always fun to mess with.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 03-04-2001 12:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will have for sure have to have Ions in solution in your liquid(If H2) is used). Also Don't tesla coil(TC) just give a RF burn? you could try shooting to streams of Liquid(NaCl/
H2O) one with a + then other with - charge. You could use a 40G induction coil to power it. etc. etc. etc.
------------------
"...I Am Not Much of a Dancer But,
Just Wait Till The Fucking Begins"
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-04-2001 01:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although it was a good post is has information that was copied word for word from sources I have ran across at the teslacoil web ring.
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 03-04-2001 08:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pyro500, that's exactly what I thought, you can see that he just pasted it in, because in his post the lines don't reach the full width of the screen, when every other post does.
Machiavelli
Frequent Poster
Posts: 281
From: Germany
posted 03-04-2001 11:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A system like that with 2 electrolyte streams is in developement for crowd control.
Should be on some non-lethal weapons pages.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-04-2001 01:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the same thing in Bill Beaty's science page's.
The shit at the end is because the file was written by a "Lex Luthor".
It's here:
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/ideas.html#three
It may work though, but there'e always a risk of you getting electricuted, causing your internal artery's to burst is NOT one of the many ways to intimidate your enemy.
mr_evill
New Member
Posts: 5
From: uk
posted 03-04-2001 05:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are right I did copy that of bill B sorry i wasn't trying to copy it i just thrower it would be really cool if it worked
I might have a go at making one there are two problems with it you need a big Tesla coil to run on bathers and you don't want any of the water on you.
two good things are my dad is a plumber and this makes it easy to make the gun and I now that salt makes water much more conductive. I might use my old flame thrower
fore the high presher I always use two of them electric car pumps
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-04-2001 05:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just a suggestion but it is considered a good idea to show credit when possible
mr_evill
New Member
Posts: 5
From: uk
posted 03-04-2001 05:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry about that last post the spelling and grammar were crap any way hears is a circuit for the Tesla coil and when I misted a bit on the end I meant the pumps for car ties
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5322/coildrv.htm
Predator
Frequent Poster
Posts: 141
From: Unknown
posted 03-04-2001 09:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tesla coil designing program on my site would supplement that well..
http://www.angelfire.com/co/WildEyedPsycho/Predator.html
Link is third from the top
[This message has been edited by Predator (edited March 04, 2001).]
mr_evill
New Member
Posts: 5
From: uk
posted 03-05-2001 04:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok I am building the Tesla coil this week I have a small transformer that has an out put of 240ma I need to no how to make the cap and the main coil also do I need a cap and
please bear in mind I want to use the circuit I gave the link to so I can run it on battery what should I use fore a spark gap
please help I will be posting some pictures when it is built if it works
if you was wondering what it might be like it will be like the people on red alert you no the ones how go "power on" if you have played it
mr_evill
New Member
Posts: 5
From: uk
posted 03-06-2001 01:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have we got board with this post now
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 03-06-2001 04:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before someone locks/deletes/abandons this topic, mr_evill, you REALLY need to use the spellcheck, it wasn't put there just for the hell of it. It was put there for people like
you.
"here", not "hear"
"bored", not "board"
"tires", not "ties".
ASSGREMLIN
New Member
Posts: 16
From: NIL
posted 03-07-2001 02:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
im surprised he hasn't electricuted himself yet...
Machiavelli
Frequent Poster
Posts: 281
From: Germany
posted 03-07-2001 05:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You all had your fun, now let's get serious again, here's how the big boys/girls do it:
http://www.jaycor.com/eme/watcan.htm
"The wireless stun gun delivers a high-pressure saline solution with additives to minimize the breakup of the beam into droplets, thereby maximizing range.
Ranges of up to 20 feet have been demonstrated, while ranges of up to 100 feet or more are believed to be feasible with
improved nozzles and fluids.
A high-voltage electrical signal with low current is generated in a compact electronic package with 9-volt batteries. The impedance of the water stream is sufficiently low that it
cannot be relied on to limit current to sure-safe levels; consequently current-limiting resistors are used to limit currents to sure-safe levels.
A single stream is used to deliver the current. The return path from the target is
through the capacitive impedance between the gun and the target."
Now for everybody who wants to improvise:
fluid: pure H2O isn't very conductive, so you prepare a saturated saline solution, meaning that you throw in NaCl until it won't dissolve anymore. I don't know about the
performance of other salts als electrolytes compared to NaCl, if someone has a a better idea, please post. To prevent breakup of your water jet into mist, you need a gelling
agent to thicken the fluid, possible candidates would be starch/dextrin, various gums and salts of Alginsure (sorry I don't know the English word).
Power supply: In this example they use a stun gun, you could hook up anything you like, depending on your desired result.
Construction: Either use one jet and grounding or two jets. Build a motor powered squirt gun with a metallic nozzle, where you connect the power supply. If you need anymore
info, ask a search engine.
[This message has been edited by Machiavelli (edited March 07, 2001).]
phyrelord
Frequent Poster
Posts: 135
From:
posted 04-22-2001 02:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest for conductivity use just a little sulfuric acid. Often in science labs they use it to demonstrate hydrolosis. It increases the flow of electric very well when added to
water.

If your planning on putting sulfuric acid in your solution, you'll have to use acid-resistant materials to make the squirt gun. Probably easier just to use NaCl. I made a sweet
stun gun in power tech. class that generates about 200,000 volts. It uses two small gas engine magnetos for the main step-up transformer. I may try this gun idea, using some
kind of backpack design. Like, two of those fertilizer sprayers in a backpack hooked up to the leads of my stun gun. The nozzle part off the fertilizer sprayer is almost always
metal so it would be perfect. Mine is brass. The two nozzle/trigger assembly could be mounted side-by-side and then rigged so only one trigger operates both nozzles at the
same time.
Also, has anyone tried the deal with the NaCl stream out of a tesla coil? I don't think it will work the way everyone thinks. I built a decent tesla coil awhile ago. 400,000 volts
(12 inch spark) and when you take a wire off the top off the coil (where discharge happens) to more than a couple feet away you won't get anything out of the wire. I believe
it has to do with the magnetic fields of the secondary and primary coils. The discharge can only occur within a few feet from the secondary and primary coils. If someone can
explain this better, please do.
YayItGoBoom! October 13th, 2003, 06:15 PM

I feel very noobish dragging this old topic out but better than starting a new one. So heres the idea. Electricity and electromagnetism are essentially the same, so to solve the
problem of guidance you need....a magnetic field (duh). A setup for a coil gun or ion gun would be ideal. With a regular coil gun set up, only about 0.1% of the energy from
the capacitors transfers to the projectile. You route the discharge from the first capacitor bank to the spark gap and primary coil of the Tesla. The secondary coil would likely be
in a cylindrical shape with the larger magnetic coil or Ion gun around that (a cylinder inside a cylinder) with a crapload of insulation in between. When the device is fired, the
first magnetic coil generates a directional magnetic field (thing EMP, though I still haven't figured out how to direct it, but I sure wouldn't want to get it near my brain cells),
then the primary coil generates the charge in the secondary coil. The spark flies from the tip of the secondary and is directed by the magnetic fields to the target. The other
idea is to use a stream of negative ions fired circularly as to form a "tube" of electrons. Like charges repel, so the bolt would be guided through the center of the tube.
grendel23 October 14th, 2003, 09:30 AM

Your post implies that a coil gun projects a directional magnetic field, I don't belive this is the case. The intense magnetic field is internal to the coil gun, and while there would
be some flux around the coil, it would drop off rapidly with distance, probably by the inverse square law.
The idea of the circular beam of negative ions would also be problematic, the beam would quickly diverge due to electrostatic forces. There would be one way to do it, that
would be a very intense laser with the proper wavelength to ionize a channel in the air, then send your high voltage down the channel, but if you have a laser like that, you
don't need the tesla coil.:D
Tuatara October 14th, 2003, 07:14 PM

Yayitgoboom : You desperately need to visit the library and borrow some books on electromagnetics:rolleyes:
grendel23: the laser thing has been done. The laser used was an argon chloride excimer laser, 193nm wavelength, creating a path of ionised oxygen. It is possible to do this
with a fairly small laser, then deliver a massive electrical discharge down the ionised air channel - no need for a massive laser!

Coil gun wasn't the right word, umm basically what you would need is a device that creates a directional EMP, like the argon laser idea, or a microwave pulse. I had wanted to
test this idea out, but the long range magnetic field idea sounds way too improbable. And I doubt a laser pointer will cut it. Perhaps a microwave emitter attached to an
amplifier and directing dish (like those directional electronics scramblers or the military pain beam - basically long range microwave). Thats risky itself, mess up the director and
I'll be done over like leftovers :eek: .

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Trying to make a paintball/dye gun. - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Trying to make a paintball/dye gun. - Archive File

Fattony
New Member
Posts: 5
From:
posted 03-14-2001 11:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been working on a paintball gun based around the MA's spudgun and was wondering if there were any known difficulties or safety hazzards???
------------------
As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil. For I am it...... With the Lord as your shepherd beware me, for I am the wolf.....
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-15-2001 12:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"MA's spudgun"
Being specific is always appreciated.
Fattony
New Member
Posts: 5
From:
posted 03-15-2001 02:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MakeShift Arsenal's Spud Gun.
------------------
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-15-2001 04:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still kinda vaque! there were 2 spudguns in the makeshift arsenal, I think Lowry even mentions that his combustion blew up.
Foodos
Frequent Poster
Posts: 210
From:
posted 03-15-2001 04:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
combustion will probably just shatter the paintball anyway, search for pneumatic spud gun, or just spud gun and you will get tens of thousands of pages with easy ass plans.
On a paintball gun, you may as well buy one, spud guns are really single shot which is worthless for paintballing (unless your tagging random things I guess).
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-15-2001 04:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$20 will get you a 50shot C02 paintball gun, you'd be hardpressed to make a single shot penumatic gun for $20.
Fattony
New Member
Posts: 5
From:
posted 03-15-2001 11:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and the cheapest paintball gun I've seen was 900. Apart from a little kiddy one.
------------------
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 03-16-2001 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i paintball and the gun you want is a brass eagle talon it is $23 (US) they sell it at www.thesportsauthority.com however it is a pump action plastic gun i have a tippman 98
custem about $150 (US) i like it but i do also have a talon
Sgt_Starr
Frequent Poster
Posts: 120
From: Petersburg
posted 03-23-2001 09:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey lesb,
where did you get your Tippman?
------------------
"Oh Sh".::BOOM::((later
in front of saint peter))
"it"
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 03-23-2001 11:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i bought mine at a local paintball store but www.countypaintball.com has good prices as does www.paintballgear.com i've bought stuff from both of them and they are both
good
[This message has been edited by lesbianloverjon (edited March 23, 2001).]
Frosty
New Member
Posts: 28
From:
posted 04-03-2001 04:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made a small combustion paintball gun.I used a 1.5 liter pop bottle for the combustion chamber and a big aluminum tent pole for the barrel. It worked really good. It shot
paintballs about, ahh I would say 200 to 250 fps maybe.......
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 04-06-2001 10:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's about what a talon shoots a tippmann shoots about 300 fps +
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 537
From: Dizneland
posted 04-07-2001 06:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheapest 900, ha ha ha ha... where did you find one costing that.... Harrods? Was it gold plated or something...
I own a Pirhana Semi-Auto with a 32oz gas (I think) tank + all equipment for 400 from
"Fat Bobs" (do a search).
You'd never be able to play at a site with a friggin air cannon either.
------------------
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-07-2001 07:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the beauty of hiding some desolate fields or woodland and playing there.
When my mates get sorted with those cheap 12gm CO2 guns (like the $20 ones from Wallmart) I'm gonna show up with a 2" bore compressed air paint shotgun and waste the
MoFu's! Muhahahaha
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-07-2001 09:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you'll have a backup gun too right?
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 04-08-2001 06:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good one Anthony, lol
Speaking of spudguns, I know this is a bit off topic, but anyway. I modified my combustion gun so that a 20mm copper pipe can fit on it, I can now shoot marbles!!! HAHAHA! I
shot it and it sounded like a bloody gunshot, my God, that's bloody loud. It's the bottle trap gun, with a bunch of funky attachments on it, they came with a sink kit. I can fit
paintballs in there as well, but I don't think it would be a nice experience being shot with it. Hmmmm, I might just go and ruin someone's paint job on their car.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-08-2001 01:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shouldn't need a backup since no one would come near me after getting hit with this thing, can you imagine how much it would hurt getting hit in the chest by 30-40
paintballs at close range???
A backup would be a good idea though incase they all try to rush me when I'm reloading, so probably the shitty $20 "Blade" gun and some paint grenades. Hmm, might be
able to setup so paint claymores too, hehe. I love paintball.
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 04-08-2001 04:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have plans for a paint mine. (I made the plans + the mine) so post here and tell me how u want me 2 send em.
also check out this site
http://www.netnormal.com/users/mad_scientist/main.html
[This message has been edited by lesbianloverjon (edited April 08, 2001).]
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
From: Danbury,CT,U.S.A
posted 04-08-2001 09:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatton:What kind of power are you looking for?How big can it be?How much do you want to spend?I could help if you answered these simple q's.-Pyro
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 04-09-2001 11:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Anthony:
A backup would be a good idea though incase they all try to rush me when I'm reloading, so probably the shitty $20 "Blade" gun and some paint grenades. Hmm, might be
able to setup so paint claymores too, hehe. I love paintball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Blade" is essentially the same gun as the "Talon" I mentioned earlier in the topic. The only difference is the shell.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 04-09-2001 11:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with no rifling (like on a spudgun) is that if you fire the paintball at a high velocity (combustion's are non-adjustable) then the paintball "circles", or "wobbles" in
the air, you usually end up missing your target horribly.
If you can find a paintballstore that sells a long enough barell, you could thread the barel to mnpt and use it as a spudgun barell, that would kick ass.
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-09-2001 02:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, when i built my "sniper rifle" spudgun i got a custom lathed barrel that has, that's right, wet your pants, a rifled barrel. It has 6 grooves and accuracy and
range was increased immediately. The guy who did this can be found at www.goldmann.com(with 2 n's).Unfortunately he stopped doing this due to his college work or
something.-Pyro
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-09-2001 03:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't know that jon. The funny thing about my Blade was that having got it home I dropped it and the barrel snapped off Managed to fix it though, found some smooth bore
chromed steel tube of the exact calibre, drilled out the old barrel and the barrel inside the gun and glued it on. Seriously not worth it if I had been able to just buy another gun
but at least the barrel is a bit longer now.
I'm gutted Ed Goldmann has shut down business - I need some spudgun bits!
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-09-2001 08:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony-I still have some things left over from when i bought an order from him if you want to buy them. I'll sell the same price if your interested. I've got some 100 PSI
gauges, 1 1/2" rifled PVC barrel(3'),1 shrader valve,and alot of 3/4-4" PVC pipes(most in 6 or 7 foot lengths).Later-Pyro
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 04-09-2001 11:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony listen to me...don't bother fucking around with the "blade" or "talon" piece of shit guns. Just get a Tippmann '98 Custem. Get a good barrel. I belive it is $125 (us$)
from http://www.paintballgear.com Also the spyder 2000 compact is another piece of shit. My friend bought 1 used it 2 times, he sold (for parts b/c it broke) it to somebody in
FL (that dicked him out of the money)
Sako
New Member
Posts: 38
From:
posted 04-10-2001 01:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is kind of off the topic, but its still about paintball guns
I'm work on a copy of Brass Eagle's tiger shark. Im making it scratch. The valve is about 1/3 of the way done . Any ways I don't know what I should do for the barrel. I was
thinking of using a .40 cal. blow gun barrel. that way I could use the smaller ball, hopefully get more fps and use the blow gun darts. Or do you guys think I should stick to the
.68 cal.?
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-10-2001 11:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that that is an ingenious idea. That's gonna be alot of working making a copy of a commercial though, i hope your in for the long haul. I think you should definitely stick
with the .40 cal(although if you are into the idea of blowgun's for barrels i suggest that you get a .50 cal because it has more power and the .50 cal paintballs pop easier than
the .40's)but what you should do it rig up some sort of valve to control the amount of CO2/Nitrogen that is let out per shot(if your even using those two).This way when you
are on the field you can regulate it down to appropiate speeds(300-400 FPS) and when you want to impress people you can shoot darts at 700 FPS through a TV screen.
My 1 cent-Pyro
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 01:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My problems with homemade air weapons are that you need to really make your own valve, and I can not find any diagrams/plans on how to make these. If anyone could
provide these I would be very happy.
------------------
Visit me at www.surf.to/eliteforum
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 04:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon calm down mate! I only bought it for pissing about. I like paintball but I'd have to play more often to spend 150 on a real gun.
Thanks for the offer pyro but I was going to put an order in for a load of those schrader valves but then he closed down. I found an alternative closer to home today so I'mn
alright for valves now Thanks again.
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-10-2001 09:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No problem,but remeber, if that "close to home" source falls through, you know who to call-Pyro

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > US military have made a phaser!!! - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : US military have made a phaser!!! - Archive File

Fattony
New Member
Posts: 5
From:
posted 03-14-2001 11:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've only read some vague reports about initial tests and stuff but it sounds good. It uses focussed EM waves to rapidly heat the targets skin. Which I thought sounded like a
microwave. I then thought "hmm? I could tear apart a microwave and use the emitter and some Lead to make a long range ignition system. I'm working on it and was
wondering if any of you knew about Microwave ovens??
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-15-2001 10:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made one, they will destroy praticly any transistorised equipment in the path of the beam I have some pictures but I am having trouble posting them. you can see them on
the front page of my site at
http://www.geocities.com/pyro2000us/
[This message has been edited by PYRO500 (edited March 15, 2001).]
Colza
New Member
Posts: 12
From: New Zealand
posted 03-16-2001 08:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That sounds kinda like an EMP. Has anyone experimented with EMP grenades or just EMP in general?
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 03-17-2001 10:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's HPM (High Power Microwave), not EMP. EMP is a short, very powerful pulse of maybe only a hundred cycles, HPM is in bursts of much greater length, but less power.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-17-2001 12:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, mine is high power microwave, it outputs microwaves at every other cycle on a 60 hz wave, withc is 30 pulses a second
it is really simple, it just is a microwave magnetron with a diode, capacitor and a BIG unlimited current transformer. I managed to use all the parts from one microwave, even
the blower. but it gets VERY hot and will sometimes trip circuit breakers after being on for only 4 min. I need to get a good variac and a bettter em field strength meter for this
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-17-2001 02:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
heheh, not to mention effective shielding for your more important "bits".
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-17-2001 04:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is directional, I never stand in fornt of it while it is on. I can measure the microwave fields with a voltmeter probe I have that has lots of coils of wire inside, and a small
circuit I am in the safe zone, my death ray pegs the meter when it's in the beam otherwise, nothing
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-17-2001 07:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j/k Pyro, I'm sure you know not to get in front of that thing.
A question though. The picture you posted shows the magnetron/magnet/coil assembly (and all other parts) exactly as used in a conventional microwave oven. Wave
propagation from a MW source mounted in this way will be almost hemispherical, that is, not very directional at all. Have you experimented with a waveguide or horn to
narrow and concentrate the beam?
A problem which may be causing excessive heating and high current draw is the absence of an effective load. Prolonged unloaded operation at high output levels will quickly
destroy most transmitting tubes - and klystrons/magnetrons are no exception.
A note on the original topic: From what I understand, the gizmo developed by the Army for offensive use is a very high power, highly directional millimeter wave device. While
a microwave oven operates at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, millimeter wave frequencies are in the band 30 GHz to 300 GHz - a completely different animal.
[This message has been edited by c0deblue (edited March 17, 2001).]
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-17-2001 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I now have a grounded copper flange on the insulating part of the tip of the magnetron.
as for sophistication and making it run at another frequency I like it the way it is it is simple and it works. the beam is about an inch wide and I want to make a better more
concentrated waveguide other than just crimped copper pipe but it cant touch the tip of the megnetron and i think I need to get the waveguide the right hiegth. I dont really
care if the thing burns out beacuse I can get spare parts at a surplus store nearby, but first I would just got to the dump and get another microwave. I want to get some high
capacity capicitors and some gell cell batteries for a portable version. as for the heat, all microwave magnetrons put out alot of heat, but microwaves use that heat also to cook
the food, that is what the fan is for. the transformer I have will put out 2000 volts at a half an amp! that is some serious wattage! that will easily fry you and kill you in a heart
beat (your last) microwave transformers can melt glass with their hot arcs
Fattony
New Member
Posts: 5
From:
posted 03-19-2001 10:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know but I meant that hearing about the phaser made me think of a microwave weapon.
------------------
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 04-18-2001 10:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i read somewhere that someone made a Phaser by sending eletricity down a laser beam......fiction?
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-18-2001 04:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thatdepends on what your idea of a phaser is
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 04-19-2001 02:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont know, but I wonder if its possible..?
The Bastard
New Member
Posts: 2
From: UK
posted 04-19-2001 06:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read in New Scientist a while back that they made a proper phaser, as i understood it neway,it sent electricity down two paths of ionised molecules or something.Shoulda
payed more attention in my Physics lessons I guess.The actual "phaser" thing was about the size of a kitchen table they said.
Machiavelli
Frequent Poster
Posts: 281
From: Germany
posted 04-20-2001 05:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from using em radiation there are several "phasers" similar in design to an Air-Taser. Pathways for conducting electricity are
wires, shot out from the taser
+ cheap, light weight
- low range, works only at line of sight, one shot device
electrolyte fluid streams, look here:

http://theforum.virtualave.net/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000150.html
+ can go over obstacles, multi shot, cheap
- low range although higher than wire devices, bulky electrolyte tank for longer operation
uv-laser beams. 2 laser beams are used to create channels of ionized air which conduct electricity.
+ long range, multi shot, precise targeting possible
- uv-lasers are damn expensive and need a bulky power supply, works only at line of sight
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 04-30-2001 02:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you get a high power pulsed CO2 laser, then it'll be able to ionise a long thin cylinder of air which you could send electrical currents down. But unless you send a lightning bolt
down it there's no point, because the laser beam will destroy just about anything by itself!

These posts are pretty old, before I was a member but sence they are here I'll add my 2-bits. I know of two larger Phaser/Laser miltary projects. One is the ABL Airborne Laser
which is mounted in the nose of a 747, this weapon system will be able to hit missles up to 400 miles away and even engage ground targets. The next is an SBL Spaceborne
Laser that will be kind of like the SOL from Akira. A friend of mine worked on a project of outfitting and transporting an F-15A test Aircraft for weapon trials. The test is to have
a running F-15 in the test range and engaged by the Laser at like 30 miles up. I'm not sure if the effect they are looking for is total destruction or just a local EMP type effects
like scrambling, destruction of electrical and avionic systems. I saw some cool pics of the F-15 being picked up by a Marine CH-53 to be taken out to the test range at Eglin.
zeocrash May 25th, 2003, 01:46 PM

the microwave device refered to in the original post is not what you would really call a phaser, it is very bulky and is operated from the back of a humvee. so i wouldn't worry
about seeing local cops set "phasers to kill".
Tuatara May 26th, 2003, 11:38 PM

The airborn laser project is based on the COIL (chemical oxygen/iodine laser), which puts out around 40kW at a wavelength of 3um. It is a heat energy weapon, not EMP.
Laser Tasers use an argon chloride excimer laser, 193nm wavelength, which ionises the oxygen in the air to create the conductive path. You would need an insanely powerful
CO2 laser to achieve the same effect.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Pellet Gun to Airsoft Gun - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Pellet Gun to Airsoft Gun - Archive File

SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 03-29-2001 11:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any of you play airsoft you know the prices are insane. I was thinking I could modify a normal Benji 392 .22 pellet rifle to shoot the 6mm plastic BBs. The velocity w ould
increase but I could control how fast it would go by the number of pumps I give it.
Would it be possible to do?
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-29-2001 11:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem w ith that is the reload time, And, my airsoft feild inspects guns for regulations.
SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 03-30-2001 12:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but it would be a sniper rifle. Long distance.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-30-2001 01:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Airsoft plastic BB w on't go long range it's far too light, even if it did accuracy w ould suck.
BTW Airsoft BB's are 6mm, .22 is 5.5mm so they might not even fit.
SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 03-30-2001 01:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yah I know ,
Couldn't you get a .243 Winchester Barrel or a 6mm barrel and just weld it on?
Accuracy does sucks for airsoft but there are airsoft "sniper" rifles but they cost around 500. Just trying to make a Poor Man's sniper rifle.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 03-30-2001 07:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKS...hmmm...another gun fan in the room.
Unfortunatly .243(6mm) bores isn't exactly 6mm. its larger (a 6mm BB isn't exactly 6mm neither, it's 5.97) plus the rifling groove w ill leak gas, anyway it's complicated and
unfit for BB.
Since you are using non-firearm, barrel

material is not restricted to metal. The fact that 6mm pipes are such rare find is bothering. Here's how you can make a
plastic/metal composite barrel for BB guns :
first you can get a thin metal pipe from hobby store (long ones, aluminum)
The outside diameter of the pipe has to be exactly 6mm or slightly larger than 6mm.
Adjust(lathe) the outside dia. of the pipe into 6mm (some hobbist have small lathe, you can ask them to do it for you, I ask my hobby
store owner to do some of my chores by paying him a small fee.)
Lap(or hand polish) the outside so it's mirror smooth.
Mix Acraglas(R) and "paint" the outside one section at a time, avoid bubbles in the resin by letting it set in a cool environment
. You need to paint it many times to get it
coated and thick enough(the resin should be thick enough for rigidity, say 5mm). Do not touch the surface of the resin while working, your sweat and fat w ill weaken it as
impurities sandwich between layers of resin.
Now you have a long metal tube coated w ith super hard resin. The surface isn't even in diameter so you take this piece to a lathe again. Use the inner metal tube as a
centerline for lathe. "Turn it to a desired thickness so it can fit snugly into another
metal tube."
Now you have a metal tube covered w ith resin in even thickness.
Soak the composite tube in acid to remove the inner metal tube. (Acraglas is not effected)
Now you have a plastic tube with inside diameter exactly 6mm.
Remember the resin tube is turned into a diameter just enough to fit in another metal
tube? Insert the resin tube into a thick, metal one.
Use glue or mini screw to secure the resin tube inside the metal tube.
Cut the bore mouth and square up the breech face.
Add protection to the muzzle end.(crowning)
Now you have a long tube of resin/metal composite, with inner dia of 6mm.
Some notes :
Acraglas Gel(R) is better than Acraglas(R) cuz the latter w ill run like liquid.
Acraglas(R) is "extremely" tough.
K&S Engineering sells very good quality tubes
, can be found in hobby stores.
A regular 6mm BB weight about 1.8 grains. That means you will get high velocity reading
if fired in a .22 modified airgun, it can harm and kill.
Hope these helps.
SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 03-30-2001 10:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks alot HTMD,
I think I could have saved you from typing all of that though. You could get 6mm barrels that were meant for airsoft guns. There either copper, brass or steel.
Here's a link:
http://ww w3.wargameclub.com/cgi-bin/cart/shopper.cgi?cat=cat_category_Barrels
I was thinking how to attach it. Could you just get the regular barrel and just bore it a little. Make it a mm or so wider. Just enough to fit this new barrel and epoxy it in. Like 2
barrels in one.
It w ould be easier then ripping off the barrel and attaching a new one. Also how hard would it be to shave off a 1-1.5mm from the original barrel?
Also would you need to adjust any valves or o-rings or anything else to compensate for the larger barrel.
SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 03-30-2001 10:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also here's a pic of a Benji 392
http://ww w.crosman.com/portal/ProdList.nsf/($All)/FFDE1F685A3B8E2785256976004BF4AD/$File/L392.jpg
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 03-31-2001 02:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boring inside a tube is a complete different story compare to turning outside of a tube.
When turning the outside, only a cutting blade is needed. When boring inside, a drill
longer than barrel is nescessary. So that's why I typed the weird plastic barrel process.
This is how a firearm barrel is bored before the rifling process.
A. a guiding drill is drilled through the barrel blank.(If the hole is drilled off-center, it w ill be discarded)
B. another drill slighly smaller than desired

bore dimension drills through.
C. a reamer turn the inside to exact dimension.
D. a button pull through the bore to smooth out and true up the inside of the bore.
---------------------------------------------
If you can bore out the original barrel for fitting the 6mm tube, bore it to exact dimension to ensure bore cocentricity. Use just a wee-bit of epoxy or lock-tite to secure it.
Making your own barrel isn't all without its advantages. For example, a 5.99mm bore can definitly shoot more accurate than 6.04mm bore due to tight tolerance.(a 0.002"
difference in the bore can make a difference)
Another advantage of self-made barrel is that they can be made thicker than conventional barrels, therefore much stiffer, fluting of the barrel is also possible.
Optimum barrel length can be optained in a DIY barrel as well. You don't see people walking around with a sawed-off PSG because people sacrifice velocity for the authentic
look of the firearm.
You don't really have to adjust anything in the original gun, it will probably shoot faster. So the trajectory changes, old adjustment on the rear sight won't w ork, should mount a
scope.
Hmmm...the Benji 392 is a pump action...that means two-piece stock. It's harder to make a two-piece-stock gun shoot better than a one-piece-stock gun, generally
speaking(since you are using it for sniping). You might w ant to bed the action or find another experiment gun with one-piece stock...just my thoughts.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-02-2001 12:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you have the "Poor mans' Sniper Rifle" if the Accuracy is shitty? If it has shitty accuaracy it is not a sniper rifle; not even for a poor man.
------------------
"...There Will Be No
Stand Off At High Noon
... Shoot'em In The Back
And, Shoot'em In The Dark"
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 04-02-2001 04:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
god, keep your air rifle, buy a proper airsoft gun. you can snipe an AEG user with a SPAS 12, the game is not to scale on realistic terms, just ask for a good gun for sniping for
around (insert $)
Donutty
Frequent Poster
Posts: 228
From: UK
posted 04-02-2001 05:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aha! A fellow airsoft player
Where you from? UK? US? Russia (SKS is a clue maybe)...
Save up for a proper airsoft sniper rifle like the APS-2 (not the Marui PSG-1).
If you carried out you modification you'd be hard pressed to find a site that would let you play w ith your mod'ed gun; needless to say that I would'nt trust someone with a
converted rifle like that!
SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 04-03-2001 10:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in New York.
Hmmm. Everyone seems so negative about the whole idea. Would the gun be w orse than a normal "sniper" airsoft rifle if I did this modification in terms of accuracy and range?
It's essentially the same thing, right?
I think you people are automatically assuming that airguns that shoot lead pellets and are used for hunting and target practice should not be combined w ith airsoft which is a
sport like paintball that involves shooting people. My idea is basically the same thing though. Air moving through a 6mm barrel. And the barrel is designed for an airsoft gun so it
would be even better.
Its the same shit.
------------------
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
[This message has been edited by SKS (edited April 03, 2001).]
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
From: somew here in florida
posted 04-04-2001 03:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to machine some solid metal stock bar the same diamater as the outside of a shotgun barrel and reaming out the inside to fit a 50 cal bmg then modding it to fit on the
shotgun! any suggestions to making anythinbg like this?
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-06-2001 02:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you know all the details about the modification.
Shotgun actions are not designed to meet
rifle pressure though. Modern shotshells generate highest around 11000psi, .50BMG as high as 60000psi.....BANG!
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-06-2001 03:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKS...your comment about people being negative should exclude me, I am totally supportive.
It's coincidence that I get the chance to check out a Benji on a gun show few days ago
(Got myself a Swedish Mauser M96 in Excellent condition for 120$CDN without tax, normally it will cost around 300+$US, quite a steal. The gun will be drilled+ tapped for scope
and bolt bent next week.)
Turns out the benji is a under-lever pump gun with a thin barrel on top of its reservoir. (Too thin, really)
There's a few reason w hy I w on't modify a benji for a sniper rifle.
1. The frame limits barrel thickness.

2. The reservoir under the barrel w ill obstruct normal barrel harmonics. The barrel should be free floated for best accuracy.
3. The gun is expensive (Used one with 200$ CDN price tag)
4. Under-lever is hard to operate in prone(sniper's favorite) position. (Side lever is the best.)
5. The gun is a pre-charged pump gun so the performance is not consistent as a single stroke piston gun. The point-of-impact changes, in other words, "the gun don't hold its
zero".
So if you ask me "what's your idea", the answer w ill be "Get a side-lever piston gun with a barrel that doesn't touch anything except the receiver. Scope + bipod".
My 2 cents.
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-08-2001 09:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking about doing the same thing but I w ouldn't dick around with a more high-end airgun like the benji. I w as thinkin' maybe just a crosman .22 cal pellet rifle
repeater(CO2,i don't like the idea of pumping in the prone position,or if a few enemies raid your fortification). Also, is there any constructive idea's about this, or is it all "shit on
the creative guy" day?-Pyro
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-09-2001 01:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If CO2 is used to power the modified airgun...wouldn't it be just like shooting a CO2 airsoft...?
It w ould be simple then. Have a gunsmith remove the original airgun barrel. Purchase
a 6mm barrel, have the gunsmith thread the breech and install it for you. (The breech should have a rubber "chamber" to temporarily hold the "chambered" BB in place)
The barrel modification is universal. The modifications on magazine and feeding mechanism vary depend upon the original design, use your common sense, improvise.
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-09-2001 02:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that's what i had in mind. But the rifle i was talking about is a bolt-action single shot pellet, so i don't think a clip w ould be worth w hat you'd have to do to the rifle. Any
idea's on that would be a help to,thanks.Here's one more gun fan for the room-Pyro
SKS
New Member
Posts: 9
From:
posted 04-09-2001 10:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTMD,
Isn't the whole free-floated barrel idea a little much. I mean this is only a plastic 6mm BB not a .308. I don't think the resevoir would really affect it. I w ould understand if you
were sniping w ith a larger caliber over hundreds of yards but not this.
Yes the fact that the Benji is pnematic might be lower consistency but again w e're only talking a few yards. 90 at the most. If I got a system down and practiced it once in a
while I think I could have very consistent and accurate shots.
I think the underlever would be a little hard to manage if I was in prone but it's all I have. There aren't really any side lever pnematics. There are side-lever springs like my RWS
but there velocity is way too high and wouldn't be appropiate. Again I could get a system down.
The barrel is thin but we're only shaving off .5mm at the most plus it would be reinforced with the second barrel so it would be made up for.
What I want to do to it is make an adjustable hop-up so I could increase its range. Also possibly make a homemade silencer to dampen the sound.
------------------
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-09-2001 11:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyro, if the rifle is a single-shot breech-feed then it only takes barrel modification.
SKS, you seem to have a solid idea in your mind already, why bother asking people here?
But it w ould be wise to believe my comments
on ballistics. Listening to other people's ideas may make you feel you've been turned down but that's the nature of "listening to others' ideas."
Maybe I said too much, if I said "excellent idea!" or "It is possible" do you think that helps?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > windrunner - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : windrunner - Archive File

frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 266
From:
posted 04-02-2001 05:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi, I believe some folks here have access to firearms (btw, maddoc, how do you get firearms as foreigner or permanent resident in USA?), I 'm interested in .50 Cal weapon
and see the forum for a while
Is anyone ever shoot an XM-107 Windrunner? How's the performance and what does it take to be permitted to buy it?
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 04-02-2001 09:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well if the XM-107 Windrunner is a .50 cal rifle and you live in the US, all you need is to be 18 with no extenuating circumstances that say you can't own a firearm. like being
on probation, felony convictions. shit like that. if you are 18+ and have a clean record in respect to felonies then you are all set.
correction, if you live in the US and you are a US citizen, then, coupled with the 18 + rule, you can easily pick up the rifle.
------------------
...
[This message has been edited by CragHack (edited April 02, 2001).]
frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 266
From:
posted 04-04-2001 02:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whattt?
wait a minute.......isn't there a law that regulate purchase of assault weapon...
I follow the news, like in California some folks have to give up their weapons cause it's considered assault rifle and eheh,
Windrunner is considered even an anti material weapons which mean it's a pure military stuff...
Are you sure with that regulation? and say to which state does it valid...(hope it's GA or FLA)
if everything is set, I'll start saving to 8000 dolar and I'll be out shooting empty can from 2500 yards, wohoooo
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-04-2001 03:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know of any laws banning assult weapons, just of laws restricting inporting them.
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 04-04-2001 03:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh i didn't relize that a .50 cal rifle was considered an assualt weapon. i have seen episodes of 60 minutes (great show by the way i love it) dealing with the government and
how they want to resrict .50 cal sales and how gun clubs that have .50 cal ranges say this is outrages. i didn't know though there were laws on the books classifying this as an
assualt weapon. i actually don't think it is. a bolt action single shot .50 cal weapon i think is just a regular old rifle. in which case my above post is correct. if in fact it is
classified as an assualt weapon you might have some trouble.
one other thing, the laws dealing with assualt weapons have to do with the importation, manufacturing, sale and ownership of weapons classified as such. not just import. and
in california they have some of the strictist laws conserning this. these laws are one reason you can't make clips that hold over 10 shots. you can buy them, just not make
them.
------------------
...
frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 266
From:
posted 04-04-2001 04:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm, I am quite lame in weaponry....
so when a rifle is single bolt action there's no way it's classified as an assault weapon even though it has something to do with military purposes (sniper & anti material )?....
Here's the article concerning the size of the ammo
The Windrunner XM-107 Tactical is a bolt-action, magazine-fed rifle chambered for the Browning Machine Gun cartridge (.50 Cal. BMG or 12.7x99mm NATO)
geez, so it is a bolt action rifle...guess I'll give a shot...wish me luck

Ah, here's a .50 cal under fire from the Barret brand homepage
Barrett Under Attack!!

Fresh on the heels of the California assault rifle law successfully prohibiting the sale
of our M82A1 semi-automatic rifle, several U.S. Senators led by the notorious Dianne
Feinstein are now beating the war drums on the latest perceived "threat" to national
security--.50 caliber rifles. Both MSNBC and Dateline NBC are preparing
"documentaries" on the .50 caliber rifles, highlighting their power and availability.
Why these events are taking place is easy to understand. Following their success
stories in banning or severely restricting what they have now dubbed "Saturday Night
Specials" and "Assault Rifles," these left-wing politicians and media are now
attempting to create a "Powerful Weapons" category. Following their familiar pattern,
these legislators and media first categorize a type of gun as being particularly
dangerous and unnecessary for civilians to possess. They proceed to demonize this
"category" so that restrictive legislation can be passed against it. When they succeed,
they never look back at the damage they have done to an industry or innocent lives,
they just move on looking for another category to restrict. Besides .50 caliber it is
possible that other calibers may be affected by the proposed legislation.
Although their claims as to the power of .50 caliber rifles are amusing, their intent is
not. Here is some of what they say about our rifles:
Capable of shooting through a steel manhole cover that is 3 inches thick. (If a
manhole cover existed this thick, it would weigh 475 pounds. Has anyone ever seen one
of these? Who would lift it?)
Accurate at ranges of 4-miles. (Are they talking about 1. A Cruise missile, 2. A rifle, or 3.
Our patented "BS" indicator? ) (Answer: 1 and 3 are accurate at ranges 4 miles and
beyond.)
Readily available to "children" 18 years old. (You 18-year olds are old enough to die for
your country but those of you diligent enough to save $7,300 for a rifle cannot be trusted
enough to own a Barrett.)
While Barrett rifles may be out of the price range of some children, the General
Accounting Office found them available on the Internet for $30.00 and reported this to
Congress as factual. (If this all werent so serious, it would be really funny!!)
Real facts and what you can do:
Rifles in the "powerful" category have been around for 100 years. In that time, the
number of civilian fatalities or use in a crime has been zero or a number very close to
zero (we are unable to find records of any .50 caliber rifles actually used in crime.)
Wed very much appreciate it if you contacted your senators and congressmen to
advise them you are against this continued assault against the gun industry. More
emphasis prosecuting criminals and less making criminals out of honest,
hard-working people would make our country better and safer for everyone.
Please find the address of your legislator at www.congress.org and voice your
opinion.
[This message has been edited by frostfire (edited April 04, 2001).]
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 180
From:
posted 04-04-2001 07:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has some BS gun laws. All the .50 cal banning is to create hype about a "threat to the public" so they can get reelected because they have such concern for public
safety. But maybe it is cause they know when they start their tyranny no amount of body guards will stop that gun. Next rifle ban I can see will be "sniper rifles". I also love
their distorted facts on this rifle. It isn't that great on personal past a mile because of degrading accuracy. More people die of being vaccinated then by civie .50 cal rifles in the
US.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 04-04-2001 08:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.click-stream.com/barrett/M82A1_Intro.ram
------------------
Go here to download the NBK2000 videos.
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 04-04-2001 09:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why not limit .308's? and .30-06's, and .223's? they are all very good sniper tools... this is all BS. they are attacking the .50 cal rifle because they can portray it as a menacing
weapon. much more so than the others i listed.
------------------
...
frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 266
From:
posted 04-05-2001 11:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suddenly there's a stir in my mind...
I really like those anti material rifles...
you guys might not like this but I guess I'm starting to agree with the congress guy,
I mean, for some (rich!) spoiled 18 years old boy, .50 cal can be ultimately dangerous (do they sell all kinds of ammo the same way too?)....and with all these tendencies of
school shooting, I think it's about time for a change in the firearm law....(sigh*), there goes my windrunner....
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 537
From: Dizneland
posted 04-05-2001 04:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I buy firearms at gunshows...
However, all of them (except my shotgun for appartment protection) stay with my Uncle (10mins away).
------------------
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 04-05-2001 07:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These gun laws, and irresponsible "kids" that keep shooting up the schools are just ruining everything for the rest of us.
When I was a kid... for my 12th birthday my father gave me a 12 gauge shotgun (it pissed my mother off... but who cares). Remington 870 wingmaster with both barrels and
a few boxes of shells. He told me it was mine, let me keep it in my room, didn't put a lock on it, and let me keep the shells for it too. For my 13th birthday, he let me buy a
Ruger 10/22 (I used my money, but he signed for it). And when I was 15, I had gotten involved in sporting clays. Kinda hard with a pump gun, and he suprised me with a
Remington 1100.
My point of this is, that my father knew that I was responsible enough not to go shooting up my shcool, or neighborhood (city of Buffalo) with the thing. The problem now lies
in the parents of these kids that are causing all the problems. I feel that even if the kids die in their little adventures, that the parents should still be partly liable. If they don't
have the sense to be able to raise a kid that isn't going to do crap like this.... they should never have had them in the first place.
What we need to do in this country is to raise the level of morals that people hold, not to restrict the hell out of anything dangerous.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Knowledge is the true power, ignorance will bring your demise.
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 180
From:
posted 04-05-2001 07:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree Badseed, My dad gave me an SKS when I was 7. When I was 8 he gave me an AK-47 (SA-85m). They were both within my reach at all times. When I was 12 he gave
me an AR-15 and let me keep it in my room. Now all the family rifle expect for my parents bed pistol is under my lock and key. Do I go out and shoot up people? No way!!!
Would I ever? Never in a million years! If anything I can't get out of control at people so I won't do something like that. I will only use a gun in self defense when it is the only
option I have. Maybe it makes me smarter that I learn other options in confrontions. If it comes down to it will I shoot the SOB that is about to kill me or hurt my family or
friends. I wouldn't flinch. I hate when people get a power trip over weapons. If kids repected guns (like you all repect explovives) and not get a power trip from them (like
Kewl Bomerz with explosives) the world would be a better place.
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-06-2001 03:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best way to educate people is to give them responsibilities, not to keep away from.
Tragedy can not be prevented by locking up
powerful tools.
I am the first person in my entire family history to legally own firearms.
Bullets are for dangerous games, mean people

you met in your everyday life only deserve bayonet poking, or bad luck they draw onto themselves.
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 04-06-2001 04:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to get off on a rant here (sounds like Denis Miller) but if you ever want to piss me off...... just get on the pro side of gun control.
I forgot to mention... when I was 16, I asked my parents to get me a lifetime membership to the NRA for my Christmas present. Well.. they did, and I have been an active
member ever since.
These anti gun bastards make me furious with their ignorant, naive ideas about a "perfect world". They think that making guns harder to get with all their laws and regulations
is going to lessen crime. Fat chance. Does anyone think that a criminal about to try his hand at an armed robbery is going to wait his seven days for a handgun? Or wait for
state approval on a pistol permit? Not a chance... he's just going to buy one out of the trunk of some crack heads car. In the meantime.... some guy that is having his family
and own life threatened, has to wait to get one legally.
The fact is... that our criminal punishment system is a joke. Criminals could give a damn about going to jail for their crimes, because they know they'll be out in short order,
and probably be living better than a lot of people while in jail to boot. The only thing that does frighten criminals, is that the prey for their burglaries, rapes, and murders might
be armed. The state of Rhode Island had one of the highest rates of crime of any state at one time. Well some bonified genius in their political machine passed a law that all
home owners in the state had to possess a firearm in their home. If the people didn't like guns, or had children and didn't want one around... no law said they had to have
ammo for it. Well guess what happened? The crime rate dropped over 300%. This is the biggest fear of criminals, and the biggest deterrent. All this legislation does is keep
firearms out of the law abiding populous that are simply trying to defend their family and property. Yes your right, the police ARE there to protect and serve. But they can't be
everywhere at once. There is no way to have that kind of man-power on a police force. In most cases, it is up to private citizens to enforce the law, and the police to clean up
the mess afterwards. The old saying is still true today, "police get there in time to make the report".
And that stupid "Brady Bill" (who'd she have to blow to get that passed?) is ridiculous. Magazine bans on all weapons to reduce crimes? Well... crime wouldn't be a problem if
the public was armed! A limit of ten rounds might be an advantage if someone in the crowd had a weapon. But the entire second that it takes for a magazine change means
nothing if everyone has only their fists to fight with! Personally I think that someone should beat Sarah Brady to death with a 2x4 and see if one of her relatives tries to ban
lumber.
Sorry guys, really getting off on a rant here, and off topic, but this really pisses me off. Not to mention it should probably be in the opinions section (have mercy on me
moderators).
I should mention the sign I had made in my window. "Go ahead and break in. I could use the target practice, and my dogs could use the meal".

Commenting on this thread:
whattt?
wait a minute.......isn't there a law that regulate purchase of assault weapon...
I follow the news, like in California some folks have to give up their weapons cause it's considered assault rifle and eheh,
Windrunner is considered even an anti material weapons which mean it's a pure military stuff...
Are you sure with that regulation? and say to which state does it valid...(hope it's GA or FLA)
if everything is set, I'll start saving to 8000 dolar and I'll be out shooting empty can from 2500 yards, wohoooo
Your right in the fact that anit-material weapons sounds like it pure military as it is a way for the military to justify it in LOAC terms. It's actually illegal to target an individual
with a .50 cal. now if you hit the radio on their back, Oh, Well. But you can shoot into a group of people with a Ma, Duece that's fine too. This is one of those laws the is
generally ignored by most militarys.
As for the wind-runner classified as an Assault Rifle, you have to look at sec. 922r of the Brady Bill, does it fit this desription?
'(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and
'(v) a grenade launcher;
If not then no it is not an Assault Rifle and in the eyes of the BATF is legal for any citizen who is 18 years of age and has no disqualifiing legal problems.
Now in CA there may be more restrictions like not offending any Lesbians is San Fran with your Man sized Tool He, he ;)
Barrett even sells a pedestal mount for your car or truck.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > HESH Info rm ation/Im provisation -
Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : HESH Information/Improvisation - Archive File

hodehum
New Mem ber
Posts: 21
From : New Zealand
posted 04-04-2001 01:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recall a piece of inform ation regarding a particular type of anti-tank shell.
HESH or High Explosive Squash Head, it's basically a shell with a soft outer front casing, filled with a soft m o l d a b l e e x p l o s i v e ,
when the shell hits, the explosive spreads out against the target and the n t h e f u z e d e t o n a t e s . T h e r e s u l t i n g e x p l o s i o n d o e s
very little dam age to the external armor, but pieces of internal arm o r a r e f l u n g a r o u n d i n s i d e a n d h i g h s p e e d f r o m the
s h o c k w a v e o f t h e e x p l o s i o n c a u s i n g m a s s i v e d a m age to internal com ponents and crew.
I was wondering if anyone had any info regarding what explosive/s are used in these shells, what sort of fuze is used and how i
works, what sorts of materials are used for the front casing and any ideas on any im provisation for a shell of this kind?
Bitter
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 290
From : 11 Downing Street, London, England
posted 04-04-2001 10:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought HESH rounds were used to dem o l i s h b u n k e r s a n d b u i l d i n g s r a t h e r t h a n t a n k s . I s u p p o s e t h e e x p l o s i v e u s e d i n t h e m
i s s o m e t h i n g sim ilar to C-4 only less p lastic, perhaps PVC is use d instead of polyiso. The shell will probably flatten on im pact
a n d d e t o n a t e f r o m t h e force of the im pact against the target. No acctual detonator or anything is needed, I don't th ink.
Agent Blak
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 766
From : S k . C a n a d a
posted 04-05-2001 12:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hig velocity would be a m ust which can possiblely lim it the range . I like to be safe so I would put a detonator in the
anyways...bu t thats just me.
------------------
A wise man once said :
"...T here Will Be No
Stand O ff At High Noon
... Shoot'em I n T h e B a c k
And, Shoot'em I n T h e D a r k "
Microtek
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 205
From :
posted 04-06-2001 07:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shockwave needs to travel from the rear end of the round to the squashed front end in order to generate the spalling
effect.
Because of this the explosive is initiated from the rear end by a detonator and probably a booster. I don't know about the
actual design, but I would guess that a piezo-e lectric elem ent in the front would ignite a delayed detonator on impa ct, giving
the round tim e t o s q u a s h .
Predator
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 141
From : U nknown
posted 04-06-2001 01:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually you can make a detonator to suit a round like that pretty easily, just use a inertia driven detonator so that when the
round impacts the detonator goes off and in turn ignitin g t h e s q u a s h h e a d e x p l o s i v e . U s i n g t h i s m ethod there isn't a risk of
t h e d e t o n a t o r going off in the gun.
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 679
From :
posted 04-06-2001 02:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My eyes hurt, I've been searching for a site about HESH rounds and all I found were breif m e n t i o n s , o n t h e p l u s s i d e I f o u n d
this site about anti-armor wea p o n s :
http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/introduction.htm l
HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 225
From :
posted 04-07-2001 01:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If HESH doesn't return good results when you search, try "HEP", it might give additional help since HESH and HEP are same
thing with different names.
HEP stands for "High Explosive Plastic".

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > pellet guns - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : pellet guns - Archive File

skunkdude
New Member
Posts: 30
From:
posted 04-06-2001 12:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anyone got any ideas how i can make special ammo for my .177 or .22 calibre air rifles?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-06-2001 02:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you mean like exploding pellets, I remeber at least one large thread about it a while ago. Try the search facility.
Frosty
New Member
Posts: 28
From:
posted 04-06-2001 03:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero had a nice idea(gotta give him the credit). You could make paintballs(well not really balls). You could take apart a pill capsule that fits in your air rifle and take out the
powder , line the inside with super glue and fill it with paint.
[This message has been edited by Frosty (edited April 06, 2001).]
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
posted 04-06-2001 04:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for pellet guns, you should try making small steel pellets, like just a small little hard metal plug that fits the caliber, and you should also try sharpening the heads to a needle
point in a sander or lathe, The reason why i say this is because the pellets i have seen are always lead, but if you have a low end pellet gun, that shoots at lower velocities ,
the sharp hard pellet would have more penetration than the soft lead
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-06-2001 06:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many air rifles are not designed to shoot steel projectiles so if it actually engaged with the rifling lands then it would probably damage them. If the projectile was too large then
it might just get jammed in the barrel. Don't forget that steel BBs are slightly smaller than .177" so they are probably designed to only touch the top of the rifling lands and not
engage with them.
skunkdude
New Member
Posts: 30
From:
posted 04-12-2001 06:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bought a blank gun the other day and thought it was pretty cool. It was pretty cheap (police magnum look-a-like), only cost 15 quid but thats not the point.
The blanks it fires are .22 in calibre. As many of you are aware bullets and cartriges use primers to set off the main charge. Because the blanks for my pistol are so small(.22)
and cheap, they do not employ any kind of primer and just rely on a small precussion sensetive charge to make the 'bang'.
The first thing I found out is that these blanks make great catapult ammo, just aim at somthing hard and you get a nice bang.
The secound is if you take an air rifle pellet which is quite hollow (I use 'super points')and fill it with as much powder from the blanks as you can, you are left with an explosive
pellet. The way I emptyed the blanks was by simply squeezing them with some plyers untill the opening was big enough to pour the powder out.You can easily stop the
powder from escaping by carfully adding a blob of melted wax to the end of the pellet and pushing it firmly with your thumb after it is full of powder.
Then all you do is load up the pellet (I put it in backwards), aim and fire. I have personaly tried and tested this pellet.
Have fun!

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > TASER Vid eos - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : TASER Videos - Archive File

nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From : G u e s s
posted 04-10-2001 05:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.airtaser.co m / m o v i e s / v i d e o s . h t m
------------------
hodehum
New Mem ber
Posts: 21
From : New Zealand
posted 04-10-2001 07:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is ouch; one of those wou l d s e e m wise for anyone who feels they need a wea pon in a situation where they don't
want to actually run the risk off killing som eone but still wants them to think twice about attacking som eone again, by the way;
under the we apons tracking section of the product inform ation, it shows, what I would have to say is a rather advanced tacking
system , as the gun records the date and time every tim e the we apon is fired and spays up to 40 confetti like I.D tags into the
air, m aybe it is only a m a t t e r o f t i m e b e f o r e t h e s e a r e u s e d o n m odern firearm s ?
richl261
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 134
From : u k
R e g i s t e r e d : M A R 2001
posted 04-10-2001 02:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, i dunno if anyone here saw jackass on mtv, but johnny knoxville was trying out tasers on himself! essential viewing i must
say
Crux
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 71
From : austra lia
posted 04-10-2001 09:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
john ny knoxville was in a skatebording video called big brother 2, it had him testing out peper spray, taser's, and a bullet
proof vest and m a y b e s o m e other stuff i haven't seen the video in a long time but it was funny as all hell

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Blowgun ranges - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Blowgun ranges - Archive File

IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-10-2001 03:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have a 3 foot, .40 caliber blowgun and i can only get about a 50 foot shot out of it if im incredibly lucky, any tips on making some farther shots?
------------------
back and better than ever
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 04-10-2001 03:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 feet sounds pretty damn good to me. i have consistently gotten darts to go about that far and stick pretty hard into wood.(with a B. gun with about the same demensions) i
was proud of myself. how heavy is your projectile? it could be too heavy or not heavy enough.
------------------
...
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-10-2001 03:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
first off, bbguns have more compression, and im using standard blowgun darts you can buy anywhere, im trying to find some other types that i can use though, any ideas?
------------------
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 04-10-2001 04:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
who said anything about a bb gun? i said B. gun, i think you were mistaken. if you are using the standard blowgun darts i think you have the best ones. i would suggest
though, you make a heavier one just to expirement. expecially if you have a nice hard blow. (no fucking pun intended, but it does really fit huh )
------------------
...
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-10-2001 05:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh, sorry in that case, i did put a higher compression mouthpiece on, so i think thats whats making me shoot farther, but im also experimenting with different darts, ill post
some examples when i have the time.
------------------
HMTD Factory
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-10-2001 05:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the air-seal valve on the dart can be discarded like a sabot after the dart leaves the muzzle, it's gonna go farther.
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-10-2001 05:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
good luck that happening, the way the dart is set up the cone neds to be on or the dart will take off on its own venue
------------------
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-10-2001 05:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
try wraping a cotton ball tightly around the end of a scewer and see how well that fairs.
note: don't use any type of string and it should come off after it exits the barrel.
------------------
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-10-2001 09:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, if you want power in blowguns, you need to get a .62 caliber blowgun.I have shot(and owned some) 36" .40's,36" .50's,and 2 piece 82" .62.With the .40 cal i got
about 50 feet(normal mouth piece),but this was after 3 months of practice and a certain technique of blowing which is much more effective.With the .50 cal i got about 75
feet(another normal mouth piece) also using the blowing technique.With my .62 cal when it's 60" i can get about 110 feet(the mouthpiece is quite unique,but is still considered
"normal"),and if you are my size you have to use this technique.I'm a pretty big guy (compartively anyways),I'm 5'7 150 pounds(i weight lift,alot) and with a diaphragm of
my size these are good ranges.If your a bigger guy(6'2,210 pounds for example) you should expect ranges alot higher.There are many arguements about the weight of darts
and how if .40 cal darts were as heavy as .62's they'd fly just as far but i say bullshit(out of my 2 years of experience that is).I consider .40 cal just novelties and .50's small
game/target use.When you get a .62 you really feel powerfull(i recall a time when i shot through 7 ply wood and an inch into a tree!)because these are for serious
hunting.Before you consider buying another i hope you take the above into consideration because that's what they are,and that's what there used for.If you want to know
anything else(be it that "technique" i was talking about or anything else) just ask.Also,check out www.blowgunsnw.com for all your blowgun needs,seriously.-Pyro
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-11-2001 12:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5'7" 150 is nopt that big. unless you have lean muscle mass and even still.
------------------
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-11-2001 04:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.blowgunsnw.com is a reliable site, i have bought things online for my blowgun (mega deluxe kit, yet i have no idea how the sight works and that blomatic sucks)but
anyway, you say a .62 caliber huh? i was looking at a few of these and i was wondering if i should go with the 3' or 4' model, but im prolly going to go with the 3', anyway,
.62's are that damn good? give me some more info on it thanks.
------------------
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-11-2001 04:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.blowgunsnw.com is a reliable site, i have bought things online for my blowgun (mega deluxe kit, yet i have no idea how the sight works and that blomatic sucks)but
anyway, you say a .62 caliber huh? i was looking at a few of these and i was wondering if i should go with the 3' or 4' model, but im prolly going to go with the 3', anyway,
.62's are that damn good? give me some more info on it thanks.
------------------
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-11-2001 04:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
godammit, i hate it when that happens, sorry guys, anyway, pyro, tell me about your breathing technique please
------------------
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-11-2001 04:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human lungs can only develop about 4psi of pressure but the volume of gas is very high. So the larger the calibe, the larger the cross sectional area of the projectile which
means more force on it. If you had a dart with sabot of 1"sq. cross section, it would recive 4 pounds of thrust and the longer the pipe, the longer it will accelerate.
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-11-2001 05:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, .62 cal's are that damn good.I would highly suggest after you learn the breathing technique that you get a longer version than 3'(60" reccommended).Anthony is correct,
the bigger the sabot on the dart,generally, the more power.Also, the longer the actual blowgun is makes it more powerful because it picks up more velocity as it goes down the
barrel.But,there is a drop off point, which is at about i'd say about 7 feet.Anything longer than that and it's just not gonna help(i think,that's just my experience).
Anyway,the technique takes about a week of blowing everyday to master.It increases power i'd say about 40%(sometimes more,on .62's this technique helps atleast
70%).Ok, the first thing you do is take in the biggest breathe you can put the tip of your tongue and touch it to the roof of your mouth. Then make an airseal between your
tongue and the roof of your mouth(it doesn't really have to be an airseal,just close)and release by hurling your tongue forward,letting the air be it's propellant.It helps to kind
of curl your tongue back to get a good seal.I found that when switching from smaller cal's to the .62 it hurts your jaw and back of your mouth because of the extra strain but
once you conquer this(think of it as conditioning) you get more power on .62's and alot more power on smaller cal's(this may just because of the technique,or the
technique+the extra strain of the .62 cal?).I haven't done enough experimenting to know the answer to that question but either way, you'll get alot more power and
control.Once again,if you don't understand any of that, or wanna know more,just ask,i'll be happy to answer.-Pyro
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-12-2001 01:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well pyro, you have me hooked, im planning on buying a .62 (actually, i have pretty much everything mapped out on blowgunsnw.com second order woohoo!!)but i need to
know something, are the 3 foot models like evil or something? i mean, id like to have something i can pretty much whip out and put back,
I dont want some 60" model that i have to put together and break apart know what i mean?
(oh and yes, how exactly do YOU go about aiming a blowgun? my aiming system is pretty accurate but i want some tips)
------------------
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-12-2001 04:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know exactly what you mean by hooked, it happened to me the first time i shot my .62 without hurting my jaw/mouth.
The 3 foot models are far from bad or "evil" it's just, if you want to get serious i would suggest getting something a little longer.You've had your fun with your .40 and your
stepping up cal's, why the hell not step up the length?
Well, i don't have any specific type of aiming technique for you, it really is practice,practice, practice.Once you really get the feel for your gun,your darts,and your capabillity's
your aiming seems to come into focus. My longest shot with my 60"(that's only one piece of the gun)was about 130' into a 2 feet wide tree. I can hit a 2"X2" square from 15
feet when i practice finatically for a day. Honestly all it is is practice. That is, once you get comfortable with the above.-Pyro
Blowguns are GREAT!
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-12-2001 11:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the hell was that post about>?And if i understand correctly your saying that a 3' .62 cal is no good, which is complete bullshit. Any length, of any caliber is good as long
as it carry's out it's purpose. A blowgun like that could prolly shoot 80-100 with practice(alot) and is just fine as long as it works for you. Also, long and skinny doesn't
neccessarily mean it's better than short and stout. I'll bet my blowguns that a 3' .62 is better for accuracy and range than a 6 foot .38 cal.This is because the .38's dart only has
a small area that is effected by your breathe and even with the added length to increase velocity before it comes out of the muzzle may not compensate.-Pyro
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-12-2001 11:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just remembered something that i used to do all the time. Find a a GNC health store and buy some of their 'veggie caps' for vegetarians that don't eat the gelatin made from
horse hooves or whatever. Make sure thaqt they are slightly smaller than your barrel, but not to much smaller. Find the biggest one you can that fits down the sucker. Then,
get some sort of impact sensitive LE or HE(i reccommend LE simply because it's generally safer and prolly easier to come by). Take one of your darts and push it into one of
the ends of the caps. Then insert as much of your explosive into the cap and close up. All that's left is to shoot it!-Pyro
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 04-13-2001 02:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well i decided on the .62 cal 3' model (with a 24" extension of course) and the hunting dart pack, so thanks pyro ill tell you how everything turns out
------------------
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-13-2001 10:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, i couldn't help put give you another tid bit. On all models of blowguns besides the .62 cal they have plastic connector which suck because they tend to bend the blowgun
and let some of the air pressure behind the dart out of little holes. But another reason to prove the .62 is the best, they have metal connectors with no air leaks and since the
.62 is much wider in diameter, it's ALOT harder for it to bend.Have fun, and tell me how it goes!-Pyro
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-14-2001 06:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I absolutely do not hang out at &totse and you are waving a KeWl flag just mentioning it. I would appreciate it if you do not associate me or anyone else at this forum with
&totse.-Pyro
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-14-2001 11:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyro have you ever read the Terrorist Hand Book? I have and can tell you that your suggestion comes almost right from it; just so you know?
Note: I am not saying it doesn't work I am just informing you.
------------------
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-15-2001 11:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agent Blak, i have never read the terrorist handbook but i have read the A-crapbook.This really does work and i got it from a friend who was the one who got me into
blowguns. He showed it to me one day and from then on i was making them.I'm still not sure how safe it is, but i've shot a few 100 of the things and nothing happened to me,
although something might and prolly will.-Pyro

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > 2 barreled pum p shotgun? - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : 2 barreled pump shotgun? - Archive File

A-BOMB
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 137
From : wouldn't you like to know
posted 04-19-2001 11:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W hen I was a kid my uncle had a two barreled
2 0 g a u g e s h o t g u n i t w a s a p u m p it had two barrels over-under with the clip in the center it held 12 rounds of 2 3/4" shells
between the barrels. You could fire off both
b a r r e l s a t o u n c e o f i n s e c q u e n c e l i k e 1 - 2 w h e n r e l o a d e d t h e e m p ties droped out the bottom , and it was som e I t a l i a n t h i n g d o e s
a n y b o d y k n o w the nam e of this gun because I forgot and were I could find one?
------------------
live by the bom b
die by the bomb
Pyro
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 104
From : Danbury,CT,U .S.A
posted 04-19-2001 01:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W ell, next tim e you post try and use som e gram mar.And if it wa s italian, it was probably a berreta from the early 1900's.I just
saw a gun mag. that washaving berreta's 500th birthday!-Pyro
A-BOMB
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 04-19-2001 02:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W ell I should gram mar shouldn't I well know
it wasn't a Beretta, it was some thing like
" I l a m az" or somethin g like that.
------------------
live by the bom b
die by the bomb
The_Coyote
New Mem ber
Posts: 18
From :
posted 04-23-2001 06:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W as it by any chance Ithica?
------------------
A-BOMB
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 04-23-2001 07:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know it had a "z" in the nam e it was som e t h i n g l i k e " I e z o m li", but I could be wrong.
------------------
live by the bom b
die by the bomb
Predator
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 141
From : U nknown
posted 04-23-2001 08:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wouldn't be Lazzeroni (sp?) would it?
BaDSeeD
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 80
From : buffalo, ny
posted 04-23-2001 09:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predator it couldn't possibly have been Lazzero ni. First of all that is a relatively new com p a n y , a n d t h e y d o n ' t e v e n m a k e
shotguns. Also... they are not italian. lol
A-Bomb, first of all I have never heard of a shotgun configured like that, however... of the old italian make rs it sounds like it
could have been a Perazzi.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Knowledge is the true power, ignorance will bring your dem i s e .
A-BOMB
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 04-23-2001 10:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It could be it, I know only 317 were m a d e a n d m y uncle had the 312 one because it said on the barrel 312 of 317. It was
m ade for the us Perozzi sounds right, it was fun to shoot with my uncles m odified clip it held
2 4 r o u n d s , h e m ade it from tin cans.
------------------
live by the bom b
die by the bomb
Predator
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 141
From : U nknown
posted 04-24-2001 06:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh
See what being a Brit does to you?
Can't tell a P erazzi from a L a z z e r o n i
Is there a pic of this gun floating abou t? I can't seem to find it anywhere
angelo
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 294
From :
posted 04-25-2001 07:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why not go to http://www.securityarm s.com
and look for a pic the re?

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Zipped Zippo Zip - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Zipped Zippo Zip - Archive File

SofaKing
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 399
From : YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 04-23-2001 06:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I'm not on crack ! I'll have you know I resent that rem ark !
U m I found the Zippo .22 gun plans
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/skeletoncrew/philez.html
All together it's a m ajorly kewl site but it has th at one iota of information , that m akes it worthwhile.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > uxo info - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : uxo info - Archive File

A Dudely
New Member
Posts: 8
From:
posted 03-01-2001 08:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly thankyou for this forum,secondly
I have a british ww2 shell 8cm diam 23cm long before deciding what to do with it I need to get all the info possible.Likely composition, sensitivity, possible fuse arrangement
et.c.
I have searched but it seams for the best info you have to pay.
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 03-01-2001 04:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did you get this shell?
A Dudely
New Member
Posts: 8
From:
posted 03-03-2001 05:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found it on the beach.Probably not so wise to have picked it up and brought it home but now its here I may as well do something with it.
DarkAngel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 592
From: ?
posted 03-03-2001 09:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey man.
I always hear that the first thing that the EOD does is removing de very dangerous impact detonator,so the main charge inside can`t explode anymore,How you do that i
dunno?
------------------
--==DarkAngel==--
Go to Section1 http://www.section1.f2s.com Alot off Bombs/Explosives and Homemade Weapons!!,,,Plus a <<Forum>>!!!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 03-03-2001 10:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could use a hand drill to drill a hole in the side and then steam melt out the explosive. Use a hand drill of course so there's no vibrations, and melt it out remotely in case it
explodes.
It sounds like it's an anti-aircraft shell from the size and location.
You must realize that anytime you handle a UXO that you're taking a very real risk of killing yourself since they're very sensitive because the safeties were disengaged once the
shell was fired.
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-04-2001 01:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you must realise you have a shell that was dangerous 50 years ago and has probably increased in sensitivity over the years, from what I have heard is that the english/brittish
beaches are littered with them. (what does uxo stand for I forgot) you should either set up a charge around this thing, or you should shoot it from far away, if after being
punched ful of holes with a 30-06 or crunched in an explosion it should be safe to get rid of. I know you are wanting to extract the explosive out of this but ask yourself if it is
worth you hearing, life, hands ,or freedom.
Mick
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
From:
posted 03-04-2001 02:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you think about it, you gunna blow up whatever you get out of the shell
so why temp fate and extract it, then blow up what you get.
when you could just strap a charge to the shell, and blow both up at the same time.
- you gunna get the same effect either way.

EvilKefka
New Member
Posts: 3
From: SomePlace, SomeWhere, OverThere
posted 03-04-2001 05:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found a landmine and a sea mine on the beach near my house when I was 7. The sea mine was used and broken in two though, and i still have all limbs so I'm guessing the
landmine was a dud.
------------------
Vwee hee hee hee hee heeee!
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-04-2001 02:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UXO = UnExploded Object
One third of all British bomb disposal guys killed were killed removing mines from British beaches after D-day - and they were experts.
If it's a complete round then it should be OK as long as the explosive haven't become super sensitive. If it's just the projectile that has been fired, shouldn't it be way out to
sea?
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 03-04-2001 03:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you get rid of it, my means of blowing it up. All you have to do is affix some AP putty to it, and blow it up nice.
You will have spared your life (by not attempting to extract the explosive), and also you will have a big bang!
Any info on what explosive it is? tnt? rdx?
A Dudely
New Member
Posts: 8
From:
posted 03-07-2001 07:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nbk2000 it probably is a flak shell and is likely to have either a pure, or AN mixed TNT filler so boil in the bag extraction sounds the best.
The fuse worries me though, either the safties werent disengaged at firing making it quite safe or the altitude fuse didnt work but is still armed. Where is the fuse located?
Anthony it has been fired but upwards.
After an accident at the weekend I am feeling a little fragile and having doubts about the merits of taking unessicary risks if I call the EOD do you think theyrd blow it on the
spot?
Microtek
Frequent Poster
Posts: 205
From:
posted 03-07-2001 09:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with melting is that the detonator is still embedded in the main charge. The detonator will contain the usual primary/base and the question is whether the primary
has become inert or not in the time since it was fired.
shooter2
Frequent Poster
Posts: 56
From:
posted 03-07-2001 07:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Dude, Don't touch the damn thing. Three of my dads friends were killed by a dud round during WW2. Almost all Artillery shells depend on rotation to arm itself. There is no
way to tell where the mechanism hung up. It could be just a hair away from going off. Suppose the firing pin spring has released but got hung up on a mill chip. A sudden jar
or even a rotation(could roll on the table)could free the pin. Hide all your chemicals and ex.books, then call the army eod team to retrieve it. This hobby DEPENDS on you
taking NO chances!
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 03-07-2001 08:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, call in the experts, and see how much of their procedures you can take note of. it would be interesting to find out how the experts handle it. it would be dissapointing to
find out that it was safe and you could have disarmed it yourself though. on the other hand they could come in and tell you that you were nearly killed. Call them in, i would
like to hear what the disposal squad have to say.
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 03-08-2001 07:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
isn't UXO UneXploded Ordanance?
Microtek
Frequent Poster
Posts: 205
From:
posted 03-09-2001 10:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes
frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 266
From:
posted 03-10-2001 10:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dudely, are you still there???
A Dudely
New Member
Posts: 8
From:
posted 03-12-2001 05:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Im still here. Ok mabye Ill finish up my projects and call in the boys.
I do agreee that it would be interesting but ashame if they just sling it in a box and take it away and Ive given my name and address for nothing. Still its the safe option.
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 61
From:
posted 04-03-2001 12:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dudely,
You have come to the best conclusion. Unexploded Ordanance items have killed many an expert, over the years. There are so very many unknowns connected with each
individual unit! You may or may not recover a small amount of TNT or Comp B or may cease to exsist in a microsecond. Don't try something that even an "expert" would not
try.
A Dudely
New Member
Posts: 8
From:
posted 04-03-2001 08:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a let down!
Called the police and got treated like a twat, they called the eod then told me to go home.
They took my shell and I got nothing, not even a little chat.
I wish I would have detonated it myself.
lesbianloverjon
New Member
Posts: 24
From:
posted 04-03-2001 03:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this guy sound kewl
shooter2
Frequent Poster
Posts: 56
From:
posted 04-03-2001 07:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Dude, It's gone and your still alive. Also no questions and you still have your stuff. Sounds pretty good to me!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Easy ways to harm attackers... - Archive
File
Log in
View Full Version : Easy ways to harm attackers... - Archive File

simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 240
From: HELL
posted 03-30-2001 02:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was walking tonight at 22 o'clock on the street near my flat(retturning from the local computer club), and 6 idiots (they may
have been 5) attacked me... I wasn't beaten very hard (maybe because I was only defending myself) and they couldn't steal
any money from me(they could't steal anything because I put my money in secret places in my clothes). But I am really
ANGRY!!! I wish I have injured all of them so severely that 6 weeks hospital treatment won't be enough to cure.
Now I'm thinking what weapon should i used to cope with the problem(i mean something home made like
flamethrower(maybe) or jar of nitrir mixture (50:50 HNO3 with H2SO4) or solution pirahna (H2O2 with H2SO4)- very good
deals with eyez.(that sounds sadistic, isn't it).
So can you give me some advice what to do if those motha fuckars retturn....
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-30-2001 03:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK's pocket dragon design is good except its only one time firing, so if you missed...
Buy a gun and apply for a concealed weapons permit if your in the states. [edit:] Actually, I'm starting to rethink this idea, in
Virginia, a Chanellos pizza driver got held up, and the driver shot and killed his attacker, there prosecuting him!
So, unfortunatly, it would be best for your freedoms sake to let the piggies handle it. *shivers* I feel dirty.
[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited March 30, 2001).]
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 537
From: Dizneland
posted 03-30-2001 04:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a vicks nasel inhaler and fill it with whatever you want. But remember that it might leak so dont using ANYTHING with
DMSO mixed in as suggested in other sources.
------------------
FadeToBlackened
Frequent Poster
Posts: 201
From: Hell
posted 03-30-2001 04:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other day after gym class i saw someone w/ a black 9oz. CO2 canister for paintball. Immediately i thought of something.
This would be only for killing or severely hurting people (like at the end of civilization or whatever hehe). Take then end off
the canister (UNcharged! hehe) and put liquid phosgene (COCl2) in it, put the top part back on(It's just a little threaded piece)
and pressurize it w/ CO2. Then you attach an air blowgun (they go on air compressors) to it. It basically pepper spray (or
mace) from Hell. Use the power wisely hehe. Ive never tried to make phosgene, but it wouldnt be very hard at all. Btw, anyone
know what is in mace? And what is DMSO?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-30-2001 06:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you'd be best giving that phosgene a miss, you really don't want to that close to it! If you did phosgene the guys,
sprayed acid in their face or killed or mutilated them in other ways, you will get fucked! The "crime" you will be commiting by
defending yourself will be taken far more seriously than them mugging you.
What you want is something that will cause amazing pain/incapacitance but will not do permanent damage (evidence).
Something like an extra spicy mace, I think MrCool has a good one that's easily made and works.
The good thing about Maddoc's Vix bottle idea (or other small sprayer) is it's very innocent, you could get searched without
fear of being busted for carrying an illegal weapon.
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-31-2001 12:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd listen to Anthony on that one, RED and FTB. "Getting even" that way simply isn't worth the long prison sentence it would
probably get you, and the atmosphere of fear resulting from all the recent school shootings will also put you at a distinct
disadvantage.
DMSO = Dimethyl Sulfoxide, an industrial solvent (also used by horse veterinarians) that enhances skin absorption
dramatically. It's said that when a drop of DMSO mixed with a strong flavoring (like lemon juice) is applied to any part of the
body, the flavor will pretty much instantly be tasted on the tongue. Drugs and poisons are of course rendered very much more
dangerous and fast acting when mixed with this stuff.
I understand that the juice of the "hotter" varieties of hot peppers can actually produce painful skin lesions and blisters after
relatively brief contact. Anything like this though, when used as a weapon, is likely to be viewed by the authorities as little
different from the Lewisite and Mustard vessicants of WW I. You'd be in a world of trouble.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-31-2001 12:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you dont taste the stuf in dmso, it gets absorbed into you. it has a really nasty taste if you get it on your skin though. it will
immediatley cause you to sense a bad taste in your mouth
John456
Frequent Poster
Posts: 105
From:
posted 04-02-2001 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mace is the outer shell of the plant nutmeg comes from, ground to a power.
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 61
From:
posted 04-03-2001 12:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you dictate the place, time and circumstances of your next confrontation?
Formaldehyde sprayed into eyes and nose is incapacitating. Chloral hydrate can then administered. After the anesthesia, if
there are no witnesses, maiming, injection of carcinogens or neurotoxins or castration could be considered. Do you control the
situation? How badly were you humiliated? Will there be reprisals/revenge? Can you justify your actions to yourself? Can you
escape prosecution?
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 04-03-2001 04:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
god, steel capped boots and some on going martial art experience is my first advise, learn to escape confrontations, only kill
if you need too
[This message has been edited by DaRkDwArF (edited April 12, 2001).]
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-03-2001 05:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
steel toed boots kick ass! (literaly) I wear mine all the time. as for mace, the mace that John456 mentioned is just a spice, I
am not sure what chemical mace is but I think it may be related to cn or cs (cant remember witch) tear gas
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-11-2001 06:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you don't want to get charged(probably not as bad as the above chemicals being applied) and still want to humiliate
and hurt(possibly severly) just start yourself on an intensive workout program until you are huge, then learn some sort of
fighting style(i reccommend karate or something involving mind over matter{pain tolerance})until you are very good.This is
more of a long term idea which require you to be fairly large in the first place(but if your good,you can be small).This is the
most fun and rewarding way to take care of this sort of stuff but once again,it's long term. I have adopted this idea and think
it's intense but is worth it.My 1 cent.-Pyro
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
From: UK
posted 04-16-2001 05:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you could try a deactivated grenade and scare the vbastards away. pull the pin and hold it in the air. theres plenty of places on
the net that sell them. you could use a real grenade but then u could also get blown up if it slips outa ur hand accidently.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-16-2001 06:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel toe boots are heavy; Just get a pair of boots the have a dense rubber sole. The last fight I was in I gave the a powerful
kick to the Thigh... He dropped clutching his leg and "balling like a little bitch with a skinned knee and shit, and there ain't
nothing worse than watching a Fat man cry"(Jay from Dogma). if you want to get mean straighten their knee for them or
boot'em in the Shin as hard as you can then bust'em in the temple. Why don't you just read the "Black Medicine"?
------------------
frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 266
From:
posted 04-16-2001 06:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
forgive and love your attackers....
this will burn their spirits
INDNJC
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 04-17-2001 09:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agent Black I've weighed my boots in at 2.3kg for the pair, thats really not heavy at all, and I wear them for about 14 hours a
day... although they do smell alot =)
hmmm I think that a deactivated grenade could be good, until he figures your bluffing, has anyone ever seen one of these
before? http://www.hitj.co.jp/belt/
It's called the "Thunder Belt", and mind you, resides it being a japanese invention, I believe it would be very effective in the
streets!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 04-17-2001 09:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted the very URL for the "thunder belt" back in the '99 Improv. forum. Didn't get any replies about it though.
But it would certainly be easy to make yourself since it's just some steel cabling (plastic coated is best) with a steel ring on
one end.
I'd imagine that a small steel knob or such clamp on the free end would greatly increase the effectiveness of the thing.
Perhaps coating the last few inches with glass grit would help things along too.
------------------

rjche
Frequent Poster
Posts: 52
From:
posted 04-25-2001 10:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
compressed gas or liquid gas plus basketball inflation needle sharpened.
put needle on end of butane lighter filler, that turns on when the end is pressed.
Put needle on valve attached to small propane, butane, or paint can (nasty).
To use jam needle into skin, turn on gas, skin blows up like balloon, exquisite pain, not permanent damage unless you blow
it up too big.
Accident: person filling helium baloons fell against the tank and somehow gas was discharged blowing his skin up a lot. doctor
said best treatment was do nothing and let it leach out by blood absorption for it was everywhere. Surprised me for I would try
poking someholes to let most of it out. He wouldn't because of the danger of infection.
A similar weapon is used against sharks I think.
Then too a flamable can of hornet and wasp spray shoots a stream 15 ft. IF not flamable enough refil with gasoline, spray
attacker, then light stream for grand finale.
simpler version is container of gasoline. throw on attacker, then light it. Squeeze bottle with nozzle tip would work well. Carry it
around like a drink bottle. might even be able to use drink bottle if cap didn't dissolve from gas. If so use alcohol.
Race drivers say wrecked car with driver flapping his ass wildly means he got soaked with alcohol fuel, and its afire with an
invisible flame.
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 04-26-2001 12:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above technique could be *very* dangerous if the gas is injected in the wrong place.
It was rumored that certain organized groups used a CO2 cartridge with a sharpened tube four to five inches long as an
asassination weapon. The needle-like tube is thrust in an upward motion through the victim's diaphragm and the cylinder is
discharged through a fast release valve of the type used to inflate life preservers. The gas immediately pressurizes the
thoracic cavity causing instant and total lung collapse, a condition difficult to reverse even if medical help is immediate. Even
though total lung volume is rapidly expelled past the vocal cords, the shock of the event prevents the victim from uttering a
sound.
(Don't try this at home.)
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-26-2001 05:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually, that condition is easily reversed, just insert a needle into the chest cavity, they do it all the time when you puncture a
lung so you can keep breathing withou the air leaking into your chest keeping your lungs from taking in air. I beleve you
insert a makeshift tube right below the zyphoid process (sp) I could be wrong though
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-26-2001 05:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure a chest drain would work since the lungs would be completely flat and may not inflate again.
Ctrl_C
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 04-26-2001 07:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at a pressure that high in the thoracic cavity would collapse the lungs to the point of the alveolar walls coming into contact with
each other. water cohesion makes them almost impossible to "unstick". even given the fact that the alveoli produce an
enzyme that breaks hydrogen bonds called surfactant, a pneumothorax of that degree would most certantly bring death.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-26-2001 08:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you'd have to inject alot of gas to do that but I sappose it might do that if it was fast enough, but someone might be able to
save them by forcing air into the lungs,
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 04-27-2001 07:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm working on my own thunderbelt right now =) I've decided to use old school 10mbit BNC cable, I'm taking pics as I go, so
yeah I'll zip them with a text file and send them to NBK for upload into his ftp
firemaker May 25th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Can somebody please explain what a thunder belt is? I clicked the link, but it is in all Japaneese characters and my computer
won't let me translate it.
Thanks
nbk2000 May 25th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Why don't you click around till you find the FUCKING PICTURES?! :mad:
Dumbo May 26th, 2003, 02:49 AM

My understanding is that its a simple belt with a garotte cord hidden in it. Silent Death =).
None May 26th, 2003, 09:33 AM

Or a whip of some sort.
the only problem i see with the thunderbelt is that if you are arrested or searched by the police, they often make you take
your belt off... The cable would then be clearly visible.
peterthesmart May 26th, 2003, 09:42 AM

I've been using Babel Fish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr) to translate websites. It works pretty well but it won't
translate the images.
Skean Dhu May 30th, 2003, 07:38 PM

or an alternative to brass knuckles(and much less suspicious) is one of those climbing carabiners that you use when belaying/
repelling(abseiling) just make sure its big enough to fit around you hand. you can have your key ring on it for a perfectly
legitimate excuse. and you can use it when/if you go climbing or maybe on a 'job'
Fukineh July 13th, 2003, 03:34 PM

Thats a great idea, I just played with my locking belaying biner, and it turns out it fits very nicely into my hand. In addition, it
has a locking gate so that both sides are a solid surface, and the hitting surface has a nice shape with a sharply convex part,
this would focus the energy on a smaller point then with your fist, and you could use full power. The metal surface allows for
punching of just about anything, however, during some hits the biner will rotate, and contact will be made with the fist (not a
big deal if it is a tender part of a person though).
Anyway, if would probably be nice if you could supply a bit of additional padding to the part of the caribiner that is in your
hand. Doing this could of course make it more obviose as a weapon. I have made handhelled assenders before (like the ones
used for caving and big wall aid climbing) out of giant caribiners, and utilizing a specialized prussick knot that allows
movement only in one direction. Anyway, to padd these biners I used a peice of rubber pipe. What one could do is take some
soft rubber pipe and cut a slit down the side if they desired to make the caribiner more usefull as a weapon. This way, the
rubber could be slipped off in an istant and you are left with just a climbing biner.
Also, if the caribiner is being used as a key chain, addtional items which may be attatched could be used for extra pain.
Primarily, I'm thinking a key between your middle and ring figer as you have the biner in your fist. This would put the energy
on an even smaller point.
Ok, another more idea for an improvised weapon. If you can find an excuse to have them on you, large ball bearings. On
approach you seem unarmed, but really, you are armed with a fistfiller, projectiles, and extremely hard surfaces to hit with
when you wish to hit bony surfaces (jaw or sternum for example). You could fist hurl one at the face, downing or distracting the
attacker, then, with one of two in your palm, strike with what would orfinarily be an open hand, but in this case is a palm full of
steel.
Another idea is to have a magazine rolled up extreamly tight and held with elastic bands. Staples would be on the outside of
course. This would seem as an innocent weapon. Also, a lead pipe could be wrapped in newspaper if you wanted a harder
hitting surface. Of course, if you where caught and your weapon was looked at in this case it would not work, this would only
look innocent from far away (aside from the fact that you are knocking out people with a newspaper).
Ok, I just found an article on ball bearings as weapons which can offer a better discription (with pictures).
http://www.sonic.net/~quine/bball.html

Have you ever actually punched anything with a biner? It will break your knuckles. I have done it before and i wont do it again.

You don't put it over your knuckles, you punch with the surface between your knuckles. I did some tests, and for hard punches
its a good idea to have some padding in there, it coulde even be some folded up strap which would be attatched to your "key
chain" in the first place. Through experimenting, I find that a key between the middle and pointer finger is most comfortable,
as well as something else sticking out of the bottom of the palm for sidways hits or stabbing.
Even if you can't get it so that you can punch with power and comfort at the same time, fast well aimed punches with a small
surface like this when targeted at the right place will hurt like shit, even if they are not expecially hard.

Well i prefer my fists, biners add little weight since they are usually mad of aluminum, and i have hard and bony knuckles as
it is, so there really isnt much reason to use them. I actually have in the past used a biner on my hand in a fight, however it
had little effect as 3 on 1 makes it hard to get any good hits in, it also takes a while to get it off your belt while your getting
kicked on the ground:( .

Well yes, against numbers problems always arize. Here is an idea though...... every gang I have fought has used clubs on me
and or my buddies. If you can grab a club after they swing with your undominent hand (and we are assuming they are clubbing
with their dominent), and you can hold them there and get some good blows in...... However, agaist numbers this is
impractical and not easy at all because if you are holding one club, there are many more on you.
Now, some swings can be blocked by striking the assailet with a hard blow to their forarm, yet what would your attackers think
if you could simply put your arm up and block a an incoming steel club without taking pain? To do this, one could wear a long
sleeve shirt and have some steel bars running down the outside of their lower arm (with foam facing in to absord some
energy). I tried this as an experiment and I could take quite a hit. Now, you could add ridges to these so that as you block
you can also attack by smacking with your arms, providing more options for defence against groups. To make your elbow
more effective, you could some sort of hard stud on it that focusses energy on a point.
It would be so much easier if we could block some of the time rather than dodging light blunt weapons, but anyone with half a
brain knows that taking one of these directly to a bone in your arm is not good for you, even if it is protecting your face.

Oh, for close courters pain, a jet lighter can be your friend. If a fight comes to wrestling range, and there is holding involved, a
1200 degree flame direct on the skin will make anyone squeel. For added effect, take it to the hair, or coterize thier noze for
em.
nbk2000 July 13th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Fukineh, you're getting dangerously close to being found guilty of "Post Whoring". One post following the other, first with a 13
minute delay, then an even shorter 8 minute delay.
EDIT your posts to include new information, and re-read the damn rules as posted at the top of the Water Cooler! :mad:
nokianinja780 July 14th, 2003, 07:07 PM

Ok, let's go back 3 years to when this initial incident occurred.
"I was walking tonight at 22 o'clock...and 6 idiots (they may have been 5) attacked me... I wasn't beaten very hard ... But I
am really ANGRY!!! I wish I have injured all of them so severely that 6 weeks hospital treatment won't be enough to cure.
Now I'm thinking what weapon should i used to cope with the problem..."
So the problem is you don't like getting jumped by groups of people and beaten up, and you want to prevent this from
happening again. I'm assuming this means you want to WIN next time this happens, rather than simply avoiding the
confrontation(which isn't always an option anyway).
"I wish I have injured all of them so severely that 6 weeks hospital treatment won't be enough to cure."
Well maybe winning isn't enough, but let's at least start with that. You can't punish someone very easily when they've still got
you in a headlock, so you'll want to win the fight first and foremost. Get them on the ground for a few moments.
Here's what I carry:

Pepper Bloc Fire Master (Pepper Spray)
10% OC fogger rated @ 2 million Scoville units. 3 oz unit sprays 15 feet. 25 one-second bursts.
You could quite literally down an entire football team with one of these. I test sprayed this in my sink, and I had to evacuate
my basement for several hours because I couldn't breathe. When it shoots, it feels like a fire extinguisher(hence the name).
A small drop on the lips feels like you just ate a plate of suicide wings and you're rushing to grab a glass of water.
Once they're on the ground scratching their eyes out in pain, THEN you can start jabbing them with things or setting them on
fire. The point is to be realistic and keep your priorities in order.
knowledgehungry July 18th, 2003, 10:38 AM
I just remembered my favorite improvised streetfighting weapon. Master locks you slip the U part over your middle finger with
the big round part in your fist, works like brass knuckles except only on one knuckle, I can punch bricks and no pain :).
Skean Dhu July 20th, 2003, 10:47 PM

when i typed the post about carabiners i was thinking of it's use more when swinging upward...like if said 'biner is on right
hand take your hand pinky side up and swing from left hip to shoulder height hopefully connecting with the lower jaw
somewhere in between.
I thought up another weapon this is used when you have them on the ground rolling in agony clutching their eyes from the
mace. get a decent length of nichrome wire and configure it along with some 9v batteries to look similar to a tazer but rather
than zapping them it cuts and cauterises like those "hotknives" found int any hardware store selling rope. you could
alternatively make creative shapes in it so they will cherish their humiliation forever
Imperial July 21st, 2003, 09:37 AM

Personally, I have been doing martial arts for years, and I find that if you know where to hit you don't really need too much
training or special weapons of any sort.
The thing is, if you want to repel an attacker (or multiple attackers) there are several pressure points which you can use to
cause severe, excruciating pain, but no permanent damage (that'll keep the piggies off your back). Just in the head there are
many. For example, hitting someone in the joint between the upper and lower jaw (just forward of their ear) will cause severe
pain, and may dislocate/break their jaw if you hit hard enough. But just hit them a little or push into the area with your knuckle
if you want to keep away from (il)legalities. Another good one is the bridge between the nostrils. Pushing directly upwards here
will also cause severe pain, and actually hitting them here hard will cause throbbing headaches for a while. Another good
pressure point is just between the places where the clavicles meet the sternum (below the adam's apple). Just shove a finger
here and they will be off you. Under the earlobes, just behind the jaw, is another excellent one, which will cause the person
pain beyond reckoning. And this place is so secluded, very few marks will be left which will be visible to nosy piggies later on.
All of these pressure points (there are many more) cause little permanent damage, but good immediate pain, so are good to
use if you are attacked and don't wish to be prosecuted. Here are some of the more permanently damaging techniques:
Firstly, the temple is a great place to cause damage. Hitting someone here will cause them concussion, and possibly even
brain damage or death. Use with caution.
Secondly, just behind the cranium is an area where the spinal chord meets the skull. Hitting someone here with a hammerfist
or even a flat-handed slap or palm heel will also cause headaches or concussion.
The solar plexus is the triangle made where the lower ribs meet the sternum. Punching someone here will wind them almost
instantly, and may even stop their heart. They will hat trouble breathing, and since this is a soft spot, you will be able to hit it
without damaging your own hands.
Hitting the floating ribs (in the back just below the rib cage) is great if you want to cause real pain or damage. Just try feeling
there with your hands and you should see that it is a very sensitive spot. Use with caution because many organs (kidneys,
spleen, etc) are found here, and if ruptured the person could die of internal bleeding. Just a few hits here should be enough to
immobilise an attacker, and if you really wish to be cruel you could kick them here.
Of course, the genitals are a good place to go if your attacker is male, and you wish to sterilise the human gene pool by
preventing the sort of scum who would attack you from procreating.
It all depends on how dirty you want to fight, and how much damage you are willing to cause. Just remember that too much
damage could result in your prosecution and having to pay lots of money in compensation. Unless they don't know who it was
who hit them ;)!
Remember this: Causing someone severe pain will throw them off balance and allow you to get them down and do even more
painful things to them. And don't be afraid to use teeth, etc. if you are in a headlock or other not-so-pleasant position.
And weapons are also very effective; although they once again have legal issues. My suggestion is to use "pain" techniques to
hurt your attackers as much as possible without causing severe injury to make sure that the attackers learn their lesson, you
get your revenge, and you avoid legal reprecussions to an extent.
nbk2000 July 21st, 2003, 06:46 PM

If you're close enough to hit him, he's close enough to hit you, thus the reason why weapons were created in the pre-historic
ages...to distance yourself from your target so you can hurt him, but he can't hurt you.
Woman also have vulnerable gentials, though it's internal. If you punch a female HARD where her ovaries are, she'll go down
just like a man kicked in the nuts. :D
Oh, and since the ovaries are located low in the pelvic girdle, it's likely to be unprotected by a ballistic vest, should you have to
deal with a female piggie. ;)
static_firefly July 22nd, 2003, 04:09 AM

I was mugged once. I was standing there and three black guys (not trying to be raceist but u can visualise it better with the
beenies and stuff) came up and started pushing me asking for "5 bucks" i said i didnt have any and they threw me on the
ground. they threatend me a bit then left..i was suprised more then anything. and no one in the croweded bus stop did
anything, they acted like nothing happend. After that i really wish i could have seriously screwed them up. I though a small
flame thrower, his friends would look up to see him ingulfed in a fire ball before runing around on fire. Something like a hell
lighter with a let lighter attached to ensure ignition. Another idea i got from a powerhead. Instead of a footlong pole with a
12gauge shell to blast sharks i had the idea that a small .22 version could be made and hidden inside a metal pen. No one
would suspect that and when you ram the pen into there leg, the bullet would fire and plow into the skin at point blank range.
knowledgehungry July 22nd, 2003, 10:39 AM

Someone already did the self defence lighter, i believe there is a thread for it. Basically CO2 canister filled with butane. It is
very sad how no one ever does anything to help anyone out, having a lot of people around isnt going to stop anyone unless
the people are your friends.
Imperial July 22nd, 2003, 11:11 AM

That is a good point nbk2000; if you have weapons then they can't get close enough to hurt you.
The thing with weapons is, though, carrying them around may earn you some problems with the Porky Patrol, and they have
weapons too. This is why I think that unless in extreme circumstances (walking around in the middle of The Stinks (TM) in the
middle of the night) bare-hand combat is the best if you know where and how to hit. Punching while holding dumbells is a
great way to increase speed as well as power. This also applies to close-range weapons like knives, batons, etc.
If the carrying of weapons is needed, then the best sorts of weapons are either weapons which are easy to hide/look like
normal items (keep the bacon off your back) which have some sort of ranged (not necessarily long range) capability.
Examples are the lighter mentioned (cause some real damage :D) or knuckle dusters but only a single ring (that should break
some bone with little effort). Other good things are pepper spray or mace, and making your own 'special' mix might also be
effective (see chemistry forums ;)).
yt2095 July 22nd, 2003, 11:26 AM

take a peek on here in the thread "aerosol Waepons"
of if you wish to be particularly lethal, take a look in "Stabbing Weapons"
I like sugestion Fuckineh made about the steel gauntlets under your sleeves, it takes me back to my school days when I wore
a pair daily for about 8 months made of 3mm Alu sheeting under my school uniform because I was always picked on having a
strange accent after just arriving in this country from Canada (I am UK born though, just lived over there for 8 years).
the gauntlets didn`t make me a better fighter (I`m still no good at fighting anyway, I prefer revenge) but I know for a fact
that I blocked a good many kicks and punches with them and as a result ended up with a few percent less bruises than I
otherwise would have sustained.
just a damn shit shame we have to think this way!
BaDSeeD September 12th, 2003, 06:00 AM

Guys all you need to do is be creative here.
Damned near ANYTHING can be used as a weapon if you use a little imagination. And you can improve ordinary things to
make them more effective.
For example, everyone carries keys (i know this has been mentioned). Instead of those whimpy little split rings that are on
there, replace them with something heavier that wont seperate easily. Attach a small maglite (AA size or AAA). Looks innocent
as hell dosnt it? Its just a wad of keys and a flashlight. Now what if you swing it? Almost reminds you of nunchucks dosnt it? Or
just hold the flashlight in your hand like an icepick and strike at any part of the body that has minimal flesh over bone, like
the shoulder, wrist, hands, knee, head whatever. I guarantee its going to hurt like hell. Even if it dosn't break the bone. Not to
mention being used as a weapon, a flashlight is a handy thing to have on your keychain anyway.
How about your belt? I know a lot of people don't wear one, but I do because I got tired of the plumbers ass jokes when I was
younger (not to mention my wife is trying to get me to stop dressing like a slob). FInd a nice heavy belt buckle for that belt
and sew the loop closed so it can't come off (easily anyhow). Makes a pretty good weapon, I sure wouldn't want to be cracked
with it.
I remember once from school when I was a kid, one of the badass broads took off her shoe, and beat the living shit out of
another girl with it. Hell as a freshman I clubbed the fuck out of a senior with my history book.
The point of all this is, that you don't have to get too extravagant with your weapons. The best weapon you'll ever use is the
one thats handy. Some fancy ass pocket flame thrower may be cool to play around with, but odds are, that when you need it,
you won't have brought it that day.
Look around you, wherever you go. I'm sure you'll see things EVERYWHERE that can be used as a weapon in an emergency.
And just remember that it dosn't need to be fancy to be effective (remember the history book?).
SOL September 14th, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Imperial
Personally, I have been doing martial arts for years, and I find that if you know where to hit you don't really need too much
training or special weapons of any sort.
So what exactly is years of Martial arts? Non training??????
But more seriously, for a nifty little weapon you can get studded gloves and connect the to metal studs on the primary
knuckles to a shock circuit (disposibal cameras come with these ready made) make nifty weapons for stopping people, you get
the added shock to your punch, although you do have to wait a few seconds for it to be effective
bobo September 15th, 2003, 10:07 AM

I had a discussion recently about readily available 'tools' that have other uses than self-defence. This guy has pepperspray
and some kind of air pistol for defence. He also showed me the flares that seafarers use to mark their position if the weather
conditions are poor. He thought that would make a good weapon that can be fired straight at an assailant (the flares are small
and his 'gun' held six of them).
Now I am thinking: these flares provide an awful lot of light and they should provide an awful lot of heat too. But since they
are made to last for a long time they cannot burn too fast. If they hit the target hard and bounce off quickly there would be
one pissed guy who'd still be very capable to stab the shooter.
Has anyone had any experience with these things? I guess they should be easy to acquire even in countries with tight gun
control like mine.
Knuckles666 September 15th, 2003, 06:32 PM

My first post! Anyway...
Like others in the forum, I wear steel toecapped boots (part of work code too!), and I know from forst hand experience, a kick
in the shin is pure agony!
Another useful item is an old plastic card, like an old I.D, and sharpening one of the shorter sides. You can then use this to
slash, and force it up into the nose which will promptly split it!
Ive also heard of people carrying a pocket full of small change that can be thrown very hard into the face of attackers.
When I was a kid, I emptied a bottle of glasses cleaning spray and filled it with liquid strained and filtered from a bottle of
tobasco sauce, incredibly effective in countries where pepper spray is illegal. Also for people in the UK, www.spytech-uk.com
sell a spray that actually dies the skin of the attacker bright green!
A fisher space pen was also very useful before I lost it :( Innocent, yet that along with the knowledge of how to use a kubaton
is very effective!
There are so many things that can be carried innocently and used in self defence. I would also like a 3" non locking knife
which is legal to carry in the UK, anyone know of a place I can get one?
Thanks, and I look forward to many more postings!
jelly September 15th, 2003, 10:38 PM

I would also like a 3" non locking knife which is legal to carry in the UK, anyone know of a place I can get one?
Take a look at the Emerson neck knife "La Griffe":

http://www.emersonknives.com/LaGriffe_BT.html
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2292/grifferev.htm
And this nice tool, the Spyderco Spydercard, beats any sharpened credit card: :)
http://www.knifezone.ca/spyderco/SPYDERCA.htm
Knuckles666 September 16th, 2003, 05:39 PM

Thanks Jelly,
I love the Emerson knife, even though carrying fixed blades is illegal here in the UK! Still, rules are meant to be broken!
My girlfriend recently inherited my spyderco navigator, which was a very good knife, apart from being assembled with studs
instead of screws, so it couldn't be taken down to clean. I've seen the spydercard before, and again it locks!
Sometimes I think knifemakers and the government are working together to deny us quality tools we can actually carry!
I think it's tool logic and now victorinox who make credit card multi tools. If my memory serves me right, the tool logic card
contains a blade very similar to a push dagger! May consider that as a future purchase! Thanks again Jelly!

Isn't there any exception for rescue knives? Rescue teams often use claw knives as a rescue knife,
e. g. for cutting seat belts etc.
Two other recommendable claw (rescue:D) knives:
CRKT Bear Claw:

http://www.crkt.com/bearclaw.html
MOD Ladyhawk (an automatic folder):

http://www.mastersofdefense.com/store/store.php?c=automatic&p=40
THErAPIST September 17th, 2003, 12:59 AM

Speaking of CRKT knives...
http://www.crkt.com/m16zytel.html
I have carried around the M16-13Z for the last year now and have found it to be a great knife. The handle seems like its not
even there. It fits almost any hand like a glove. The edge keeps well, and It can be opened VERY quickly even without oiling it
any. I've never once oiled my knife and I can open it as fast as most spring loaded switch blades can open, if not a tad faster.
Ive even dropped my knife off of my house onto the the concrete driveway below (not on purpose) and the knife shows no
mark.
NickSG September 17th, 2003, 05:31 PM

What ever happened to the good ol 127 grain Ranger Ts?
dinkydexy September 27th, 2003, 03:04 PM

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the truth is that if you need to ask the question, the answer's no use to you. If you're
not capable of figuring out for yourself which weapon you 'd prefer to carry, then there's almost a 100% certainty that when
push came to shove you'd just freeze and not use a weapon that someone else had suggested to you; it's not your lack of
knowledge of weapons and how to use them that you need to develop...it's an aggressive streak that's willing to kill somebody
else if they mess with you that you need to work on. Work on that and you won't need any advice.
Having said that, I'm afraid that if you get attacked by more than one person, the best thing you can do is get the hell out of
there; I know it sounds yellow and all that, but the odds really are stacked high against you in a situation like that, no matter
who you are. Ask any infantry soldier what his Immediate Action drill is on coming under enemy fire, and you'll get the
response that it's to extract yourself from the Killing Zone, to take cover, etc....certainly not to stay put and try to fight. Sorry,
but that's the intelligent thing to do.
So there we are; develop a nasty, viscious streak within yourself, but use your brain and always be prepared to run like hell
when you're outnumbered...only use the screwdriver you always carry around in your back pocket when you know that you'll be
the only man standing at the end of the proceedings.
jody_kovacks September 27th, 2003, 05:04 PM

I have to agree with Dinky on this. If you find yourself being attacked by a group, your best bet is to get the fuck out of there
like now. I myself have been sprayed with pepper spray, it's a terrible sensation, but I still managed to get hold of the person
spraying me and take them to task. I would imagine that if you were to spray a group of people with anything other than
bullets, you had better get on your bike, or you will be stomped to death by some very pissed off assholes. Bottom line,
fighting is not worth the risk. Just keep your head up and avoid the situation, and if it's unavoidable, spray'em and run. Then
set up some claymores and make them pay for costing you valuable calories.
By the way, if anyone is interested in knives I would suggest taking a look at http://www.szaboinc.com/ Some of the most
beautiful work I have ever seen.
thoughtaddict October 14th, 2003, 04:42 PM

First, in terms of martial arts, I've found that if you want to humiliate the bastards and still do some minor damage Aikido is
one of the better ones. I've seen little old men attacked by 4 guys at once (in demonstration), and just tossed them like rag
dolls. It was quite possibly the most absurd thing that I've ever seen... and one of the coolest.
For the lazy/short of time, how about powdered bleach/powdered lye? If the fuckers are attacking you, a sweeping motion
toward the eyes of a handful of powdered bleach would be devestating, not to mention that the you could always just claim you
were on your way to do some laundry. I believe it would eat away at the eyes to the point of causing permanent blindness if
not treated...

How about a razorsharp quartz crystal you're wearing around your neck as a talisman? Zirconia or ruby might be interesting
too...
knowledgehungry October 15th, 2003, 04:52 PM

I wouldnt want a razor sharp Talisman near all my veins and arteries. Plus wearing a talisman around your neck is a sure way
to get people to attack you ;). A ruby big enough to do serious damage would cost insane money.
demonthes12 October 19th, 2003, 03:14 AM

http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/
A wide range of self-defense products as well as dummy grenades previously mentioned.
Tinton June 15th, 2007, 11:37 AM

But a bursting charge in/on a mace can. Use a pullcord, or push button ignition system to light a 2 or 3 second fuse.
Just make sure you don't make the explosive TOO powerful.... ;)
Hirudinea June 15th, 2007, 08:19 PM

Just a thought but what about carrying a cane with a big ass metal handle, in half a second you could crush a persons skull in
with it and canes are not regarded as weapons (unlike knives, pepper spray, home made weapons) anywhere in the world that
I know of.

Hirudinea - A good idea. While it would be inconspicuous, the problem with any weapon is there is a chance it will get taken off
you if you don't know how to use it. Personally, I'd advocate something flammable.
There is that primitive fear of fire that comes into play. If you're pumping adrenaline and someone hits you with a cane, it
might hurt but it will probably just piss you off. If they set you on fire, that's a different matter.
A garden pressure sprayer (http://www.planetnatural.com/site/hand-sprayer.html) that runs on CO2. Fill it with Methanol, or
perhaps something that burns brighter and hose them with it. Pull out one of those click igniters and light them up. Otherwise
you have a small portable flame thrower.
GNAB June 17th, 2007, 05:34 PM

Pick up a can of "Easy Off" oven cleaner and read the ingredients. Comes out in a thick gelatinous spray (not a fine mist) that
can be easily aimed. If you can prevent your ego from screaming out your name as you direct a stream towards their faces
you should be fairly safe. It is fairly difficult for blind men to identify their prey turned attacker!
crowmanyclouds July 10th, 2007, 02:49 PM

... For example, everyone carries keys (i know this has been mentioned). Instead of those whimpy little split rings that are on
there, replace them with something heavier that wont seperate easily. Attach a small maglite (AA size or AAA). Looks innocent
as hell dosnt it? Its just a wad of keys and a flashlight. Now what if you swing it? ...
This is what I carry every day. Just add one of those nylon webbing keychain neck-straps and you've got a slungshot (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slungshot).
Mine is 2 and a half feet of welded link chain with a #1 boat snap (http://www.whitworths.com.au/products/43190_lg.jpg) at the
end, and a lot of heavy metal keychain doo-dads on another #1 on the other side of my belt, both clipped to D-ring belt
keepers. With all the boat snaps clipped to the keyring I've got about a pound and a half of metal on a foot long loop of
chain wrapped around my wrist, that's very difficult to take from me.
Unclip the chain hook and I've got a manriki-gusari (http://www.animecastle.com/images/Product/large/MC-2501B.JPG), with a
little practice it's fairly easy to catch and trap a thrown punch or extended knife hand.Just a thought but what about carrying a
cane with a big ass metal handle, in half a second you could crush a persons skull in with it and canes are not regarded as
weapons (unlike knives, pepper spray, home made weapons) anywhere in the world that I know of.Walking sticks and canes
are my favorite "improvised" weapons. Almost all sword techniques can be adapted to use with a stick in addition to the
traditional techniques for sticks of that length.
My current favs are Cold Steel's polypropylene escrima stick and their knob kerrie, the poly is hard and just a little whippy.
Their "City Stick" is exactly what Hirudinea is talking about, 3 feet of fiberglass rod with half a pound+ of steel on the end, in
other words a footman's mace.
A standard bent wood cane in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is an amazingly effective weapon. In addition to
straight stick techniques there are special techniques which use the hooked end for trapping, and control (hook the arm, step
through and behind the opponent into an arm lock, place cane on the opposite shoulder and pull the cane tight against the
opponents throat in a choke (a sharp pull can crush the larynx).
Properly sized, the hook allows the cane to be used in the style of a tonfa, adjustable aluminum canes (on left (http://
www.feelingood.ca/products/canes_l.jpg)) are particularly well suited for this. The lower segment is easily removed to create a
tonfa/escrima stick combo weapon, and can be modified by simply cutting the internal end off at an angle to create a Shaka
styled iklwa assegai.
The otherwise unmemorable Sam Peckinpah film "The Killer Elite" has some excellent cane fighting scenes, James Cann was
trained in it's use so what you see is a fairly realistic depiction of cane as weapon.
A big problem with some of the more "interesting" ideas in this thread is that in real life they could see you serving more time
than the person who attacks you. Yeah, a can of Easy Off will do a lot of damage as an improvised weapon. But you better
have a receipt with a time-stamp that's less than an hour old and a dirty oven at home or you could be facing a carrying a
deadly weapon/dangerous substance with intent charge.
Hose someone down with gasoline and set them on fire?

You'll be spending the rest of your life in a cage!
If I do serious damage to an attacker with my keys or cane, I can legitimately claim that I was acting in self defense with no
intent cause bodily harm.
beebs111 July 21st, 2007, 05:15 AM

I have a serious problem with the filth that resort to robbing another person of their hard earned possessions, for any reason.
I have no respect whatsoever for someone who would beat me up, or even possibly kill me for the money that I am carrying at
that particular moment.
Generally the thing that people fear the most next to fire, is a high voltage shock.
Though its expressly forbidden by law in my area to even own any kind of electrical weapon, I recently purchased a 1,000,000v
stun gun which can be concealed inside a pack of cigarettes. I have not yet decided if I will further flaunt the bay state's laws
and carry that bad boy, but I do know it packs one hell of a punch: enough to leave large electrical burns and reduce me to a
spasming mess on the ground after a 1 second of electricity.
In the area where I live, it is near impossible to administer lethal force legally, even in your own home. its sad really, the pigs
would rather have me killed in my own home than have me kill an intruder. fuck them.
I apologize for my previous ranting, it sometimes gets frustrated. pepper spray requires an F.I.D. card, but is also easily
obtained.
My carry weapons of choice are a .177 daisy power line, which achieves around 6" of penetration in a flesh like substance, a
roll of quarters secured with scotch tape on both ends, because it would be extremely difficult to establish CCW, and a spring
assisted 3.5" knife with the Emerson system for my easy deployment from my right pocket clip.
If there is a particular liquid substance that you would like the blast a foe with at a high velocity, I would recommend
constructing a "pepper gun" out of a 12gram CO2 cartridge using bike tire filler.
This will thread to a piece of brass pipe with the right fittings, and the contained material will be housed in this. when the CO2
is released, this material will be expelled at a high velocity.
A piece of saran wrap or something else of that nature could be used to secure the front, and smaller tubes could be used to
fire flechettes or other small objects.
++++++++++
Use paragraph breaks, capitalize the beginning of every sentence...and my personal favorite...the letter I is ALWAYS
capitalized when used in reference to yourself. :rolleyes:
Oh, and try using a spell-checker (I did it for you). You didn't spell 'lethal' right, yet somehow managed to spell 'flechettes'
correctly?
nbk2000
Isotoxin July 23rd, 2007, 01:52 AM

[First, in terms of martial arts, I've found that if you want to humiliate the bastards and still do some minor damage Aikido is
one of the better ones. I've seen little old men attacked by 4 guys at once (in demonstration), and just tossed them like rag
dolls. It was quite possibly the most absurd thing that I've ever seen... and one of the coolest.
That's because it was rigged either explicitly or implicitly.

The E&W is a very very good place because of the lack of restrictions on speach and the openness to discusion of potent
weaponry and explosives and such. However I think in some ways this is a weakness because it encourages people to drift
away from reality and into myth from lack of topic restrictions. The E&W is the best place on the net for explosive use and
synthesis in part because members here constantly make and test the explosives. However in some other matters there is a
tendency for some people to talk up bullshit and what I feel is almost kewlness expecially in regards to fighting.
Just as we would not lend much credence to someone that only speculated about explosives without making and testing them
as much as possible(even if they were limited to testing small amounts) we should not lend credence to people that speculate
on fighting without them doing much making(aka training) and testing(aka rolling,sparring,competition,actual use in the open
enviroment).
Improvised weapons of the sort you would carry on your person or grab from the enviroment are only an addition to a base of
fighting skill just as ball bearings are an addition to explosives not the primary and most important component.
A strong base of fighting skill is something that is used by people that fight against other similarly skilled people in an
atmosphere that encourages some cooperation(for skill development) but also rigorous competition. Anyone familiar with
economics knows that firms in competition tend to improve rapidly in the qualities most suited for profit and a firm protected
from this competition may remain solvent but would easily be destroyed should competition come up. We can see such
atmosphere in Combat Sports expecially those with some connection to competition that rewards qualities that would be useful
both in and out of the ring(ie hard damaging blows, damaging joint locks, chokes or KOs). Contrast this to some competition
that rewards light painless blows that serve only to score points.
Some fighting sports that typically have such traits and atmospheres:
brazilian jujitsu - for damaging and painful locks on important body parts that can be seen to do terrific damage occasionally
in competition(proof it is not just hearsay), chokes that can be seen to render people unconcious(defenceless) on a regular
basis in the training gym itself not to mention competition and lastly and perhaps most importantly skills to cope with the
massive weight imbalances that are often seen in fights and positioning ability to strike without much fear of them doing
likewise.
judo - chokes(see above), throws(imagine being dropped from 4 feet up in the air or so onto the ground right on your head or
back) and other similar skills to BJJ
boxing - top notch cardiovascular abilities, ability to take a punch and remain focused on the attacker, defencing motions and
of course very very powerful punches
wrestling - like BJJ but moreso on avoiding the harmful mass imbalance and positioning for striking - also many takedowns as
a prelude to groundfighting or conversly the ability to quickly get back on your feet should you be taken down
muay thai - clenchwork allowing you to avoid the attackers punches and strike them at the same time, powerful and long
range kicks using the hard bone of the shin not the fragile bones of the foot, knees and elbows to avoid damaging the small
bones of the hand
Dog Brothers style stick fighting - stick fighting systems that are tested at full speed unlike most stick fighting that is based
solely on somewhat static drills
In short any sport that competes and rewards qualities that work to a true defeat of the opponent rather then arbitrary points
and also has plently of sparring/rolling against people that are really resisting and making things as hard as possible for you.
This is of course an incomplete list.
For more about this quality a useful sport must have:

http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&op=newarticle&id=254
None of the above is meant to slam such things and talk of combat psychology, gun combat, ext. The point is when at all
possible to test things out - Do So. This is why you should train hard in the gym but should not try to stab people for training
purposes. Some aspects of fighting can be practiced with little risk and somewhat little cost while others(ie actually killing
people) are very unsuited to testing and one could hardly be blamed for refusal to practice those aspects in a realistic way.
festergrump July 23rd, 2007, 02:36 AM

This is why you should train hard in the gym but should not try to stab people for training purposes.
I don't see why stabbing people for training purposes is a bad idea. In fact, I'd encourage it. Not with a real blade, of course,
but anything safe but resembling a blade should be within limits. How about a rubber knife? How about playing that game
"KILLER" like what many played on college campuses, except with rubber knives or rolled up newspapers and magazines, but
no pistol or bomb likenesses? (a rolled newspaper would make a nice makeshift escrima stick or truncheon, too, etc...)
I seem to remember a thread somewhere about NBK talking briefly about this type of training. Likely it was very long ago.
Anyhow, my whole point in posting was that the best honing of your skills is accomplished this way... in real life, non stop, "get
me if you can" + "wherever you can" excercises. (think of Inspector Clouseau's manservant, Cato, and how he was constantly
trying to surprise attack his mentor/master :))...
It's the best way to ensure your preparedness equal your skills at any given time, day or night.
WWII July 23rd, 2007, 06:00 PM

The Japanese in WWII actually did this type of training, bayonet training on our American troops who were P.O.W.'s. while the
Japanese army were still in basic training. :eek:
The American press were very outraged and reported on this story. I was very outraged when I read about it too.
You can read about it in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-U-S-Medal-Honor-Recipients/dp/0425210170/ref=sr_1_13/105-1668718-0578854?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185224300&sr=1-13
festergrump July 24th, 2007, 03:21 AM
While I wouldn't trust the American press to report the truth even back then, it does seem like good training...
Get the troops used to the feeling of the bayonette piercing the flesh and organs, maybe even feeling the throb of a
heartbeat right down the manlicher stock of the old Arisaka and into the soul, so to speak. :eek: (shudder :().
The japs were (ARE) a determined bunch...
Smoking August 1st, 2007, 08:15 AM

if you dont like the above or if you cant get any of the above, your going to like this
fire extinguisher(powder ones), look around for smal compact fire extinguishers
the one you find in cars and stuff, you see them going for you reach for your extinguisher and conseal, wait and when there
about 10feet away spray em!
you can get away cous you put on a pretty smoke screen and cal the police (they wont be hard to find being white and all)
or you can use the fire extinguisher to beatm up,(they are probably not going far with the dry white stuf in there eyes)
[its important to buy more of these so you can find out how they work,,play around with them]
pluspoints
+you can put on a pretty good smoke screen (and get away)
+you can hit pretty hard
+there trowable
+its got a nasty effect when gotten in eyes and lungs
+its not illegal to carry (so far i know)
+you could mark em
minpoints
-heavy
-not always easy to conseel
-pretty big
(sorry for my lousy english)

and good luck
Jacks Complete August 1st, 2007, 08:39 AM

Please quit apologizing for your poor English!
If you want a spell checker, download the Firefox in-line spell checker, it will underline in red anything you spell wrongly as you
go. It will also catch the whole i/I thing.
As far as an extinguisher goes, I'd go for CO2. A breath of it will shock the system, as there is no oxygen, and you will be well
over the 5% threshold for panic, if they get too close it is a frost burn, and there is nothing left as a trace except the cylinder
after use. You can, as you say, also hit them with the cylinder, either before or after use.
The CO2 powerlets contain oil, normally, so they would be a bad idea. Of course, it might be the bad idea you are looking for!
CO2 gas canisters from paintball guns might also be fun.
nbk2000 August 22nd, 2007, 09:23 AM

Pepper Balls, 25 for $60
http://www.avurt.com/c-2-buy-now.aspx?skinid=6
The projectiles are .50 caliber, compared to the .68 of regular paintball, but there are .50 paintball guns and barrel adapters
available. :)
Interestingly enough, Avurt bought the company that manufacturers the PAVA projectiles that are used by Pepperball, meaning
they now own the sole source of replacement projectiles for the Pepperball system. :p
Charles Owlen Picket August 22nd, 2007, 10:36 AM

Talk with old convicts that made it through the system; they often have startlingly clear perception of how to fuck someone
viciously with next to nothing to work with and get away with it.
While I basically agree with both Isotoxin and Festergump's remarks & I believe their logic holds; not everyone can devote the
time or has youth on their side for training purposes. Therefore I propose using one's imagination in terms of brains (not
bullshit) to be as vicious as possible. I have seen some old guys who I would really NOT want to screw with as you would never
see their shit coming. Some people DON'T play by any rules of man or dog.....
I saw a device used for pulling tires off tractors that is essentially a hypodermic. It was a screwdriver-sized hollow steel tube
sharpened at an angle like a hypodermic syringe. Stab the tire, the air comes out, etc. That fucking thing would give someone
a serious problem when used as a stabbing weapon. I'm told that standard garden implements are generally a problem to
deal with when used by a determined individual. A machette used against the legs and arms or a 4 Tyne cultivator used to the
face produce results especially when rusty and covered in excrement.

From http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2003/01/08/more_ricin.php
I've had some interesting e-mail on the subject, which I thought I'd address here for the curious. One person mentioned the
possibility of ricin dissolved in DMSO. I have to say that that's a nasty thought, because DMSO certainly does increase skin
permeability. But I don't know how soluble a large peptide like this would be - even in DMSO, which is generally a solvent of
last resort in chemistry. And even if you could get some of the protein in there, odds are excellent that it would denature,
change its conformation as it went into solution. Most enzymes shift around so much going into solvents like DMSO that they
lose their activity completely. Not all of them, though - but I would put ricin in the category of unlikely to survive the transition.
It has an important disulfide bond that would probably be labile to oxidation on storage in DMSO as well.
The author seems to have the credentials to know what he's talking about, though only human testing would prove it true or
false.
panzerkampfwagen October 10th, 2007, 10:50 PM

It would probably be a fairly simple ordeal to compress a small amount of ether (diethyl) in a metal canister that could fit
inside of a pen. When clicked, the active end could be pressed into the valve and punctured, releasing the gas through the tip
of the pen, which should concentrate the gas into a coherent jet. It does not take all that much ether to incapacitate someone,
and if you so desired, you could turn it into a (very) miniature flamethrower. Also, an autofire center punch, though a little
suspicious, could make a very effective melee weapon, focusing the energy of the blow onto a very small tip and striking twice
per hit. It would not be particularly effective against softer areas, but it would wreak havoc on bone, particularly intercostal
spaces in the rib cage (just be careful of vital organs unless you are trying to administer a slow and one-of-a-kind death).
They are also very, very cheap (usually about a dollar, provided quality is not your concern).
Arisaka October 12th, 2007, 06:10 PM

I always carry a 5 inch metal drill bit with me.
If i get into a fight than i can punch and scratch at the same time leaving some serious wounds.
And it's not illegal to posses.
nbk2000 October 12th, 2007, 08:06 PM

If your weapon is a drill-bit, you might as well have it loaded up with aluminum and/or magnesium shavings in drilling grease.
That's plausibly deniable, and the metal shavings create hydrogen gas in situ in the wound, promoting anaerobic infections
which are very nasty.
Maldore October 17th, 2007, 05:39 AM

If you want to defend yourself quickly and effectively, I would tell you from experience to use quick incapacitation or cause a
good bit of pain, then run away. Poke the eyes (pain and temporary blindness), stomp the top of the foot (crippling, painful,
inability to kick), twist/break their fingers (severe pain, inability to punch), strike the nose (pain, bleeding, temporary
blindness), strike in the lower abdominal area on the sides of the body* (a.k.a. kidney punch, causes severe pain, can cause
crippling), strike the genitals* (extreme pain, possible vomiting, crippling [painful for women also]), motion towards the face
then strike the stomach (a.k.a. cheap shot... can cause vomiting, defecation, severe pain, and incapacitation), or hit the long
joints if viable (knees, elbows, shoulders... all can cause pain and an extent of physical crippling). After that point, you can
chose to inflict greater bodily harm or run away. I suggest running away unless you like dealing with the piggys, "self defense"
can land you fines, probation, community service, or even jail time; they can say you used too much force, unwarranted
violence, vigilantism, ECT. A quick look at anatomy and physiology can show you some "soft spots" that are easy to hit and
can easily and effectively incapacitate your opponent. Be mean, nasty, vicious... bite, scratch, gouge, do whatever you can to
get away, and remember, the two worst possible places to be are on your back or your stomach (back being the worst).
*The adrenal gland/cortex rests on top of the kidneys, though a kidney punch is often painful and crippling, it can cause a
temporary adrenaline rush in an opponent.
*Striking the testicles should only be used as a last resort or as defense against rape. Striking the testicles can cause a
release of testosterone and is known to cause adrenaline rushes. Striking the testicles will cause someone to become unable
to hold an erection (generally) and can help in a rape situation.
-Fighting fair is essentially giving your opponent an advantage, because I'll be damned if someone trying to mug you is going
to "fight fair".
-By the way, I "was" a self defence teacher, tournament martial artist, and wrestler before damaging one of my legs, this isn't
entirely expert advice, but I consider myself somewhat knowlegeable.
Alexires October 17th, 2007, 06:54 AM

and remember, the two worst possible places to be are on your back or your stomach (back being the worst).....
-By the way, I "was" a self defence teacher, tournament martial artist, and wrestler before damaging one of my legs, this isn't
entirely expert advice, but I consider myself somewhat knowlegeable.
Right. I'm glad for that little disclaimer.
So anyway, who wants to be on their stomach in a fight?
Fuck that.
If you are on your stomach, you can't use your legs to attack your opponent, you can't see jack shit, and you leave your
spine/neck/back of head/kidneys open for some serious abuse. Have you ever watched UFC my friend? While it isn't real world
at all, how many people do you see going onto their stomachs? If they do, how long do they last?
Go to your back. At least you can see your enemy, kick out if need be to keep him/them at bay and if they come in for some
ground fighting, then you can get them into the guard and wait them out until they are too fucked to do anything, then
embrace them with the fist of Adonis (smash shit out of them). If there are multiple attackers, and you end up on the ground,
you are fucked. Absolutely. No questions asked.
Now, this thread can be taken two ways. Are we harming attackers to get them to retreat and leave us in (one) peace, or are
we trying to harm them, possibly fatally. I won't bother talking about trying to hurt them enough to retreat, because that is
pointless (except in certain circumstances, they will either come back later, or just get enraged).
I would think that if we are trying to do some real harm, we need to analyse why the body works. Oxygen and food are they
two main ones. We aren't going to fight long enough that they starve, so lets go with oxygen. Either cut off their flow of
oxygen (gas them, crush their windpipe, wind them, choke them, etc) or make them bleed....alot.
For bleeding, trying to hit an artery (or a vein for that matter) is a little difficult. In the heat of a fight, unless you practice
studiously in pinpoint attacks, you will have a very hard time hitting these points (except the neck). I would personally use an
instrument that punctures and doesn't allow the flesh to fall back and stop the bleeding. Either stab them with a knife and
twist it before pulling it out, or stab them with something like an oversized hypodermic syringe.
Of course, if you get busted with a massive hypodermic syringe, that is going to be a little obvious that you are out to do
"bad" things....
If you are aching to carry something to protect yourself, and it needs to be gnarly, an idea might be a cane.
Yes, I know they are cliche, but think about it. A long steel tube, sharpened diagonally to a point at the end (like a big
hypodermic syringe) and this point is hidden in a hard plastic end cap to look like those old folks ones. If you slam someone
with that hard enough, it will cut through the rubber and impale them, and that would be nasty. Otherwise, it can be used a
bashing tool, or something to put leverage on a joint/neck/limb/etc.
Maldore October 17th, 2007, 08:27 PM

It was a little late when I posted that reply, I did mean stomach being the worst lol. Sorry, I got a little tired and made a typo,
ty for the correction though Alexires. Personaly I favor inflicting sufficent pain then making an escape, and it's pretty easy to
stomp on someone's foot then run off, and if you do it with sufficent force, it will crush the bones, makining them unable to
persue (assuming you aren't so unlucky your opponent just happens to be wearing metal toed shoes...). They could come
back, yeah, but impaling someone with a piece of metal on a street is a good way to get 20+ years in prison... fuck that imo
lol
Vitalis October 17th, 2007, 08:33 PM

If the person is attacking you, you have the right to impale someone with a piece of metal. Attackers deserve no mercy, killing
them would be best, you would be preventing them from attacking someone else.
Defendu October 17th, 2007, 08:58 PM

assuming you aren't so unlucky your opponent just happens to be wearing metal toed shoes...
Kicking downwards on the shin/instep area is a a lot easier than trying to stomp on toes in the middle of a fight.
...cause a good bit of pain...pain and temporary blindness...crippling, painful, inability to kick...severe
pain...pain...pain...pain...painful for women also
This "poke them in the eyes"/"just kick him in the nuts" crap all assumes your opponent is not so full of adrenaline that he/
they don't notice pain until after the fight.

Exactly why you should inflict a fatal blow to your attacker. Remember, this person is attacking you, you have to stop the
attack by any means necessary.
Alexires October 17th, 2007, 11:49 PM

Vitalis and Defendu - That was the theory I was working on. Carrying around something that looks like a weapon, or can be
considered a weapon is stupid unless you are expecting with fair certainty to be attacked, but if you must carry something,
don't be half assed.
By attacking you, they have given up the right to be considered human, and should be treated as an animal, and put down or
beaten off as such.
As I said in my previous post, harming attackers is a little ambivilent. If you are going to hurt them badly, you need to do it
properly.... none of this incapacitating bullshit...
nbk2000 October 18th, 2007, 01:17 AM

The heel stomp only works well if you happen to be wearing boots at the time. A soft-soled tennis shoe would still hurt if it's a
man doing the stomping, but hard-heeled boots would be much more likely to break bones, and without hurting your own foot
in the process.
Maldore October 18th, 2007, 09:32 PM

All that I am trying to get across is a situation of self defense that won't land you years in prison. I am trying to articulate a
situation of "if you were attacked on the street", trying to consider cars, people, residential buildings, ECT.
Using a sharp/blunted weapon on the street isn't a particularly wise idea in my opinion. In the idea of a blunted object, you
can get blood on your person; even if you hit them in the body (anything that is not entirely rounded or made from metal will
often rip skin if you end up grazing your opponent with the end of the object or striking them it the head).
In the instance of using a sharpened metal pole to "impale" your attacker, you're likely get a blood spray/spatter depending
on where you hit. You will almost definitely get blood on your hands, and you will be in an awfully awkward position carrying an
inconspicuous object covered in blood (newspaper with a pipe inside).
On a similar note, unless you are wearing gloves of some kind, your fingerprints are going to be allover your weapon if you
chose to discard it. A previous example of a pole sharpened to a point like a "hypodermic syringe" would be insane unless you
premeditated the entire incident, in which it would not be defense at all, but first degree murder.
In the incident of a street attack, you stab someone with this pole, you have a dead guy in an alley clutching an object
obviously crafted to be used as a weapon covered in latent prints, and youre stumbling back onto the sidewalk with blood on
your person, your heart rate and breathing up, and likely shaking from shock/adrenaline.
Don't get me wrong, people have been listing off great ways of killing an attacker, but it is not practical in a situation of being
mugged/jumped.
*Edited and reposted to include paragraph breaks 10/18/07*

I think you are going way too easy on this fictional attacker. If carrying a "weapon" that is not illegal to carry, why not use it?
The scumbag doesn't deserve to live.
If the Police question you, you can explain that the attacker was trying to KILL you and you defended yourself.
Alexires October 18th, 2007, 10:37 PM

I understand what you are saying Maldore, I said it in my last post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think that carrying any
remotely obvious weapon around "just in case" is a stupid idea.
But the title of this thread isn't "how to minimally harm a mugger who has a wife and children to feed so we need to be nice",
the title of this thread is "easy ways to harm an attacker". If you go the the beginning of this thread (it's an archive) then you
will see the context that this is based upon.
Any further discussion I would like to take to PM'ing, Maldore, so as not to clog the thread.
Expanding on NBK's idea of boots, some motorcyclists screw or bolt metal plates to the bottom of their boots so that when
they corner, they can put their foot on the ground for whatever reason, not to mention it looks kind of cool...
Why not do that? Besides walking (normally), I don't think that humans use the heel of their foot for anything. Running
should be on the toes, or at least the middle of the foot, fighting should be on the toes. Perhaps it would be feasible to affix
a small metal raised bit to the heel of the boot. Not enough to drastically effect walking, but even a couple of millimetres
would be enough to be used in combat.
Comes in use for stomping peoples feet/legs/heads and also doubles as a cool pyrotechnic show at night if you ride a
motorbike *wink*.
Jacks Complete October 24th, 2007, 07:41 PM

Jesus guys! Don't come to the UK. You'll be looking at 5 years at the minimum for vigilante-ism. The cops and some courts
hate self-defence, too.
Anything you want to use here has to be "immediate" - you can pick up a bottle after the attack has started, but not before. It
also has to be "proportionate" - no shooting the knifeman. Oh, and anything the police can prove to a court you are carrying
for use in defence (possibly including a vest) is an "offensive weapon" (and there is, in law, no such thing as a defensive
weapon. The law was changed after the courts held that an extendable baton could be freely carried. They banned those within
about 3 months of the case!)
In the UK, you must use absolute stealth and have 100% deniability at the time (no right to silence here!) or you will get
arrested. Heck, you probably will anyway. If you run, then the mugger can make up any shit he wants, and you'll have the
police after you regardless. Oh, and there is CCTV nearly everywhere, but that only helps the police lock up everyone they can
find. They'll lose the tapes before the court date, generally.
Avoid trouble at all costs. If trouble finds you, talk your way out. If you are going to get a kicking, you might be well taking it,
and holding on to the name and face, and settling up on your terms much later on. Or, if it's feasible, twat him, put the boot
in at the same time, then leave. Don't put the boot in afterwards, even just a few seconds later, or you will go down if you get
caught.
In the end, as long as you survive, you can hunt them down later on.
nbk2000 October 25th, 2007, 10:12 AM

That is such a pathetic way of thinking that they've instilled into what was once a proud people!
"Take the beating."
:mad:
This is what jews do to any country they get their claws into...emasculate their men.
Hinckleyforpresident October 26th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Just do what I do.... Carry knives.
I always carry two throwing knives in my boots and a butterfly knife in my pocket. They should take care of most trouble.
And if they pull a gun on me, hey I won't fight back. I would rather know I will live another day then fight back against a gun.
Knives are not illegal, nor do they require any licensing. You can even say "I was afraid I would get mugged, so I was armed."
So long as your life is in danger, self defense covers you. Otherwise (if your not going to get hurt), weapons shouldn't be used
at all to save the legal hassle.
Just my five cents.
nbk2000 October 26th, 2007, 10:42 AM

Throwing knives?
The probability of hitting an attacker, let alone disabling them with one, is minute. And, you have now thrown away a knife,
and given it to your attacker and/or his previously unarmed buddy.
Charles Owlen Picket October 26th, 2007, 11:07 AM

One of the issues I have with this discussion is the continual "what if" proposal. Each incident of interpersonal violence is so
unique that extrapolation and generalization is impossible and/or dangerous.
We see that differing areas of both the USA & other countries have laws so limiting to an individual's right of self defense that
to offer a predetermined self-defense modality (weapon designed as a weapon) could be legally problematic. But who the fuck
cares when you may get hurt? Only those who have something to loose (everyone has their freedom).
My point being that if someone threatens your health and well being, he needs to go down for real. BUT, if you know the laws
of your land you MAY really need to alter your modality of defense.
[Example] In the UK to go about with a damn kitchen knife is a serious issue in itself. Compare Detroit or L.A. to someplace
like Casper, etc.
Thus the uniqueness of both the situation and the laws of the land make preplanned defense almost a moot point from a
generalized perspective.
Alexires November 4th, 2007, 12:28 AM

Charles - True, but perhaps this thread is for expanding peoples mindset towards self defence?
No, we can't cover every scenario, and no, the law may not be on our side, but someone might post an idea that another
forumite reads and says to himself "Shit, that's a good idea, and totally legal where I am." Thinking outside the box is
probably the point now. Carrying knives and guns are obvious, but perhaps wearing finger armour isn't, or changing your
fashion to suit the situation might work.
That's what I figure about this thread, anyway.
Hinckley - As I've said before, and those better than I have said before me, carrying a weapon (like knives) are not a
boasting thing. Personally (if I were carrying a knife), I would carry it hidden, until the last moment.
If you find you cannot talk your way out of a situation, and you fear that you really are in the shit, you then have an ace in the
hole. Take them down when they come in with fists, before they have a chance to prepare or get something bigger. If you pull
your knife out, you may scare them away.... On the other hand, you may not, and they now know you have a knife and
respond appropriately.
Also, if you are carrying something, I think that comes under the category of "premeditated" and suddenly self-defence
becomes murder....
Jacks - I'm so sorry. The situation in the UK is really a fuck up. Move the fuck somewhere else dude. You are letting the bitch
state bring you down.
-=HeX=- June 7th, 2008, 05:09 PM

Sorry to commit the vile act of necromancy to this thread but I have an idea that I think worthy of posting.
The first idea is my main one. I read here that DCM (Dichloromethane) can knock out a grown man in 20 seconds. I believe,
therefore, that spraying the dumb fuck in the face with DCM may have a good knockdown effect. It however may kill. I believe
nbk may have mentioned it in the MCX Thread. DCM is available as OTC paint stripper. The sprayer can be one of those
refillable sprayguns people sometimes use to keep cool. Fill the spraygun with DCM and if mugged, spray them in the kisser
and run like fuck.
The ether idea is to have an electronically fired sleeve cannon (See my thread on magicians arsenal) but use a clothespin
switch, with 2 feet of fishing line attached to a fake cell phone as the trigger line. To use, simply throw the phone towards
them and boom. Big jet of flame engulfs them while you run away.
Both ideas are fairly simple but I do like to apply the KISS principle to ensure they work.
Telkor June 18th, 2008, 03:59 PM

Easy way to make a really effective weapon:
First, you need an extendable baton. Make sure it only consists of hardened steel, no lead.
Boil top part in water for some minutes to remove the paint and avoid splitting during the next step.
Sharpen the ball on the top to form a spearhead.

Make some notches on the long side and sharpen the edges.
The grinding will take a couple of hours, but it's worth the trouble, as it gives you an effective weapon not bigger than a mobile
phone when contracted.
No matter if you hit your foe with the long side or stab with the top, he'll definitely be unable to harm you any more.
Needless to say, only use it for self-defence, as it will certainly cause some nasty wounds.
mike-hunt June 18th, 2008, 11:48 PM

A handy self defense weapon can be simple set of keys used like brass knuckles to slash and stab. Handy when returning to
your car in rough neighbor hoods .
This device http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/Wild-Kat-Keychain-p-1-c-308.html

A hard plastic cat or dog shaped version of the brass knuckles looks innocent and could be very effective in the rite hands also
good in places where knifes and other weapons are illegal.
The site is also worth a look if your interested in other self defense weapons
Telkor June 22nd, 2008, 11:25 AM

PS:
Wehen you make such an expanding sword, use an automatic extending baton with a spring (this version might be forbidden
in some countries, though).
These are much more useful.
Alexires June 22nd, 2008, 10:45 PM

Yeah, pity about that Telkor: Places like Aus and the UK such a thing would be very illegal. You might as well just carry an
unregistered pistol around, it is basically the same thing.
I've always been cynical of people putting keys in their knuckles and punching other people. I would prefer to hold the key in
between my thumb and my fist (like forming a fist with the thumb on top) and stabbing to the eyes or other soft spots. Of
course this is just as effective with a finger, or with the knuckles of your finger. That and the keys will fuck up your hands,
which could be distracting in a fight not to mention bad if the scum bag has Hepatitis or HIV or some shit like that.
If someone scratched me with a key when I was trying to mug them, I would be pissed off. I would fuck them up. What you
want is something that is disabling on the first hit, or will at least make them think "Fuck, I don't want to do that again".
Things like having metal inserts in your jacket because you "ride a motorbike" or having metal plates on the side of your
boots for the same reason.
Telkor June 23rd, 2008, 12:23 PM

Yeah, pity about that Telkor: Places like Aus and the UK such a thing would be very illegal. You might as well just carry an
unregistered pistol around, it is basically the same thing.
True, that really sucks.
In Germany, you may even be arrested for wearing a kevlar vest during a demonstration, because of "passive armament".
That's absurd. One the one hand, the state neglects the citizens to defend themselves, on the other hand, the penalty for
grievous bodily harm ist ridiculously low.
Some weeks ago, a couple of youth beat somebody to coma. "Just for fun".
Their penalty: Some social work. Their victim will never be able to walk again.
I tell ya, if such little bastards cross my way, the'll certainly never do any social work.
Charles Owlen Picket June 23rd, 2008, 12:25 PM

The "key's in your fist thing" is a poor idea. I was going to wade in here and the first thing I typed sounded mean & like I was
putting people down so I deleted it......My intention is NOT to "put someone down" or hurt someone's feelings. That's childish
& unproductive. But a lot of the material are not workable techniques & this is a serious subject.
Here is a simple test that you can do at home to determine if you have a workable technique...... It is also a VERY good
determinate of productive use of impact weapons.
Punch (or strike) an inflated tire with the technique or object as hard as you possibly can.
IF your hand gets injured while holding the object.....you are going to have one big problem with a human skull.... "But I'm
going to strike other softer areas", or "I'm carefully going to control my grasp" doesn't cut it when you can barely breath
because the adrenaline is shooting out your ears and you think you're going to vomit from fear, anger, excitement, etc. If the
"club" or blunt object bounces back and knocks you in the hand (like nunchakus or similar; a chain-type free floating kinetic
weapon) then that will happen when you REALLY don't want it to......
If the fucking weapon allows you to "wail on an inflated tire until you tire".....then you have a weapon that MAY function as
planned.
The "tire-trick" was actually used by a federal court test case many years ago as an example of effective striking ability.
The human body is subject to various influences due to our standing on two legs and the majority of our weight being
unequally distributed. Our "hard spots & soft spots" are also widely distributed. The opponent RARELY just stands there. They
move. Thus the concept that you will continually strike a "soft" area of the body is not to be depended upon due to the
unpredictable way the body can move from pain response or impact. Conceptually, the most widely available striking
methodology is generally the most successful due to this logical foundation of anatomy and movement mechanics.
The first weapon man may have used was the rock. The second being the club and third being the spear. There are solid
foundational reasons for this beyond the advancement in technology and tool usage.
Jacks Complete June 23rd, 2008, 03:31 PM

Good post, C.
I'd second that, and also point out that getting your keys lined up "just so" is likely to take far too long, and those pointy bits
are likely to end up embedded in your hand.
You could use something like a kubaton (not entirely sure of the spelling) which is essentially a hard plastic or aluminium rod
about 10 to 15mm in diameter, designed to simply allow you to form a more solid fist around it. It sits on your keys, and you
can then use your keys as a flail, and the other (rounded) end as a pressure point stabbing weapon. It acts a bit like a roll of
pennies.
Sadly, I think even these have been outlawed now (in the UK), as I've not seen any for a good few years, when 10 years ago
everyone seemed to have one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-433649/Jump-shout-beat-street-crime.html Found this, worth a read for the laugh.
Hirudinea June 23rd, 2008, 06:56 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eet-crime.html Found this, worth a read for the laugh.
Pathetic! But liberals have no idea what the real world is like so hardly suprising.
You could use something like a kubaton (not entirely sure of the spelling) which is essentially a hard plastic or aluminium rod
about 10 to 15mm in diameter... It acts a bit like a roll of pennies.
It wouldn't suprise me if kubatons are illegal in Canada now, but why not just use a roll of pennies, I don't think its illegal yet
to carry a roll of pennies and if your concerned after using a roll, just unroll them and throw the wrapper away. (Man what a
world where victims have to be more fearful about arming themselves than criminals!)

Related material: One expression that always makes me laugh is "muscle memory". Muscles don't remember shit. The
human brain remembers things. Therefore repetitive movement is Coordinative Training for the mind to signal muscle
contractions at a particular rate and intensity. The "Theory" behind "forms" or "Kata" martial arts training is that the body will
eventually learn to preform a movement correctly but since movement in response to attack would be of a virtually infinite
variety, it's utility is basically one of a beginning exercise for those, completely unfamiliar with those movements (children)
and men who are old and need the movement to maintain health. It is extremely limited as a martial art.
(I don't remember if I ever mentioned this before)

The term "strapped" meaning to be carrying a weapon; comes from prison wherein those who are confined to a wheelchair are
generally the repository for weapons since the chair was metal (wand-ing was useless) and tough to search the whole thing.
The guy in the wheelchair would "strap" a piece of metal to the chair in a manner to be useful to another individual to harm a
third party.
Box-cutters chip and break when used as weapons! They ride over buttons and zippers (often breaking) and are easy to snap
when REALLY tearing into someone. Of course if you LET someone write their name on you with the fucking thing, you will get
hurt but they are not a quality item. As a small, hand-held item, a sharpened bottle opener might be better.
Stabbing someone in the bladder or lower intestinal tract can be a winner every-time! Small knives when used in the standard
fashion against the ribs, heart/lungs generally produce non-fatal, less problematic wounds....but not so with even a 3-4"
puncture in the bladder, lower intestinal tract, crotch, etc.

Well. That is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.
I find it quite amusing that people tote "gun control" as being the solution to all criminal activity, but here we have one of the
most gun controlling nazi states in the world that have had a 10% increase in gun crime. *Dies laughing* The Irony Gods are
laughing their asses off.
The gall of some of these politicians is unbelievable. Almost makes me wish someone would start to beat someone in front of
them and see what they do.

I'm actually not sure who documented it but one of the more commercial "training facilities" like "Gunsite" or "Thunder Ranch"
was asked to document a text of a contextual "battle" between a gun & knife. * It actually could be a third facility - as I don't
have the material in front of me. I believe a guy named Chapman was involved as was a doctoral Journal.
Participants were to have the weapons concealed and one was a "Z-Knife" (a rubber, weighted knife with some markable
material on the blade and tip) and the other was a firearm with wax bullets. Contestants were placed at different distances
apart. Both "weapons" were concealed.
It took the length of 20 feet before the gun-man could "kill" the opponent before the "knife-man" could not push that rubber
knife up his guts. The conclusions were submitted to the DoJ and studied for some time.
The complexities of drawing the weapon and centering it on target while squeezing the trigger were too slow to be
accomplished before the opponent who would only have to advance, draw the weapon, "kill".... could be overcome. The need
for wax bullets became obvious as the only thing that counted were hits and not some noise.... which could be made pretty
damn fast but the actual hit was not on target.
This issue is actually one of the prime reasons for a great deal of alteration in law enforcement training and even though
(TTBoMK) was done about 1987; it's still being studied. The amount of reliance on a firearm without training on speed/
accuracy & follow through to minimize "death from a dead man" was pretty astounding. Accurate case histories indicate that
the complexities involved are far too numerous to be met with any one "style" of training.
Shark500 October 19th, 2008, 10:16 AM

Just punch the attacker in the throat.
They can't think about hurting you when they just received a blast to the trachea.
Gasping for air, they are putty in your hands.

Get him into position to snap his neck and hold him hostage over the others.
Standing behind the now choking attacker place your forearm across his neck, re grab the other forearm, and place the palm
of the other hand at the bast of his head.
Give a nice firm kick to the back of the knee and drag him away.
Turn the bone forearm into the trachea to increase the pain.
give warning to the other assailants.
Make them stay put and get to an area where you are sure to get away or where there are witnesses. NEVER LET GO OF THE
ATTACKER!
The second you loose the upper hand they'll get you.
If they attack anyway then snap the neck.

This is done by maintaining the hold, kicking in one of their knees and dropping to your stomach.
They should be on their back, in front of you, and their neck dislocated.
But yeah.. aim for the throat. quickest way to get your way in and out.
joffe October 19th, 2008, 01:15 PM

Just punch the attacker in the throat.
I beg to differ. In my opinion the throat is a pisspoor target. Of course, if you're lucky enough to hit the guy in the throat, he'll
probably be more concerned with trying to breathe instead of hurting you (and you might end up with a murder charge, but
that's another story).
If you place your fist against your throat, you'll probably notice that the fist just about covers the throat area. You will then
have to make a near perfect hit for the strike to be effective. Strike too low and you might damage your fingers at the second
joints. Strike too high and you might hurt your fingers when you hit his jaw.
Adding to that, your opponent might even have some martial arts training - even a novice boxer knows how to keep the chin
down.
Finally, it's bloody hard to hit the throat area if your opponent isn't standing completely still.
Cobalt.45 October 19th, 2008, 01:42 PM

If they attack anyway then snap the neck. This is done by maintaining the hold, kicking in one of their knees and dropping to
your stomach.Not at the price of your life!
By ending up atop a dead assailant- on your stomach- you have in essence signed your own death warrant.
The idea that you can "hold him hostage over the others" assumes the "others" give two shits about their now incapacitated
partner- not too likely in a life-or-death situation.
If you sucker punch an attacker with assistants, your next move had better be hauling ass!
Shark500 October 19th, 2008, 09:05 PM

You will then have to make a near perfect hit for the strike to be effective.
You don't have to use your whole fist.

Through experimentation you will find that any trauma to this area is exceedingly painful.
The obvious choice is to haul ass.
As for killing one of them?

If you are sure your life is about to be extinguished, i'd like to take one of them with me.
Or just never travel alone and/or in areas where these types are present at night.
There's no easy way to harm someone in any situation without harming yourself using mace, acid, etc because you are not
immune. If you have to be in these areas I suggest a knife proof vest, a leather jacket [to protect the arms from slashes of
the brachial artery], and some self defense classes.
On that note, knowing the location of the arteries with the highest volume of blood flow [brachial, femoral, etc] and a small
sharp knife can be the best tools for close quarters fighting against a single attacker.
If you don't know the individual, you are probably not going to be a suspect.
He'll die alone and become another statistic.
Cobalt.45 October 19th, 2008, 10:42 PM

There's much to recommend a razor. Unless killing is the only option, a slash from the naval to the forehead with a razor
that'll lay the flesh open- with profuse bleeding after a few seconds- will deter all but the most determined attacker. Especially
if they don't realize they're only slashed and not gutted.
By the time they realize they're gonna live, you're long gone.
Killing is just such a legally troubling thing to commit, ya know? Even manslaughter will totally fuck up your day. Better, IMO, to
use only that force that's necessary to make a getaway. Retribution, if desired, can come later at your leisure.
If killing's needed, the same razor across the throat will suffice. Stabbing is just too damn iffy for my taste, as far as hitting
arteries, etc.
joffe October 20th, 2008, 04:46 AM

There's no question that the throat is an excellent target - if you can get to it. You might slightly improve your odds by
experimenting with all sorts of hand configurations. But unless your opponent is smaller than you and exposes his throat when
he is looking up at you, the target area is simply too small and well protected by bony areas. If your opponent is taller than
you (they usually are), he will look down on you and instinctively lower his chin.
So without some elaborate set up move to make him expose the throat area, a punch to the throat, in my opinion, is simply
not very practical. And as a technique, it's probably only useful as a first move or preemtive strike. When the fight has begun,
your opponent will move too much for you to be able to hit the throat.
Anyway, there are far better targets out there, so why waste time on a technique that might or might not work and with the
potential of injuring your hand? If Mike Tyson can break a finger or two in a fight, then so can you.
Shark500 October 20th, 2008, 10:18 AM

IMHO, if he's still alive, he can identify you and you know there's a scumbag lawyer out there who will take his case and legally
mug you in ways you can only imagine.
Attempted murder is a horrible charge to get pinned with.
I don't want anyone's blood on my hands as the next much as the next guy but if it comes down to you or him, you know who
you're going to pick.
Most likely he'll be pinning you against a wall, arms extended, with a knife or something up to your throat. here's what you
should do if you know he's not going to leave you in one piece:
First ask him what his mother would think of him right now. this will distract him for a second [muggers are human]
Then In that instant, secure the hand with the knife and send 2 knuckles into his trachea.
As his arm goes limp, grab the hand holding the knife and direct his knife into him.
if anyone asks, he stabbed himself.
That's my plan anyway but I have a good 6 years of martial arts training.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, no witnesses, no problem.;)
joffe October 20th, 2008, 12:59 PM

Wow!
IMHO, if he's still alive, he can identify you and you know there's a scumbag lawyer out there who will take his case and legally
mug you in ways you can only imagine.
Wonder what the District Attorney will do when they try to pin a murder charge on you. But not being an American I must
profess a certain ignorance towards your judicial system.
But I know that in several States, a criminal will forfeit the right to sue you if he gets hurt during any criminal activities against
you.
Attempted murder is a horrible charge to get pinned with.
Murder is probably worse.
I don't want anyone's blood on my hands as the next much as the next guy but if it comes down to you or him, you know who
you're going to pick.
At last we agree on something.
Most likely he'll be pinning you against a wall, arms extended, with a knife or something up to your throat. here's what you
should do if you know he's not going to leave you in one piece:
First ask him what his mother would think of him right now. this will distract him for a second [muggers are human]
Then In that instant, secure the hand with the knife and send 2 knuckles into his trachea.
As his arm goes limp, grab the hand holding the knife and direct his knife into him.
Or he may hold one arm around you while the knife is pointed at your guts or one of several other tactics he may employ.
I'm sure references to his mother will really turn him off guard. If that doesn't work, try "Look behind you!"
You don't describe how you intend to immobilize his knife hand. I'm interested in learning how you plan to that. Because after
you've crushed his trachea, and the BG knows he's going to die in a couple of minutes, he might just be so pissed off that he
decides to take you with him.
if anyone asks, he stabbed himself.

I'm sure the District Attorney and the Jury will believe you.
That's my plan anyway but I have a good 6 years of martial arts training.
In my opinion your plan has certain flaws. Personally I have a good 30 years + of martial arts training which includes karate,
judo, boxing and 5 years of military combatives in a crack Infantry Regiment. Oh, and yes, 4 years as a doorman in a couple
of really crummy joints.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, no witnesses, no problem.
You definitely need to read a couple of books about crimescene investigation and forensic science.
-=HeX=- October 20th, 2008, 02:14 PM

Here is a idea I am paraphrasing from charles. Extend hands with palms facing outward at his shoulder height saying calm
down and I am sorry repeatedly. Then once you are close enough, stomp foot into instep, shove over. Then follow thru with
boot to head repeatedly.
If he gets back up and hobbles off, a solid kick to the side of the knee (As seen on episode one of breaking bad) should take
him down, then kick to face while other foot holds his leg on ground. Do not hesitate to dispatch him.
I find razors a bad weapon because they only make shallow, clean cuts which do not bleed much unless you open an artery. A
stab and then twist the blade 90 degrees works much better. Then the wound stays open and gushes blood, especially if the
stab is to the upper torso.
joffe October 21st, 2008, 04:45 AM

That sounds a lot better - and if you want to kill your attacker, you'll probably succeed. If you don't plan on killing him, don't
kick him repeatedly in the head or even once for that matter.
A stab and then twist the blade 90 degrees works much better. Then the wound stays open and gushes blood, especially if the
stab is to the upper torso.
You'll find it very difficult to twist a blade in the upper torso. The blade has a tendency to get really stuck in the ribcage if you
try that.
Shark500 October 21st, 2008, 08:26 AM

SHIT.
I typed this long reply and the page refreshed and I lost it.
Pretty much my point was that in America, it's considered self defense and that there would be very little evidence to even
suggest pinning it on you but you should be ok regardless.
Murder is wrong but so is letting some thug kill you and in this context, your life has considerably more value.
Also, can't beat a good shin kick.
Thanks
joffe October 21st, 2008, 10:08 AM

What you need to do is to hire a good criminal lawyer on a retainer and have him explain to you how your State's Criminal
Code is enforced regarding situations like you describe. I'll bet you're going to be surprised.
Also, can't beat a good shin kick.
A good shin kick is often quite effective, but not necessarily so if your opponent is on drugs, or is so psyched up as to be quite
invulnerable to pain.
-=HeX=- October 21st, 2008, 06:55 PM

Whenever I have 'problems' with idiots I normally use the boot to instep then push over method to get them down, then
stomp on their stomach or testes to either wind them or cause such immobilising pain to allow me to remove myself from the
situation.
You get them down, make sure they stay there for a while, and effect your egress. Also, I discovered a small spray bottle full
of tabasco hot sauce will drop anyone and have tried other irritants on occasion.
An amazing distraction is a cigarette packet with a fused charge, ignited by a matchbook pull igniter. Three grams of
magnesium flash and they will not see you. *boom* Where the Fuck is he? Dragons eggs are a better filler than flash.
Defendu October 22nd, 2008, 11:06 AM

If they attack anyway then snap the neck.
This is done by maintaining the hold, kicking in one of their knees and dropping to your stomach.
They should be on their back, in front of you, and their neck dislocated
That's not needed to break a human neck, and it;s liable to injure you as bad as your victim.
According to Practical Unarmed Combat by Moshe Feldenkrais, a neck break can be performed form a rear strangle by
dropping into a deep squat.
Practical Unarmed Combat can be downloaded here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7402351/Practical-Unarmed-Combat-by-Moshe-Feldenkrais
If you have two or more guys trying to hurt you, they're not going to stand by while you grab and strangle one like in the
movies. If you grab one or get tangled up in grappling, it'll only take one second for another to take your back.
For a way of dealing with multiple opponents that involves no grappling, see section 4 of the SOE silent killing syllabus, and
learn to run faster:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5621616/SOE-Silent-Killing-Course
Back to the issue of weapons:

Here are a few patents for various hand to hand combat weapons:
http://kilogulf59.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=books&action=display&thread=440
"Patents by Bernard Cosneck:

Design for an Arm Weapon:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=2q5zAAAAEBAJ
(Note: This may be Cosneck's "Armette" weapon as mentioned roughly half way down the page in this CQB Services article:
William Ewart Fairbairn: The Legendary Instructor.)
Weapon:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ISJ-AAAAEBAJ
What appears to be a fastener that could be used on the above weapons:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=4udbAAAAEBAJ
Dermot O'Neill's Protective Wristband:

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT3373445
Patents by W.E. Fairbairn:

Dagger:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=c5RxAAAAEBAJ
Scabbard:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ZxNxAAAAEBAJ
Clemens Knee Bayonet:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=uslfAAAAEBAJ "
An actual prototype of the protective wristband is pictured at the bottom of this articles in Fight Times:
http://www.fighttimes.com/magazine/magazine.asp?article=506
Blueprints and documents on the Armette weapon as designed by Bernard Cosneck are sold online:
http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/Documents.htm
(Keyword search the word armette.)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > n b k 2 0 0 0 ' s S h o t g u n G r e n a d e - Archive
File
Log in
View Full Version : nbk2000's Shotgun Grenade - Archive File
megalomania May 31st, 20 03, 10:4 3 AM

Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
posted 04-08-2001 10:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, this isn't about how to download nbk's files or anything, it is about questions pertaining to them . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o n e
f o r m e i s a b o u t t h e s h o t g u n g renade. You recom m end AP Putty as a fille r, and I was wondering if you are sure it is able to
withstand the shock. And you also imply that you are using the shell of a slug, is it ok to use a #8 bird/clay shot with a 1300
fps velocity and a 1 1 /8 oz load (is their a significant difference in the fps that will give a dangerou sly greater shock)? And by
your wording, I assum e it is com patible with autom atic/pum p action 12 gauges? And I don't com pletely understand how you
are to glue the tire tu be to the back of the projectile (is the rubber supposed to cave into the cartridge or go around the
o u t s i d e ) ? T h a n k s a l o t , a n y o n e. Not th at I would ever consider u sing this potentially dangerous and illegal shell, or the one
that shreds bullet pro of vests described in your pdf .
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From : G u e s s
posted 04-11-2001 06:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, if you read the end of the file you would s e e t h a t I s a i d :
"I haven't made or fired one of these since tha t would be illegal and dan gerous so don't do it either. This is purely speculation
on my part." This is the truth.
I only went a s far as drop testing primed shells to see if they'd go off fro m im pact (they d id) with concrete and brick.
As for the filling, it was discussed in the original topic that the grenades were discussed in and it was concluded that as long as
the AP was pure, and the AP had no air gaps in it, that it would be stable to the shock.
But even so, it would be best to test fire a lot o f these shells using a cheap pipe shotgun remotely fired by pulling a string.
T h i s i s n e e d e d t o d e t e r m ine if it is safe, and if it turns out not to be, than you're still alive and only lose a $10 pipe gun.
"...a very thin rubber gasket disk cut from an inner tube on top of the explosive filler then seal the end with bondo epoxy.." I
don't see how much plainer it can be m ade. You put the rubber gasket on top off the explosive to prevent any contact of the
explosive with the bondo putty used to seal the end.
Since the grenade fits inside the shotg un shell it will cycle through any weapon the shell can fit in. However, it may not cycle a
g a s o p e r a t e d w e a p o n like an 1100. An d since it's lighter than a lead projectile, I'd cut the powder charge in half, just to be
s a f e . You can always bump up the powder charge after you've gained som e experience with the round.
------------------
Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
posted 04-11-2001 08:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O k , t h a n k s . T h e s e s h o u l d b e q u i e t a b i t o f f u n w h e n I g e t t o m a k e t h e m . I wonder what the people at the range will think?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 04-12-2001 03:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They might say:
"you're fucking banned! Get the hell out of here before I call the police!"
Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
posted 04-12-2001 04:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not where I live, Okla homa. I didn't even know they m ade inside ranges until I went to Michigan with my dad. And boy, they
totally shit them selves when I walk in holding m y .22 a nd 9m m a n d a s k ed to shoot. They was like what the FUCK? You have
to be 18... The range h e r e ( a b o u t a m ile from school, conviently placed I guess) has/had a sign that said som ething like you
h a v e t o h a v e a l i c e n s e t o s h o o t h e r e , b u t p e o p l e ( t h e o n e s t h a t g e t d r u n k after church with their shotguns and SKS's) totally
blew the m other fucker away (barely a pole left). Its just a long flat place with a b ig long hill at the end. The other day I wen t
there to get som e shells (to m a k e d e t o n a t o r s ) a n d h a d j u s t b o u g h t a c a p g u n t o m a k e a d e t o n a t o r f o r m y g r e n a d e s. I got
bored and started shooting at targets to waist tim e. Then a guy with a fucking HU GE snipe r rifle walked up behind m e to the
o t h e r s e a t a n d I d i d n ' t s e e h i m . Boy I felt stupid . Anyway, I very rarely see anyone there so I should be safe. And besides,
who would fuck with a guy and h i s e x p l o s i v e a m m o? I should be fine, hell if anyone does see me I bet they will just ask if they
can shoot som e of my shells .
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 679
From :
posted 04-12-2001 04:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A non-shock sensitive low exp losive would still be fun, but launching anything explosive at a high velocity can never be
considered safe.
Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
posted 04-12-2001 04:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was thinking about, but I don't know of a good way to seal the bottle. I would like to make a more stable
explosive, but I just don't have the m o n e y , o r e q u i p m e n t .
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 04-12-2001 07:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like a fun ran g e
I'd start with a LE too, like pyrodex or som e t h i n g a n d s e a l t h o s e things damn well! You so n't want to let som e o n e h a v e a g o
and it blows their face off. Actually, with pyrodex, if one went off in the barrel it *might* not bust the gun open. AP definitely
would.
C O 2 cartridges aren't more than 3" long are they? If so, could you cut the neck down till a prim er fits it. Fill the cartridge from
the neck like a regular COB and then prim e. They wouldn't be as stable in flight but the rear of the cartridge is 100%
garaunteed sealed.
I'd use plenty of wadding whatever you do because the propellant gas co u l d h e a t e a s i l y h e a t t h e A P o n t h e b a s e o f t h e
grenade to ignition point as steel is a good conductor as we all know.
Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
posted 04-12-2001 10:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was also thinking about that, but I already made the cut (and it was m y last one). I had to use a hacksaw and it is very
crooked, have to file it down. W hile cutting it, I cut my thum b, it cut in on the top down pa st where my fingernail sta rts. Hurt
too. I will m ost likely use an entire capsule when I get a shotgun, to see if it fits and all that stuff (I am ge tting a single shot
barrel break). It will be a lot m ore powerful also . It wont work in a u t o m a t i c s o r p u m p s , b u t I don't need to shoot them quickly
(ie shoot out). Just for person al security, fun, hunting and fishing (if it will work). I hope I can get a job soon (if I ever get up),
I will do all kinds of n eat shit.
Efraim_barkbit June 29th, 2003, 08:27 PM

This is not really about NBKs grenade, just about the u se of AP putty/AP/other prim aries in improvised gre n a d e s .
Im thinking of firing something explo sive from a pipe cannon, just for the fun of it, and Im wondering if anyone has
s u s e s s f u l l y l a u n c e d o n e o f t h e m e n t i o n e d g r e n a d e s o r a n y t h i n g s i m ilar.
If(when) I test it, I will use BP and a fuse to launch it from a safe distance, I kind of get the feeling that it will be th e last thing
laun ced from that pip e...
I do not have any AP or other primary lying aro und at this mom e n t , a n d I n e e d t o f i n d / m a k e a s u i t a b l e t h i n g t o u s e a s
projectile, so it may take a couple of weeks before everything is ready. if I get the time to do it.
m aybee this whole grenade id e a i s d o o m ed to fail, but it would be hell of a lot of fun if it worked.:D
Mooner June 29th, 2003, 09:09 PM

Has anyone ever done this? Firing AP in any form out of a shotgun barrel with any choke would in all likely hood set it off as it
would put extreme presure on the charge as it exited the barrel.

Not to m ention the fa ct that the choke would probably stop the grenade from leaving the barrel.
nbk2000 July 1st, 2003, 01:06 AM
C o m mon sense tells you that you don't fire a slug through a choke, whether it be an inert lead slug, or an explosive projectile.
Mooner July 1st, 2003, 05:29 PM

Lead slugs shoot very well out of som e choked barrels and horrible out o f others. Granted rifled slug barrels are the best for
the job of shooting slugs, but there is still the question of how you stop the frictio n from causing a prem ature ignition in your
barrel.
Very intresting idea though
nbk2000 April 14th, 2006, 05:40 AM

Action Manufacturing of Philiphilphia now manufacturers the FRAG-12, a high-explosive fra gmentation/Arm or-penetrating
grenade, tha t's being tested by the U S Marine Corps (and others) for use in war.
S e e m s I just can't help being ahead of the curve. :)
mike75 May 11th, 2006, 04:42 PM

How Can I See The Frag-12 Projectile.jpg?
++++++++
Get m o r e t h a n 1 0 p o s t s a p p r o v e d o u t s i d e o f t h e water cooler section. :)
JakeGallows June 2nd, 2006, 12:19 AM

get creative and search google im ages for the file nam e that was posted... Most images are fairly easily found. (Hope I'm not
step ping on toes NBK)
neo-crossbow June 20th, 2006, 05:54 AM

Lead slugs shoot very well out of som e choked barrels and horrible out o f others. Granted rifled slug barrels are the best for
the job of shooting slugs, but there is still the question of how you stop the frictio n from causing a prem ature ignition in your
barrel.
Very intresting idea though
Maybe the secret lies in a Sab ot like design? of a softish polym e r c o m p o s i t i o n ?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Pellet Pistols - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Pellet Pistols - Archive File
megalomania May 31st, 2003, 10:46 AM

Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-10-2001 03:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am interested in pick up a pellet pistol for practice and target shooting. I have found the following so fare plz let me know what you think or if you can tell me of a few other
I would be thankful.
http://www.webcom.com/airguns/walther.html
http://telusplanet.net/public/aircan/products/airpistols.htm (item# 2240) I can get it locally
can anyone recconmend anything else?
------------------
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 04:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, I still say get a Brocock. I doubt you've heard of them, but they use an air cartridge, and a V. nice. Or failing that, get a crosman 1377, 6ftlb (legal limit in the UK) and it's
.177. Its the only calibre to use for target shooting, but you choose what you want. Failing those, get a sheridan pro hunter .20 cal, thats supposed to be good for ratting. thats
the Orion 6, very nice, or the magnum also quite nice.
------------------
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 05:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Might be stepping on Zabaitsu's toes here but I wouldn't go with a Brocock, they're expensive, requiring quite a bit of equipment, can be unreliable and isn't a plinking gun
unless you've got like a hundred cartridges. You'd probably alos have to get it imported.
The CP-88 is supposed to be a very good pistol, downside is it's only about 2ft/lbs and the magazine ain't huge.
Might be worth looking at the new Anics Skif A-3000 - a russian gun. Good build quality, 28(!) shot magazine (pellets as well as BBs) and shoots at 4ft/lb. It's the next pistol I
intend to buy but don't know what the availablity is like on your side oft he pond. Sights are fully adjustable, good accuracy.
Donutty
Frequent Poster
Posts: 228
From: UK
posted 04-10-2001 05:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony, are you the same as on forums.airsoft.org (selling a MP5K)??
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 06:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, tis not I
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 08:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still wouldn't get a revolver like the CP88, get a semi-auto like the Drulov Condor, thats a real target pistol. CO2 and only around 250. Pretty nice pistol non the less, I've
had the opportunity to fire one, and its damn accurate. The reason I picked the Brococks is that they are more accurate (he said target practice) pack more of a punch for
something like PPP (practical pellet pistol) (esp. brocock specialist in .22) and are just so damn realistic. If you are on a budget, these aren't for you. If, however, you want a
realistic, (in terms of looks and weight) accurate (manufactured by HW) and recoilless gun, get one of these.
Being more realistic, if your price range is up to a CP88 i'd get a beretta 92fs, thats more powerful and said to be as or more accurate. Nice looking too. Or get a S&W in the 8"
barrel option, hehehe. Seriously tho, if you want fast fire, CO2 or air cartridge only.
Overall, the CP88 is a nice gun, but a bit old and under powered. If you do get one, fire it with North Air CO2 pell, they'll give you more shots per CO2 powerlet. Oh, I think you
get 40-50 shots per powerlet. I'd get a Beretta 92FS tho.
Oh, I've seen the CO2 gun Anthony's on about, the recent rush of Russian CO2 guns is suprising, but they are supposed to be good.
------------------
[This message has been edited by zaibatsu (edited April 10, 2001).]
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-10-2001 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model C-225 - 6" barrel
http://www.webcom.com/airguns/rwsco2.html
------------------
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 04-10-2001 10:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw a article on the air force talon in self reliance magazine. It looks to be one hell of an airgun. http://www.funsupply.com/airguns/talon.html http://www.webcom.com/
airguns/AF_TalonSS.html
However I recall that it might be over 6ft/lb wich would just make this a teaze, and I am truly sorry.
------------------
With Knowledge we find Truth - With Truth we find Freedom
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 04-11-2001 02:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um people in the UK will know that as the Gunpower Stealth, I think its the new model tho. Nice guns I hear, capable of, wait for it.... 600 SHOTS PER CHARGE! thats
amazing, but only at 12ftlb of course. Why would it matter if it was over 6ftlb, its a rifle? I thought the limit in the US was up to like 15 or 20ftlb? Or is there a limit?
------------------
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-11-2001 05:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't there is any limit for the yanks (dunno about Canada though...)
Those GunPower Stealth 2001's are pretty nice guns, maybe all the original stealths will come down in price now? I hope so.
I don't think that 6" C-225 would be a bad choice. The best place to ask would an airgun forum the guys on there have usually shot every gun on the planet between them.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-11-2001 05:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America does not have a limit but i know Canada,Iceland(i believe), and some other eastern european country's have limits.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-12-2001 12:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if it shoots faster than 500fps you need a FAC(it is classed as a firearm).
but there are now pellets on the market called laser hawks; they increase speed by 30% I haven't used than yet will ask my buddy how he likes'em.
------------------
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-12-2001 03:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They limit it on velocity, not energy? That's a bit dumb... There's a big difference between a .177 doing 500fps and a .25 doing 500fps. Hell you could get a rifle in .50 and kill
someone at 500fps!
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 04-12-2001 03:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stealth won't come down below 250 I don't think, noticed that every PCP has a limit of 250? The falcons start at that, and some other do, i think daystate as well,
ignoring the cheap single shot BSA PCP. The RWS pistol is supposed to be about as good as the walther, I've got a fastfire test in an old airgun magazine, its got fast fire tests,
single shot, all of the pistols are CO2 though, but I can post the results up if anyone wants them.
Don't forget pneumatics are more accurate than CO2 due to the variations in power due to the temperature. But they are pretty good for fast fire things, but not enough power
really for PPP. Although I hear they may use a viscous non-setting emulsion on the targets, so that you can see the hits without them having to knock over the targets. Can
you define more clearly what you want this gun to do, and the price range?
ancalagon May 31st, 2003, 01:19 PM

Instead of buying a pellet gun, I was thinking of a cheap way to make a decent one. I thought of altering a cap gun (hard plastic with cheap metal chambers) by changing the
cylinder, increasing power of the spring, and putting in a metal hammer. Remmington makes .22 cartridges for nail guns, and I was thinking of attaching metal or hard pellets
to the end of the cartridges, and firing them instead of a nail. I was hoping that this would be cheaper than buying a pellet gun of equal power. If someone wants to comment,
make any suggestions (like telling me I'm wrong), or improve the design, I would welcome such feedback. Thanks.
-Ancalagon

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Wireless "Plasma" Taser
Log in
View Full Version : Wireless "Plasma" Taser
jelly June 1st, 2003, 06:47 PM

At the European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons, the german company Rheinmetall has shown a
video demonstration of a prototype of their "Plasma-Taser" ;)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993749
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,268705,00.jpg
Jakio June 4th, 2003, 07:03 AM

I'm trying to find my notes about a company working on somthing better than this... see, UV lasers ionize oxygen, right? This company uses two UV lasers to create a
conductive pathway in the air, completing a circuit at a rather long range... I'll post the link if I can find it :)
nbk2000 June 4th, 2003, 04:04 PM

If the aerosol is dark, and assuming that it's not just the lighting, then that'd mean some sort of solids loading in the liquid. I've seen patents mention graphite and silver salts
for use in electronic weapons.
Is the aerosol a cloud, or a stream? A stream would be most sensible, 'cause a cloud would have too many air gaps between droplets to allow for easy current transmission,
unless they're actually making a "Kill-O-Watt" style TASER.
Jakio, UTFSE (Use The Fuckin' Search Engine). There's already several threads discussing the use of ionizing UV lasers, as well as URL's and patent links, all you have to do is
find them. :)
dave June 4th, 2003, 10:48 PM

A wireless taser, hmmm. If they beefed one of these weapons up, it would be like the lightning weapon Cypher in the original matrix used to kill Dozer (it could have been
Tank i don't quite remember their names).
++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for the incredibly informative post. :rolleyes:
NBK

Jakio, UTFSE (Use The Fuckin' Search Engine). There's already several threads discussing the use of ionizing UV lasers, as well as URL's and patent links, all you have to do is
find them.
Ahh, my bad... I actually tried not to make this mistake on my first post, and did search... but of course you are right, and there in a post about lasers is a link...
jelly June 5th, 2003, 01:01 PM

I don't have more information about this "plasma" taser.
But Rheinmetall is a reputable company and would not present a prototype of a weapon
if it would be just a joke.
They have developed the 120mm smoothbore gun of the best tanks in the world,
the american Abrams M1A2 and the german Leopard 2.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/abrams3.html

I've often thought these taser type weapons would be rather easy to defeat by simply wearing highly conductive clothing, like carbon fibre!
McGuyver June 5th, 2003, 10:41 PM

Why? You will probably get shocked worse. A human body is a deficiency of electrons, when a power source dumps a bunch of electrons into your body you get a shock.
Decreasing the resistance of your skin would make the shock even worse. If you wore something conductive you would be making an easier path for the electrons to get into
your body.
nbk2000 June 6th, 2003, 01:35 AM

If the conductor was in direct contact with you, then you'd get shocked anyways. But, if the conductive cloth was on top of an insulator, than the current would take the path of
least resistance through the conductor, rather than through you. :)
Tuatara June 6th, 2003, 02:54 AM

A human body is a deficiency of electrons,
Gets my vote for silly statement of the century.
Do you spend your whole life going around positively charged?:p
Current flows in loops. Fundamental physics. And before anyone says anything about ' static not flowing in loops', it does, its just that you haven't worked out where the other
half of the loop is.
Insulator under conductor is probably the best option, but so long as the conductive clothing is a much better conductor than human skin (not difficult) it should still short out
most of the taser current.
Anthony June 6th, 2003, 02:15 PM

If the taser shoots two electrodes then a conductor between them should work nicely. But, (and this is where my meagre electrical knowledge grows thin), I've had shocks
from a taser when only in contact with one electrode.
Not sure how this works, something about forming a psuedo "capacitor" with the earth and the discharging/charging is what hurts?
In which case, would a conductive suit help any, unless it provided an easier route to earth than through any part of you?
Hopefully you'll be able to explain to me Tuatara, I'm fine understanding shocks as long as two conductors are involved... Likewise, I fail to see why you'd get a shock from
touching the live connection on a mains socket only, unless you also had hold of a metal water pipe or were otherwise blatantly earthed:confused:
nbk2000 June 6th, 2003, 08:48 PM

I "liberated" an insert in the latest copy of "Police" magazine from the TASER company, describing their new X-26 model, and have included the interesting bits in the
attachment.
With AC, only one wire is "live", the others provide grounding only for convenience.
nbk2000 June 6th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Here's the magazine article in ZIP'd PDF format.
Especially interesting is reference to a patent-pending technique of using constant current to reduce the power requirements for TASER's, while increasing effectiveness. :)

Tuatara, you didn't say anything about about an insulator, just conductive clothing. Also, there is no such thing as a positive charge with electricity, it's always a negative
charge, it's just that one side is "hot" or a lot of negative electrons. The other side (ground) has very little negative electrons.
If you actually did this conductive clothing thing no part of your body could touch the conductive part. Also, you could have some part of the clothing touching the ground so if it
was full of high voltage, it would go into the ground instead of jumping to you, hopefully:(
Agent Blak June 7th, 2003, 03:51 AM

I was under the impression that plasma behaved alot like Static... which from what I know Defies the majority of Insulators. Is this not true?
Plasma is Ionized Gas... Which means it is Electrically Charged right?
www.amazing1.com has some info on Plasma Tasers for sale.
A-BOMB June 7th, 2003, 10:55 AM

While this is not related to plasma tazers, it is tazerish. I remember seeing somewhere about a long range multi shot wired tazer that used 2 rolls of magnet wire and a clip of
probes or whatever they call the projectiles. After each shot the wires are cut and a new set of probes is dropped into place, the projectiles have a "V" shaped slot in the rear,
like the slot on the back of a hammer you use to pull nails out with the wires and pushed into the slot then fired with CO2 or HPA. So it seems this design is sdvantages over
other tazer that have set amounts of wire in the cartidge, so with this unit you could hit people up close and people far away.
nbk2000 May 28th, 2004, 07:14 PM

Read in a recent police magazine article that if one person has the energized wire, and another the ground wire, and they're touching (skin-to-skin), then they'll both get
shocked.
Demonstrations of over a hundred people holding hands in a chain, with each end holding one of the wires, has resulted in everyone getting dropped! :eek:
Go to http://www.taser.com/pages/video/video.html for videos of the TASER in action.
I'm curious as to how much current the TASER wires can carry. Would they be sufficient to carry lethal amps from a charged capacitor or wall socket? Because, if they could,
then it'd be easy to adapt the cartridges to make lethal electric booby-traps or use as ambush weapons.
Marvin May 30th, 2004, 02:43 AM

Why does it not surprise me the person in the thread with the weakest grasp of physics is the person that thinks 'McGuyver' is a good thing to call himself.
A positive charge in electronics is not just because it has less electrons than the other side. Matter starts off neutral, you remove electrons and those that remain nolonger
cancel out the positive charge from the nuclei. So it has a real net positive charge.
The conductive suit would form a faraday cage around the person, so it wouldnt matter if on the inside you were touching it at multiple points.
The material of choice would probably what power line companies use for maintinance workers on live pylons. It looks like a grey fabrik jumpsuit, but its actually made entirly
out of stainless steel fibres. You can buy stainless steel thread/wool, it looks/feels just like grey cotton, but it conducts very well.
nbk2000 June 1st, 2004, 12:35 PM

You can buy steel chainmail suits from medieval re-enactor suppliers, the ones that supply the yobes who run around playing knight. :rolleyes:
nbk2000 August 22nd, 2007, 09:55 AM

There's now a 'wireless' TASER, in the form of a shotgun TASER slug (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/owwwww!/video-of-xrep-wireless-taser-shotgun-shocking-some-dude-
276481.php).
http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gallery/4/2007/07/medium_763365287_e56d1d243a_o.jpg
Jacks Complete August 23rd, 2007, 03:01 PM

And that's meant to be non-lethal? Surely it comes out at Mach 1+?
Close up, even with a reduced charge, that will kill or remove an eye. And with those fins, it's not going to go far.
I'll have to assume there is something clever going on with the ballistics at this point, otherwise it's a shotgun slug crossed with a cocktail umbrella.
Neat idea, I though of it a while back, but using a piezo crystal stack.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/559847/smoke_ring_gun/ is rather neat, and could be adapted to fire plasma, perhaps.
nbk2000 August 24th, 2007, 01:01 AM

300 FPS and a 100 foot range, according to the video.
There are other companies trying to develop similar stunners based on piezo impact, versus TASER electronics package.
fanofboard August 24th, 2007, 10:06 AM

SHOCKROUNDS (TM) working with the piezo effect, using Lead Zirconate and Titanate ceramic crystals.
http://199.236.65.54/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34
Doesnt seems to be under heavy construction.
What do you think how the TASER slug work?

What is the energy source? A capacitor? And what kind of?
How do they create the high voltage? On such a small space?
Questionmarks sold out! Please use: !

Do`h
nbk2000 August 24th, 2007, 10:44 AM

If someone bothered to visit the link and watch the video, they'd have answered their own questions. :rolleyes:
fanofboard August 24th, 2007, 11:58 AM

If someone bothered had DSL, he`d have probably answered his questions. Does this sentence make sence! (bord note: there are still no questionmarks available, please try
again later!)
Im currently running on 56k, very ancient
Charles Owlen Picket August 24th, 2007, 12:28 PM

The likelihood is that it is simply "primer powered" or darn close. It's obviously not made for real distance and would come with "practice" rounds to get the feel of the
trajectory. Even a trap load might crush the projectile, I'm thinking. The body would need to be light weight (and w/ electronics) it would crush like a soda can.
However I've experimented with making quite a few different loads in an old H&R break-open and a 209 primer can get some push going if the seal is a commercial plastic
wadding. 100 feet is very ample considering the usage. The "fins" don't really make sense to me either. They would just slow the thing down to a crawl or knock it off
trajectory with the slightest crosswind. - Perhaps it's made to be used close to a mortar in that the arc of the trajectory is substantial (?) or the fins open much later in flight (?
). I have pushed all sorts of things out of that old break-open and the ceiling seems to be about 2.5 oz as pressure sign gets going at that point (flattened primers, etc).
nbk2000 August 25th, 2007, 02:41 AM

The fins give the projectile spin (for accuracy) in non-rifled shotguns, as well as decelerating it to non-lethal velocities.
monkeyboy September 8th, 2007, 02:12 AM

I'm curious as to how much current the TASER wires can carry. Would they be sufficient to carry lethal amps from a charged capacitor or wall socket? Because, if they could,
then it'd be easy to adapt the cartridges to make lethal electric booby-traps or use as ambush weapons.
I do not remember how to do the math, but I'm pretty sure I read that the wires are 8 mills. Lethal shock for most people is in the 50-70 mA range.
panzerkampfwagen September 17th, 2007, 06:52 PM

If the target's survival is not your primary concern, there are a number of ways to direct an electrical current without wires or a projectile. The ideal method is using a
flammable gas, pref. butane. Fire, being related to plasma, has strange interactions with arcing electricity, creating a directed ionized beam, much like a blooming laser, Except
without the hassle with lasers. That and a beam of burning ionized butane with high-voltage electricity jumping in it presents a very small possibility of survival. It would be
cheap, too.
nbk2000 September 17th, 2007, 10:00 PM

I've thought of the possible use of a polymer foam, like Silly String, that is loaded with conductive material (silver powder) and shot out as a sticky string onto the target, which
gets juiced.
I've seen foam sprayers that'll reach a good 30 feet.
megalomania September 22nd, 2007, 05:30 AM

With a self primed and sealed can, which you can pump to a higher pressure, and the greater density obtained by adding a conductive metallic material, I bet the range could
increased quite a bit more.
I wonder at what level of current the polymer material would burst into flames?
ann September 22nd, 2007, 08:19 PM

Should have a few rounds in house by dec....will advise as to how they test out.:) Their is a smaller caliber version also in the works..its not well known so...shhhhh:D
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Cheap Guided Missile?
Log in
View Full Version : Cheap Guided Missile?
zaibatsu June 3rd, 2003, 12:44 PM

Yes, I know - gimmicky title. But, found this on a google search, thought it might be useful for discussion.
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
Enjoy, and discuss plenty :)
THErAPIST June 3rd, 2003, 02:56 PM

I was listening to the radio this morning before I went to school and the little talk show people had their minute before they
played another song and started talkin about a guy who was making a cruise missile. Here (http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/
0,2106,2518801a10,00.html) is the page with the story that I got from the radio stations site. I have put some thought into
making a remote control missile before but then ealized that it would be too expensive for SWIM to do as SWIM would end up
going to prison for blowing something to shit. Wouldn't having a cruise missile be great though? "DAMN JOB!
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHH! DIE!! " I personally wouldn't have any real idea of how to go about making the guidance
system now that I think about it though. What do you think would be easier to use? The one that has to be programmed or a
remote type? I know that some people like the idea of "use it and forget it" but I think it may be more fun and also more
accurate if it was controlled via remote system. But there would be a problem when it comes to hooking a small wireless video
cam to the nose as the longest range I have ever seen on one of the wireless cams is only a few hundred meters max.
Tuatara June 3rd, 2003, 06:40 PM

The range issue with cameras and remote control can be largely overcome by using more transmission power. You're already
going to be in deep shit for building a guided missile so who cares about the FCC?
Onboard guidance would be better for long range though. During WW2 there was a scientist (can't recall the name) who
created a guidance system for V2 type missiles which relied on homing pidgeons pecking buttons to steer the missile. There
were 3 pidgeons and the system steered on a majority vote, to try to avoid trouble when one pidgeon had a grudge against its
trainer.
GPS modules are pretty cheap - about US$50, but they might not handle speed very well, so targeting accuracy would suffer.
Forget using cheap accelerometers for inertial guidance, the signal to noise ratio is not good enough for anything other than
short term backup of GPS. ADI accelerometers (http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/sitePage/mainSectionContent/
0,2132,level4%253D%25252D1%2526ContentID%253D15266 %2526level1%253D212%2526level2%253D%25252D1%2526le
vel3%253D%25252D1,00.html)
mrcfitzgerald June 4th, 2003, 12:59 AM

I looked at the cruise missle theory several months ago and it really does not need to be even $5000, heck if you were really
cheap you probably could spread anthrax with weather balloons, but that its besides the point; a canadian group has managed
to drop (launch?) a glider from extream altitude (60,000+ ft) and if they can do that, how hard would it be to drop a payload
from that glider (or for that matter, cut the wings and drop the glider on to the target). -If your interested in their project, the
link is http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/index.htm - So in effect, its all ready been done; the technology is there, all thats
required is the will.
Axt June 4th, 2003, 07:03 AM

It was just on the news here in Australia. Its a ploy to get funding for his engine he designed.
Going to the news with this saying "look how easy it is" is really bad .. what will they ban next. What a wanker.
+ supposedly he has ripped off loads of people via his website, so dont even think about sending money and expecting
something in return.
Mr Cool June 4th, 2003, 11:10 AM

Lol, I love the pidgeon idea. Imagine what the other side would have thought if they found an unexploded missile, took it to
their labs to steal the technology and found it to be pidgeon-based (it'd be something like "WTF? :confused:").

Too late, I already thought up the "poor man's cruise missile" idea, although a lot lighter duty; Remote controlled aircraft +
remote detonated explosive.
nbk2000 June 5th, 2003, 05:19 PM

If you had an efficient glider design, something like a 40-1 (40 horizontal for every foot vertical) then you could get some
pretty awesome range with a ballon lifting it up for miles.
Plus, with a ballon, there's no lauch signature like flames/smoke to give it away, it's VASTLY more simple to make than an
engine or rocket, plus there's NO restrictions on ballon technology like there is for missles. Oh, and it's VERY cheap, compared
to the alternatives.
If the glider was made of styrofoam covered with carbon fiber cloth, then it would be very light, as well as virtually invisible to
radar. The body could, in fact, be explosive, using a foamed explosive to provide sufficently light density for the glider to work
properly.
And, if this is intended as a "terror" weapon, like the V-series were, then who needs fancy guidance systems? Let it go upwind
of a major city, timer releases it, and operator in said city uses TV guidance to fly it into the first big building he sees on his
screen.
Release several at once, with staggered delays, so the operator gets to guide them in one at a time, into various parts of the
city.
This removes the need for GPS, though it will replace it with the need for video transmitters/RC controls, so you may just be
swapping problems, though video guidance would be much more simple to implement.
Or you could KISS this by attaching bomblets (like SWIM posted ;)) to large plastic bags, and inflating them with anhydrous
ammonia (super-cheap, lighter than air). Release a couple hundred of these in mass upwind of a mega-city like LA...balloons
rupture at high altitude...hundreds of bomblets fall at random over city...terror ensues. :)

Too elaborate on the balloon weapon; you could do any one of several things to really cover your tracks. First off, you could
(provided your good enough) design a balloon and ballast system capable of 1. Riding in the jetstream, and 2. While making
use of Gps, drop off a glider at a certain point and fly it any number of miles to a specific point or target. This opens up a
whole new terror opertunity for deranged groups: Strategic bombing. The only catch, youve got to wait for the right weather
conditions, and even then its rather likely something would go wrong - but if you release enough, I suspect that youll exceed
at least once. The best thing is that this has been done before by the Japanese (making use of cheap hydrogen and paper
balloons mind you...) Of course this is all theoretical discussion :)
kingspaz June 6th, 2003, 05:23 PM

if you're going to use a balloon to release a glider why not just use a balloon to release a bomb? why waste a glider as a terror
weapon when balloons are a hell of alot cheaper and easier.
using a glider to carry explosives is unlikely to work too well. it simply wouldn't be able to provide enough lift to keep a large
mass of explosive in the air.
unless you weighted the thing full of explosive and launched it from a very large height (balloon?). not so much a glider, but a
glide bomb. some little stubby wings but sufficiently large enough to provide enough lift to control decent and allow it to travel
6-7 miles or so from the launch site. this shouldn't be an unrealistic goal if it was launched from a mile high or so. i think a
delta type design would work well. lots of lift and lots of speed, but still relatively stable at low speed such as launch. infact i
built a remote control glider which would be ideal if double in size. would carry a reasonable amount of explosive.
somthing like this but with smaller slightly smaller wings. if its packed solid full of explosives then the wings should give
enough lift if they are a similar size to what they are now since there will be alot more weight.
http://www.airbornemagazine.com.au/images/september00covdelstar.jpg
mt1988 June 7th, 2003, 10:24 AM

I'm pissed off, ive had my rocket Altimeters seized buy NZ customs ive got to got talk to them and beg for them both there
like $90US each and i got 2 it because of this stupid wanker .
Arthis June 7th, 2003, 12:16 PM

That's a very interesting reply, maybe for pigs too !
First try to formulate correct English; then you shouldn't tell us you know the guy, because you take some risks as pigs
certainly watch for this forum.
When it's about making a few explosives it doesn't matter, they don't have our IPs etc, but when it comes to 'terrorism' and
stupid guys that want to make 'anarchy' it's quite different.
Re-read the rules: you must formulate all as if you had only dreamt about...
mt1988 June 7th, 2003, 11:47 PM

ok, lesson learned, and thanks for telling me
ill shut up now

matt

If one were to launch a styrafoam glider from a balloon, even if the glider itself was invisible to radar, wouldn't the balloon
show up (providing we're talking about one capable of lifting several ounds)? As for complexity, I think it really depends on
one's need, budget, and desire for reliability. At a very basic level, one could use a balloon with a timer and no glider that
would drop the bomb over a random area after ten minutes, or any other desired time. Next, a simple non-radio controlled
propeller system on the ballon could take the device relatively straight, and with some calculation a timer could drop it roughly
where one would want it (probably not over a desired building, but in the general vicinity of a large target). Third, one could
put a long-range radio propeller and camera system to drop the bomb very close to the target. Finally, the last level of a
(relatively) simple balloon system would have underneath a seperately powered and guided modified glider capable of being
released early to sneak or rocket towards the the target before the balloon could be detected. Of course, all of these methods
could be bettered by more modification, I'm just laying out some generalities. As I said, it depends really on need, budget,
and reliability. The only one of these methods that I would use to drop a bomb would be the video camera and simple
powered balloon bomb dropper thingymajig. If I wanted a guided-missile system I'd modify a glider with both propellers and
rocket engines. I believe estes has a lot of information on these kind of designs http://www.estesrockets.com
-Ancalagon
80r15 June 10th, 2003, 02:16 PM

I read about this too. The guy lives in New Zealand and imported all the parts while the government had no clue. Later, when
a high ranking govt official was asked, he said, after stuttering for a while "Oh yes, we have had our eye on him all the time".
THe missile can travel 60miles and can carry a 10kg warhead. It has its own GPS system. Once the guy finishes, he is posting
step-by-step instructions on how he built it. Do you think the pentagon is shitting in its pants yet???
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/SciTech/missile030605_call.html
That is the "abc news" with information. Now watch some kewl print off the directions once the guy posts them, build 1 part of
it, brag at school, mention the E&W forum, and add some more nitroglycerin to the already huge flame of media and public
stupidity...
nbk2000 June 10th, 2003, 05:55 PM

Boris, as I've warned others, do NOT use the reply with quotes to regurgitate an ENTIRE post by someone else. If you can't
make it clear what your reply is referring to without having to quote the whole thing, then you'd better keep your mouth shut
because you obviously lack the needed literary skills to make reading your reply worth the worthless electrons its using up.
80r15 June 10th, 2003, 06:00 PM

Ok, sorry. I didn't know.
john_smith June 11th, 2003, 10:32 AM

I've alvays wondered why is it necessary for a homebuilt "cruise missile" to have an actual jet engine? Why not use prop drive?
Since there's no need for keeping its stall speed low, its wings can be kept extremely small, and also the missile body will
have very little cross-section surface area. A pimped out motorcycle engine (150-200hp) could push it to a very serious speed.
Also, it'd have less heat signature, be more quiet, harder to trace etc.
For launch, maybe a larger "carrier" airframe (with landing gear) could be attached to the missile. After reaching the necessary
altitude, the missile (sans carrier) would dive till it reaches the missile's minimal safe airspeed, then the carrier airframe would
be jettisoned and the missile would continue on it's own.

Or simpler still, use a giant bungy for launch, as they do for model gliders. Prop drive with small wings might require two
counter rotating props to cancel prop torque. Bungy might just provide enough launch velocity to operate a ramjet, and thats
really simple!
kingspaz June 12th, 2003, 07:33 PM

bungee will work. you can get it to about 100m height which is enough for a little drop, say 20m, to gain some speed and fire
up the ramjet. prop drive is a bad move since thats designed for re use and is quite weighty. ramjet is not.....think of the buzz
bombs in ww2...

the buzzbombs of world war 2 did not use ramjets, they used pulse jets
Jacks Complete December 16th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Ramjets have no moving parts, but, they have no static thrust. This means you have to get them up to a high speed before
they will burn and produce thrust. A bungee cord will not do it! A rocket motor might, if it is big enough.
The V-1 used a pulsejet, and weighed up to 13 tonnes. It was called a buzzbomb because of the noise the pulsejet made, and
a doodlebug because they looked like they could barely fly, 'doodling' along quite slowly. (like 'dawdling') like the summer
bugs we get down south in the summer. Some were air-launched, too, reaching as far as Manchester!
The V-2 was a much faster beast, travelling supersonically, powered by a liquid fuelled rocket, using liquid oxygen and a 75%-
25% ethyl alcohol-water mixture.
The best solution to this problem is almost certainly a hybrid rocket/ramjet design. This would allow high thrust for take-off,
with a long cruise due to the efficiency of the ramet at M1+ (supercruise).
Sadly, no-one has made a succesful one yet. I have a few designs, though. I shall draw one up and post it later.
Narkar December 17th, 2003, 12:27 PM

There is no way you will build a rocket/ramjet design by yourself. Rockets are complex, their burning chambers need to be
designed very well, they eat alot of fuel.
Ramjets may be simple to build but not simple to design, you need it to have aerodynamically correct diffuser cone and
burning chamber. And even if you can build a working one you still need to accelerate it near the sonic speed
Pulsejets would be the easiest as you can design, build and fire them up by yourself.

i agree...pulsejets are very simple to build and can be started from zero, you just need a leaf blower or something to inject
when starting it...another advantage of pulse jets is that you dont need a fuel pump or anything complicated like that, you can
just use a pressurized propane tank, just like barbeques.
Jacks Complete December 22nd, 2003, 08:35 AM
Narker,
I strongly disagree. Look on-line and you will find a lot of people who are making not just empty tubes (ramjets) but pulsejets
(empty tubes with a valve at one end) and small turbine jet engines (amazingly complex tubes with turbine wheels and
compressor wheels, gearing, etc. macined to very close tolerances), as well as rockets (straight tubes stuffed with a fast
burning propellant compound), as any search engine will tell you.
chemofun,
all small jet engines are started this way, with a leaf blower or even a small compressor. This just saves on the weight of an
internal system. As for running off propane or methane, you will find that every single small jet engine runs off gas, as the
internal pressure saves the mass and, more importantly, the complexity, of a fuel system. However, the low energy in the gas
means that ranges are short, and you have to carry the heavy compressed gas cylinder onboard!
Ramjets are the simplest. Rockets are second, followed closely by pulsejets, then, some way up in the difficulty stakes, are
the various types of jet turbine engines.
Ramjets are also the highest efficiency at high speeds, as the following shows:
Or it would show if I could find it... Basically, the ramjet doesn't work below about .6M but is far more efficient at higher
speeds. Pulsejets are terrible above about .6M. I will go find the book, get the scanner set up, etc. and post the two promises
pictures then.
Narkar December 24th, 2003, 09:04 AM

If you would be building just a rocket or jet engine then yes, that hybrid could work. But the topic is about a cheap guided
missile. So the engine needs to be pretty big to carry its "brain" and explosives.
"a straight tube stuffed with porpellant compound" will not work there. A tube filled with for example homemade blackpowder
or something else like it will not accelerate all the weight of a big ramjet, fuel for it and explosives to the speed required for
ramjet to kick in. You would need a rocket engine that works on liquid fuel and has a proper burning chamber. That's pretty
complicated to design and build.
But pulsejet would be pretty easy to build if you can get it to work. You just need some tubes and sheet metal.
Build wings large enough and it can fly.
For "brain" i think a compass to stay on its intended path and an altimeter from barometer so it wouldnt fall down. Then make
somekind of a beacon that you are going to put on the target. When the missile gets in range, the compass part of the
autopilot is turned off and it will begin to fly toward the beacon. When the signal gets strong enough the altimeter part of the
autopilot turns off and the elevators on the wing are turned down so the missile will crash immidiately.
12Gauge December 25th, 2003, 05:42 AM

Apparently this NZ guy (Bruce Simpson) got his little project shut down by the NZ government. It seems some US officials
asked them to do something about this- saying it was "extremely unhelpful". It might have had something to do with this
numb-nuts publicly stating that parties in Iran had offered to pay him for his research. Clever.
Here is a link to the story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3302763.stm
cyberdweeb January 2nd, 2004, 03:21 PM

Yeah that guy Bruce Simpson (http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/) was on television here in the UK on a programme called
Scrapheap Challenge (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/scrapheap/)
in which two teams are challenged to build something (in this case a jet powered buggy) in ten hours they completed the
challenge successfully. No doubt the pulsejet engine could be used to power a missile effectively. Maybe I'll build a pulsejet
that would annoy the neighbours ;-)
gkarmis January 2nd, 2004, 08:20 PM

You can still use the Hamas aproach to the problem.
They use imrovised missile using potasium nitrate and sugar propellant .
they use about 10kg of propellant to send about 4-5 kg of explosive at around 6-8 km of the launch site.They use a water
pipe of 180cm lenght and 120mm diameter.is very cheap to construct a weapon like this.
http://www.hamasonline.com/Qassam/qassam2.gif
http://www.hamasonline.com/indexx.php?page=Qassam/abu_awad
if you use 10 rockets in a city area you would bring panic.And is very cheap
I think that the iraqi insurgency is using improvised missiles lauched by donkey carts!!!!
Sometimes hight tech solutions are not the best way to deal with a problem .
You can read this site for the preparation of the propellant
http://members.aol.com/nonillion/sucrose.html
let me know if you think that this is a better idea
knowledgehungry January 3rd, 2004, 11:21 AM

A little bit ago i found a H2O2 rocket engine for sale on EBAY, 220$ is not cheap but it might be worth checking out.
streety January 3rd, 2004, 10:04 PM

I'm not sure a pulsejet would be the best engine for a guided missile. My understanding is that in general they slowly and
stealthily cruise up to their target. Reading this guys site it would seem they use massive amounts of fuel and although I
know jet engines aren't all that efficient anyway it might be that they just use too much fuel for this purpose.
A simple ballistic missile would be much simpler to make and to create terror some of those would be ideal but to make a
lethal strike against a specific target they would be far from ideal.
knowledgehungry, was that rocket engine burning fuel in H2O2 or just decomposing H2O2? No real point using H2O2 as your
oxidiser when you can use the air is there? I don't know much about using decomposing H2O2 as a source of thrust so can't
really say much about that.

Stealthy? A pulse jet? Are you mad?
Radar-wise they are big, due to the demands of a metal valve at the front, so they have a shifting face to scatter the radar
back.
Audio-wise, launches could be detected from London by blind people with sound horns! They were called "buzz bombs" by
some, due to the 160dB + noise they made. A friend made one, and his nieghbours called to ask WTF was happening, since
he was 1/4 of a mile away, and it shook thier house! He had to wear ear plugs AND ear defenders to be able to think...
IR-wise, the pipes glow white hot, and are visible even during the day!
So no, the one thing you can say with absolute certainty is that a pulse jet will not be stealthy!
However, they are cheap and simple to build.
Blackhawk January 4th, 2004, 09:27 PM

Another problem with the pulsjets is that the valves in the engine head wear out after around 30mins of run time, quite a few
V1 'Buzz Bombs' never made it to their intended destinations.
streety January 5th, 2004, 09:03 AM

You don't necessarily need a valve. I know this guy has made valveless pulsejets. But still they are noisy and create a lot of
heat.

Valveless pulsejets have an even bigger signature! They are big and curved, and generally heavier.
I suspect that with a suitably advanced material you could make a better valve. Stainless seems good, but how about
tungsten, or carbon, or titanium, or even a ceramic/glass solution?
Failing that, perhaps water or gas (LPG) cooling? I wonder if V1s were more effective on damper colder days?
EDIT: Don't forget that you get a lot of forced air cooling when the missile is doing 350+ mph, unlike static or ground-based
tests.
streety January 5th, 2004, 08:52 PM

Might it not be possible to shield the valveless pulsejet better than a pulsejet with a valve? There doesn't need to be an inlet
at the front of the engine so it should be possible to make it a bit more stealthy from that viewpoint.
I don't think the advantages in cooling would justify carrying water on the missile but using the fuel might work well. He uses
propane in his engines so preheating the fuel while cooling the engine might be a good idea.
maarten221 January 28th, 2004, 01:25 PM

Since a Ramjet and a pulsejet are similar in design (except that the ramjet uses incoming air to propel itself and operates at
high speed only) you can combine the two in one body. Simply design a cover that includes the valve for a pulsejet. This cover
would need a small hydraulic arm to push it into a recess on the projectile's body - at that point the engine becomes a ramjet.
So, start the missile off on pulesjet - at around 250 mph mark, activate the hydraulic arm and open up the tube to act as a
ramjet. I read about this a long time ago and searched before posting, but could not find the original site.I don't think it's
ever been done, but it sounds good in theory, right?
The major problem here is that the ramjet would only be able to operate at subsonic speeds without a proper diffuser or spike.
If you can figure out a way to add those and still have the pulsejet option, call nasa and seel the plans to them - be sure to
mention me, since my rent is due any day now.
Blackhawk January 29th, 2004, 05:08 AM

Subsonic ramjets can oparate at faster than sonic speeds, although past mach 1.5 their drag goes beyond tollerable limits due
to the detatched shock cone that forms over the diffuser inlet (which is why supersonic designs use the diffuser cone or
ducting). The flame holder required for the ramjet portion would also I think cause the pulsejet to be a little less efficient as
they do not require flame holders and it would only obstruct the gas flow. You would have to do a very good job at
streamlining the inlet once you have retracted the valves as any tubulance would badly screw with the combustion eddies and
you would likely develop case hotspots.
maarten221 January 29th, 2004, 09:39 AM

Very true - but then again, I'm no engineer, but this should be no problem for someone that has had time to work with
rockets and other forms of motivation for aerial vehicles. You may have to move away from steel in such an application - to
save weight and to get the heat tolerance of the materials in line with the massive heat build ups you might envounter - or
would encounter, I should say. I know the South African Air Force funded development of a Ramjet powered air to air missile -
through Denel, I beleive. As usual with South African armed forces the project fell through, but the missile was fired by a solid
fuelled rocket and after it reached a certain speed, intakes on the side opened up to activate the ramjet. Sounds like a plan to
me. The exact design is of course not available to the public.
Jacks Complete February 1st, 2004, 04:27 PM
maarten221,
some good ideas there. If you read around the subject of the ramjet, you will find hundreds of ideas for providing static thrust,
and then converting over. The only one that I know of is one which uses a ramjet engine with a solid rocket engine cast inside
it. Once fired, the motor core gets it up to speed, then the core burns off enough, and the ramjet can take over, at supersonic
speeds. Some missiles do this, and get 100+ mile ranges, at very high speeds (low supersonic, but that is amazing
considering the range!) They are also much simpler than using a turbine engine and flying subsonic all the way.
As for making the curved (valveless) pulsejet stealthy, or aerodynamic, have you seen a picture of one?? You will never, ever
get one down to the cross-section of a valved one. If you could crack the valveless straight designs (Use a CFD tool?) you can
call any aerospace company and name your price!
CommonScientist February 1st, 2004, 09:34 PM

If you guys figure out how to build this , and it works, and your fluent enough with it, you could design and possibly build a
IBM - no, not the computer.:p
streety February 2nd, 2004, 06:52 PM

If by IBM you mean an intercontinental ballistic missile then the demands of such a missile are significantly different to a
cruise missile. In many ways they are easier to build if you can assemble sufficient propellent. It's also not the sort of thing
you can do in your garage.
mrcfitzgerald February 3rd, 2004, 01:08 AM

Im sure that Common Scientist does not mean an Intercontantental-ballistic-missile (ICBM) because these things are
obviously out of the reach for many nations let alone amatures (the propellent is mesured in the dozens of tons and the
guidence is incredibly sophisticated). Tactical Ballistic Missiles are more in line for amature production, infact ~90% of the
technology allready exists in one form or another.
For example, amature rocketry has existed for some time now - and it is common for them to launch rockets in the range of
200-500lbs with home produced motors to at least 25000-30000ft. Horizontal range for these type of delivery systems would
be well in excess of 8 miles - prehaps up to a maximum of 15 miles. Payload could be up to 50 or so pound of whatever you
wish.
The only problems I see is guidence, and the launch set-up. I suspect guidence could be controlled by adding venir elements
in the path of the rocket exhaust - like the german V-2. A basic stamp could provide attitude ajustment dependant on time
and the desired angle of pitch at that time.
The other problem of launch set up is not particularly hard, you only need about 20-30 feet of supported tube, the difficulty is:
how do you leave / packup all that stuff in a hurry? - The police are bound to get reports of large smoke trails and loud
sounds eminating from the launch site, most likely with extra help from the local airport/military base.
These problems aside, a tatical ballistic missile is probably the most fear inspiring delivery system I can think of a certainly a
worthy consideration as a delivery system.
Oh- Does anyone know if norad can track such low flying projectiles?
CommonScientist February 3rd, 2004, 10:39 PM

Actuallyi did mean that, but I was joking of course! You might be able to build a computer from scratch that could control the
rocket. That would be kool.

Hate to say it but most amature rockets are either 500-600 pounds OR fly to 20000-30000ft, to do both would require some
VERY large motors, and I think buying ~30Kg NH4ClO4 at a time may make people suspicious. Also you would need a good
guidance system seeing as amature rockets are not very predictable in the angles they fly at, you would have problems with a
guidance system acting fast enough to steer the rocket as it flys (to fly 20-30Kft horizontal you would want speeds close to
mach if not over, which would make steering without breaking up difficult). A slow flying plane like cruise missile is the best bet
I think for amatures, no difficult or suspicious chemicals, they can carry a lot more in terms of payload and it would be easier
to guide. Perhaps of you had an amature rocket launch ~45 degrees, reach max altitude over the target and then angle itself
down over it (using GPS to calc position, only steering as it is falling at lower speeds an stresses, like a javalin missile).
jojo7 February 26th, 2004, 04:40 PM

I have designed a laser guided tandem warhead(ERA Piercing)with a 4 inch main warhead laser guided RPG, it would just cost
a lot to build. you need a welding machine, aluminum tubing and sheet, copper sheet for the shaped charges, a high
sensitivity infrared photocell quadrant(might be expensive) for the tip of the rocket, some electronics like voltage comparators
and solenoids for the fins, so you put it in a control loop with the fins always trying to make each of the four photocells take in
the same ammount of light from the laser(therefore in center), an infared laser for guidance, an aluminum launch tube, youd
have to use a night vision scope or something for the site. and for the rocket motor , ammonium nitrate and magnesium
powder molded like on http://www.pyrotek.org and this rocket would have a range of 1000 yards if laser guided. you can find
the supplies on the internet, except the quadrant may be hard to get a hold of, i forgot the site. If someone is really serious
about having this weapon and taking out a tank or armored vehicles, this is the right direction to take. I have seen patents on
this. This design comes from a russian rpg that i saw on the web.
Cheese March 9th, 2004, 08:23 AM

The guidance system wouldnt be that hard to fabricate, a uni student who's done Computer Engineering 1 could knock one up
without to much trouble. All you need is to know some basic relational and positional algebra(vectors and matrixes, first
semester maths), and knbow a bit about boolean algebra. With the excedingly acurate positoning systems avalible
today(GPS, +/- 3m) it would be feasible to build a guidance system with an acuracy of easily +/- 20m, if not half that.
As to the delivery system, whats stopping you simply lofting the payload(of propoganda pamphlets) on a balistic tragectory,
using an unguided rocket system, then detatching a guided payload?
Cheaper, and faster delivery to. In addition, it would be nearly impossible to ?shoot down" due to the greater velocies
involved, and the smaller size.

As to the delivery system, whats stopping you simply lofting the payload(of propoganda pamphlets) on a balistic tragectory,
using an unguided rocket system, then detatching a guided payload?
Cheaper, and faster delivery to. In addition, it would be nearly impossible to ?shoot down" due to the greater velocies
involved, and the smaller size.
Wrong! A ballistic trajectory is the *easyist* one to shoot down, as the maths is really simple for where it will be in ten seconds
time. You can also see it coming, as a ballistic missile going any real distance has to go rather high, so your radar picks it up
long before your eyes or ears. Heck, your radar will probably pick up the launch, and then fire a counter battery at it!
A low flying cruise missile, however, will have a few seconds of time for intercept, and since you didn't fly it straight from launch
to target, even the direction of attack is impossible to tell.
This was covered earlier in the thread.
Lead Storm March 24th, 2004, 08:51 PM

If ballistic missiles are the easiest to shoot down, than why can't we shoot down Minuteman III's or SS-20's? In the gulf war,
Patriots did piss poor in shooting down SCUDS. Also, reentering ballistic missiles are moving at hypersonic speeds that makes
it tricky to get a bead on them. Ballistic missiles can be produced in large numbers that can be launched at once, tangling up
air defences. Cruse missiles on the other hand are moving at subsonic speeds (<600mph) and can be shot down by sea
sparrows, seawolfs, aircraft, and the phalanx.. Cruse missiles do have the upper hand in acuracy, though.
akinrog March 24th, 2004, 09:38 PM

I have created the following thread on pulse jets and many different types of jets without being aware of its content may fit
here. (Sorry for that.) I think the link contained in the thread may be useful for you. But resorcinol link (which is covered in the
said thread) is unfortunately off-topic for this thread.
Anyway here is the Home Made Jet Engines and Resorcinol synthesis thread (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/
showthread.php?t=3876) I mentioned.
pangos_59 June 1st, 2004, 10:41 PM

I have designed a laser guided tandem warhead(ERA Piercing)with a 4 inch main If someone is really serious about having
this weapon and taking out a tank or armored vehicles, this is the right direction to take. I have seen patents on this. This
design comes from a russian rpg that i saw on the web.
www.rusarm.ru/exprod.htm (http://www.rusarm.ru/exprod.htm) Its in Army under Anti-tank Guided Missile Systems. Also there
are many other great/infamous weapon designs here. Happy "experimenting!"
ninja42 June 5th, 2004, 03:09 PM

There are Mortar shells which act , after being fired as a intelligent warhead.
The shell is suspended on a parachute and a sensor/camera in the nose detects tanks and fires the payload towards the
vehicle. It hits the tank were the armour is thinnest and no reactive armour is present... on top.
Perhaps your missiles can be launched throgh a mortar to give it the right velocity to fire the jet engine.
ninja42
Jacks Complete September 2nd, 2004, 07:55 PM

Ok, bit by bit.
If ballistic missiles are the easiest to shoot down, than why can't we shoot down Minuteman III's or SS-20's? In the gulf war,
Patriots did piss poor in shooting down SCUDS.
Well, just because you are doing it wrong isn't my fault. SCUDs are *not* ICBMs. There was little knowledge of the launch, so
they only got a few minutes warning, and the targets were entire towns, not a well-hardened target like a battleship.
Also, reentering ballistic missiles are moving at hypersonic speeds that makes it tricky to get a bead on them.
This is so dumb I'm leaving well alone! Let us just say that they are not moving at an apriecable fraction of c, and the maths
is very simple.
Ballistic missiles can be produced in large numbers that can be launched at once, tangling up air defences. By Iraq? By
Germany? Heck, by anyone who isn't really rich and has a major government backer? North Korea has about 20, and they have
been trying for years!
Cruse missiles on the other hand are moving at subsonic speeds (<600mph) and can be shot down by sea sparrows, seawolfs,
aircraft, and the phalanx.. Cruse missiles do have the upper hand in acuracy, though.
You could shoot down an ICBM with a Phalanx gun. There are just two problems. 1) Where are you going to put the Phalanx
gun? It needs the target to be flying towards it to be very effective. Not towards a chicken shack thirty miles away. 2) The
normal trick with an ICBM is to detonate it at 20,000ft, so as to avoid a huge radioactive duststorm that contamiates the rest
of the world. Phalanx guns don't go that far. If they did, it would be easy, hence MIRV designs.
That is most of the problem. The way that you can have a cruise missile roll down the streets below tree height means that
your phalanx gun can only open up when it has line of sight, and what if it is pointing the wrong way? What if there are two or
more targets? You can have a swarm of cruise missiles far easier than a swarm of ICBM launches!
pyromaniac_guy October 13th, 2004, 03:10 AM

By Iraq? By Germany? Heck, by anyone who isn't really rich and has a major government backer? North Korea has about 20,
and they have been trying for years!
just to clarify - ICBMs are hard to come by - simple balistic missiles exist in the thousands - hell probably in the hundreds of
thousands if not millions. many nations own IRBM and SRBMs many nations own lots of them.
sungod October 14th, 2004, 01:08 AM

I can't find the website now but they built a guidance system for a large glider and used a weatehr balloon to take it up to
something like 20,000 feet and then release. It apparently worked fine and would be a lot less expensive than the guided
missile. I would assume dropping from 20,000 feet would give it some range too.
whoops found the link.

http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/software.htm
I dont think im allowed to post a link being such a new user of the forum (and I suspect I have had posts disallowed) but the
mod that reads this could post it under their name or edit this one or something.
It is definitely on topic.
sungod October 15th, 2004, 12:26 AM

In the gulf war, Patriots did piss poor in shooting down SCUDS.
The patriots at that stage would have needed to be rebooted three times a day as the software became inaccurate after eight
hours (reboot anyone?). This was fixed but not until after 28 US servicemen had died in their barracks.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm
http://shelley.toich.net/projects/CS201/patriot.html
Apparently Patriot misiles cannot be used in many countries due to electromagentic inteference from such mundane things as
mobile phones believe it or not.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.04.html#subj2.1

They were recently thinking of banning Playstation 2s and X-Boxes from Iraq because the graphical imaging system and
computing capabilities in them is more than sufficient to guide a missile using low res web cams.
Imagine how light they could be made if you remove the outer casing, disk drives, etc.
Maybe more useful as a ground to air missile/line of sight missile, but who knows?
Any ideas folks?
Chris The Great November 10th, 2006, 12:21 AM

Video games kill... ;)
I don't think your average Iraqi bomb builder would even know how to build a guided missile since they seem to use ANFO and
AP for their bombs. However, I wouldn't doubt they'd be able to guide a missile. I'm not sure if a laptop would be a better
choice, but since the Xbox 360 has come out and the playstation 3 is out pretty soon, cheap used ones would be pretty easy
to come by.
billybobjoe November 10th, 2006, 01:53 AM

Just a though about the valveless pulse-jets. Have any of you though about a coaxial design. Suspend a smaller tube open
on both ends inside a larger tube with one end closed. Have it firing out of the middle or if not possible to have the miuddle
as the orifice doing the firing, neck the outer tube down around the middle tube and form a make shift nozzel.

I'm pretty sure that the design you propose would screw with the wave propogation/action, and would cause it to not fire
properly. I may be misinterpreting what you are trying to convey though. I know that a metal cone set at just the right distance
outside of the outlet will boost power and efficiency by creating a second resonancy wave that helps pressurize the incoming
charge, but the end is not closed off.
Gerbil November 10th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Why bother with a PS2?
I've done some research into this idea myself, and I came up with the idea of using a wireless-LAN bridge, connected to a
computer on the craft and a control unit on the ground.
To be fair, I was thinking of an actual remote aircraft, not a missile, but the control principles are similar.
The control hardware that you'd need on the craft would be, at simplest:
High-resolution webcam (preferably several, depending on type of aircraft)

GPS system
Digital altimeter
Servos and physical controls for steering, fuel & ignition
All these could be connected to a central computer, which in turn could be connected to a wireless-LAN bridge. Some models
can transmit around 50mb/s at around a 40 mile range if I remember rightly, which would be more than enough for passing
video, status and control data to and from the controller on the ground.
Alternatively, there's the possibility of connecting the onboard computer to the internet, although getting a system capable of
transmitting the needed volume of data could be slightly tricky.
I can't comment on missile structure as my original idea was for a winged drone, but the idea could be adapted.
Obviously, data would need to be encrypted...and using a computer gives more scope for secure transmission than sending
raw video data.
ravn November 11th, 2006, 08:57 AM

Gerbil: You may want to consider using one of these http://gumstix.com as the computer for your craft. Prices are relatively
inexpensive, starting an < $100, and they bundle common expansion boards with the computer.
For example the GPSstix ($130) contains GPS, audio in/out with LCD, USB client, 4 GPIO. The audio would not necessarily be
needed, unless you wanted to scare the neighbors with an "Apocalypse Now" type R/C helicopter playing "The Ride of the
Valkyries".;)
A Digital altimeter would not be needed, the GPS speaks NMEA, altitude is part of that standard.
The 4 GPIO's could be used to control your servo's for guidance, possibly based on a track laid down by the GPS.
They also have WiFi expansion boards that you could use for communication back to your control unit if one did not want to
set this up as a "fire and forget" type craft.

Using a modern game console would be an optical fire and forget deal, but I like the wireless lan idea!
The optical fire and forget scenario would require target acquisition and tracking programming. Not too easy for even the
average tachno geek, let alone the average pissed off upstart. I would imagine you could find some basic code online
somewhere though.

You could set this up with a frigging Gen.1 Gameboy and an eyetoy camera cartridge. It would take a few days to get the
coding down, then some poor sod would need to build the hardware to go with it, but it would be fairly easily done.
Using a wireless LAN would be nearly impossible with the standard gear, as it has a range of about 200 meters, whilst your
missile will be doing at least 200m/s. Even with the latest range boosted stuff on the new standard whose name I forget, you
only get 1000m LOS. Yes, you could use a tightbeam or gain aerial, but that means you will now have to track your missile,
and it is still LOS only.
I'd just go with the GPS unit and a colour gameboy camera wired together with a radio controlled plane underneath. Just try to
make sure it has payload enough to be worth it.
Gerbil November 17th, 2006, 02:29 PM

'http://www.wirelessnetworkproducts.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=20'
The w-lan bridge with a 10 mile range is nice, but far too bulky and expensive for use. There are some more inexpensive 3-5
mile range ones, still impractical for a missile but potentially suitable for a larger drone aircraft.
Then again, I'm not particularly literate on wireless communications and this is really only educated guesswork.
ravn, thanks a lot for that link...I might look into getting one of their systems.
Interestingly, there's a wiki on their website that lists projects that people have done with the systems. It includes UAVs :D .
As for communications, perhaps a direct internet connection would be better then messing around with w-lan? Unless, of
course, there's a relatively easy way to set up a transmission system that could transmit the required data.
That said, I'm also interested in the idea of a GPS based fire and forget system.
*edit* I've just come across this how-to guide based on the gumstick systems: 'http://perso.orange.fr/pascal.brisset/
chromicro/doc/chromicro.html'

'http://www.technologie-entwicklung.de/Gasturbines/Monocopter/body_monocopter.html'
An impressive bit of homemade turbojet engine and manpack! :eek:
akinrog November 18th, 2006, 08:12 AM

If I were to use a control system, I should opt for an embedded system instead of a ready-made laptop computer/game
console etc. They are cheap, fully customizable (read programmable) and you can save a lot of weight.
Embedded systems use microcontrollers instead of full fledged computers. There are myriads of microcontrollers having
various features (serial communication ports, etc.). I even remember there is a PIC chip with built-in USB facility.
As for the communication means, I would use a radio-modem. Radio-modems can be configured to have a range of 20 kms.
They are used geo-scada applications.
However the (obvious) downside of embedded systems you need to know how to program that buggers. However there is
plenty of information on the net about that. Once I even grabbed an entire remote control project from the net in past.
Regards.

RF wLAN bridges use high powered directional gear, which is useless without LoS! With LoS, you can get 50 miles with home-
made-in-a-day gear, and the record is something like 158 miles.
To show you the problems with it, get a laser pointer, and track your friend running around at 100 yards. Now tell me you could
do that at 50 miles on an airplane!
Anyway, even 20 or 50 miles is useless without line of sight. To get LoS, we need higher ground, and for the tightbeam we
need auto-tracking.
You get a second drone up, nearby. You can see that. It can see the target drone, at 20 miles. It has a microprocessor (PIC)
that tracks the two targets with either a dish, or, preferably, a steered array. One issue solved, but at the price of reliability,
cost and failure modes.
electricdetonator November 26th, 2006, 11:07 AM

Like already mentioned, instead of using a video console or laptop it's much more practical to use microcontrollers.
Just use one with four PWM channels to control the servos, one for GPS data, one for sensor inputs like three PIRs with
metallic cones to follow a heat source and the master controller to decide which direction to fly and when to do KABOOOM ;)
Put it into a cheap inpeller driven RC model and let it fly in circles.
Then all you need is a RC5 remote control with a laserdiode/-pointer instead of the IR-diode and a IR-sensor to mark your
target.
After marking the target the cruiser will adopt the IR signature of the target itself and follow it.
rayman November 27th, 2006, 06:46 PM

I dont thing the laser pointer idea is what he had in mind, that would be better used for assassination style things, a plane fly
in circles until your target came into view would be just asking to be caught IMHO
Personaly I like the idea of an programable system, more control options and what have you, Maybe with a small memmory to
store topo information, I do not feel that this is beyond range of a none mil program

You can get the topo info for free, not that you really need it.
I think this is doable by any medium sized company, or a rich & technical guy. I saw a video earlier of a guy flying a jet
powered radio controlled plane, awesome stuff. http://www.dump.com/vpzve/ in fact. The KE in that thing would kill a car!
Control the thing via GPS and away you go. Terminal guidance would be via some kind of beacon, or, perhaps, pattern
recognition.
{Self-edit: I'm not going to say that in public}
rayman November 27th, 2006, 09:09 PM

Jack I was thinking along the lines of a fire anywhere type thing, you never know what/where you next target may be,
Its nice to know you can get the topo maps cheap/free
FUTI November 28th, 2006, 07:24 AM

Early version of Tomahawk cruise missile used topo info AFAIR inside the memory of guidance control unit. Is it still the case I
don't know. Sure as hell is that today they added GPS to it.
As for tagging target idea with laser pointer, cheap and effective system is the one Russians developed for their artillery
units...laser guided rocket propelled granade :D...beautifull isn't it? It is hard to hit flying granade in just a few seconds till it
hit the target (possible yes but I wouldn't put my life in the hand of such system...I would most likely seek to find the
marksmen and hit it with a sniper before I'm locked as target).
kelb December 10th, 2006, 11:28 PM

Too late, I already thought up the "poor man's cruise missile" idea, although a lot lighter duty; Remote controlled aircraft +
remote detonated explosive.
You got pretty much the same idea as me. A powered glider design would be good for this. The long wings would provide
optimal lift with minimal power. Depending on the load to be carried, it may be necessary to strengthen the wings a little to
take the loading, but non explosive weight tests could be preformed to see if this was necessary or not.
The idea of dropping from such a high altitude with a large balloon is interesting. While it may seem like a waste to use both
a rc plane/glider and the balloon consider that the plane/glider will allow you to be far from the site of detonation and much
easier to control than the balloon which is somewhat at the mercy of the wind. However dropping the plane/glider from such
high altitude would allow it to glide much further in (or out depending on perspective) to the target, and also saving an
immense amount of energy expended by the winged aircraft to get to the high altitudes needed to glide to the target.
One thing you could do quiet easily, provided that your aircraft had some sort of pusher prop arrangement and a normal nose
with nothing to get in the way would be to use a impact triggered detonator to make it go kaboom. This would save a little
weight and increase your range slightly. With 10-20 of these you could reek havoc on a city miles away from you.:D
vod8750 December 11th, 2006, 02:55 PM

Why destroy your plane at all?
Why not make a bomber out of it altogether? The whole point of a cruise missile is speed, accuracy and distance from target.
If your going to use an RC plane you lose speed. To get accuracy you would need to be close to the target and if you are far
away from your target you lose accuracy.
If you were to get a big RC plane and overpower it to enable it to carry extra weight you could fit your own custom made
bombs underneath the fuselage. Just install a receiver with one extra channel and fit an extra servo in the plane to activate a
latch underneath the fuselage which would release the bomb when desired. You would also need to have a camera to sight the
bomb.
By reusing the plane you wouldnt need to worry about the cost so you could spend more money on it to get better range,
power and altitude.
If you could get more range out of an electric powered plane it would be even better since you get near silent approaches!!:D
rayman December 11th, 2006, 05:15 PM

That wouldnt be a guided missle, that would be a RC bomber

I know that. Im just making the point that a disposable RC glider with an explosive in the nose isnt really a guided missile.
You might as well use an RC bomber since you would still need to be fairly close to your target to be able to control it and at
least it can be used again at minimal cost.
What you need is something where you can choose your target, launch a safe distance from your target - at least a mile - and
walk away from it. Thats where GPS comes in handy.
If great accuracy wasnt a concern, you could always go for the V1 type guidance system. Have a compass on board to steer it
in the right heading and a gyroscope to keep it flying level. Then have a small propeller in the nose turning a threaded bar
with a nut on the bar which moves back along the bar as the missile flies. When the nut reaches the end of the bar it joins two
contacts to complete a circuit and send the missile into a vertical dive. The distance would be preset by having the nut starting
at different places along the bar. You would have to do a few tests beforehand to know how far down the bar the nut will travel
for a set distance.
A bit cheaper and simpler than GPS but less accurate. It did work to hit London from France though! If you could get the right
propulsion it would be fine for terrorising but not for anything super accurate.
rayman December 12th, 2006, 06:33 AM

A $100 computer, With $?? gps unit, less then 300 for the basic guidence system, 2000 times more accurate as a threaded
bar.
The V1 type weapon was a terror weapon and a waste of resorces that could have gone to power there air force\bomber's but
thats another story
FUTI December 12th, 2006, 09:01 AM

V1 wasn't waste of resources IMHO. It costed about 500$ at that time. It was too simple, had sky-jump lauch system that was
weak point since it was stationary and was too slow and low flying so figher planes could intercept it.
V2 was waste of resources at price of the 250000$ per unit but was superb weapon of that time, had mobile launch platform,
balistic trajectory, supersonic velocity and even had radio controled guidance of some kind (not very accurate though it could
hit anywhere in the 8 km radius from the target launched at from 400km distance).
You could also use that baloon you proposed as repeter (I hope that is the right word). You focus the beam for the conection
with baloon to narrow region and track its movement so it is harder to jam it. On baloon you have a repeter/transponder that
emits your signal downward to your launched probe/sonde/plane/missile. Just make it powerfull enough and that with
combined with position of the baloon and your "missile" (which should have upward mounted antenna) could make a poor
mans guided projectile that is hard to jam.
Gerbil December 12th, 2006, 06:07 PM

Vod, that's vaguely what I had in mind myself. However, you're not going to get enough power out of an electrical system,
unless you're talking about carrying very small charges over a short distance.
Also, if you wanted to do some serious damage, other equipment such as GPS and several mounted cameras would be
needed to effectively control it over a distance. Otherwise you're going to be stuck with the equivalent of shooting cans with an
air pistol :( .
*edit* Missed Page 4 for some reason :rolleyes: .
A V1 system would be next to useless for modern conflict. However, it might be possible to use the original fuselage and pulse
jet design (someone with the right tools could probably build the engine alone in an afternoon), and add modern guidance
equipment to it.

V1 wasn't waste of resources IMHO. It costed about 500$ at that time. It was too simple, had sky-jump lauch system that was
weak point since it was stationary and was too slow and low flying so figher planes could intercept it.
That makes it a waste of resources

V2 was waste of resources
yepper, but it was way better then the V1
repeter
Repeater, When you have problems with spelling of words type them into google, it will usally show you the correct spelling
( I know this because I use it all the time )
vod8750 December 13th, 2006, 11:44 AM

A $100 computer, With $?? gps unit, less then 300 for the basic guidence system, 2000 times more accurate as a threaded
bar.
A compass and gyroscope system would be much easier for the average person to put together rather than fiddling with
electronics. A GPS is fine for telling an intelligent human being where to go but you would have to have a little more than basic
knowledge of electronics to be able to convert those signals to physical movement. So if it was only needed for terrorism a
compass/gyroscope/threaded bar system would be easier to put together.
It was too simple, had sky-jump lauch system that was weak point since it was stationary and was too slow and low flying so
figher planes could intercept it.
Sure it was too slow and could be intercepted by fighters but that turned out to be a positive trait. Regular V1 launches had the
allies constantly trying to track them on radar, they had spotters on the ground to constantly give updates on sightings and
then they had to use their newest and best fighters to be able to keep up with it. This meant a lot of their new fighters were
off chasing V1s when those resources could have been used elsewhere.
Even if they didnt reach their target they still succeeded in using up allied resources at minimal cost.
However, you're not going to get enough power out of an electrical system, unless you're talking about carrying very small
charges over a short distance.
Thats why IC engines would be much better for the job and you could give them better range but then you have a noise
problem. You just wouldnt be able to stealthily get over a crowd or other target with an IC engine unless you had an extremely
good muffler.

I think that in the end, it depends on what you hope to achieve. For example, look at the Israel/Palestine conflict. Hamas are
using what practically amounts to science fair bottle rockets to bomb civilians- the problem is that they aren't very powerful and
highly inaccurate.
If they copied V1 blueprints, the situation might just change. It may be low-tech, but it's far better than what they're using at
the moment- greater range, greater power, greater accuracy. Plus, the Israelis aren't expecting to see Nazi memorabilia flying
through the sky towards them.
The sound of the pulse jet would also terrify the targeted population, adding to the terror effect.
Of course, within a short space of time, Israeli defences would be able to take out almost all of the incoming V1s. But the
initial effect would still be devastating.

Gerbil, that would definitely terrorise the isrealis. its not as if they arent scared stiff already. The children there are taught how
to act in case of a terrorist attack from a very young age!
I heard from a friend who had been there that a balloon burst in an isreali shopping centre around christmas time and all the
isrealis hit the ground, children and all!
Can you imagine what even two or three V1s would do to them?
Moxus December 14th, 2006, 01:26 AM

Hi. I had another idea for propulsion.
As ramjet is together with pulsejet probably the simplest ideas for propulsion so far, and the pulse jet having many
disadvantages for the ramjet, I was thinking a simpler launch system for the ramjet to get it up to sufficent speed.
What if we use that cheap simple weather-ballon to lift up the missile to a very high altitude, and then drop it straight down to
achieve enough speed for the ramjet to work efficently?
As the atmosphere get very thin at very high altitudes, the terminal velocity would increase dramatically.
Once you got that ramjet up to efficently working speed, the ramjet is a much more desirable propulsion than the pulsejet.
And its also very simple.
++++++++++++
Ramjets require Mach 3+ speeds to work. And the higher up you go, the faster you must go to achieve supersonic speed in
the thinner atmosphere, thus freefalling to that velocity is impossible. NBK

Even at a low of say $10,000 per I dont think I would use that method, Would rather use railroad tracks and some type of
booster rocket to get to take off speed ( ? 600 mph ? ) where the ramjet can be activated, And i'm sure with a little searching
you can find a long ( 2 + miles ? ) straight set of tracks that have not been used for years

And i'm sure with a little searching you can find a long ( 2 + miles ? ) straight set of tracks that have not been used for years
Probably...but I think that you might get some undesirable attention from a nice police officer if you started launching missiles
from it ;) .

Ramjet need AFAIK 1,5 Mach to start and can work until Mach 6 is achieved, so I guess Mach 3 NBK stated is optimum velocity
for that kind of drive method. But even this number need to be checked again for your scenario...there was on Wiki I think
some kind of table that explained influence of atmospheric pressure on various propulsion methods (ramjet, scramjet etc.).
The higher you are up you need higher velocity to make the "breeding" kind of engine to work.
Anyway drag of air, no matter how well you designed your projectile, will make achieving that velocity impossible or unpractical.
But there is a project of space launching system that is tested and it use baloon as launchpad. So I guess you are looking in
the wrong direction....on to the stars son! ;)
Engine chambers/intakes/nozzles every-fu*king-thing must be changed from ussual sea-level design to optimise that
propulsion for new pressure and flow parameters so this is not a job for one man but entire team of army experts.

Probably...but I think that you might get some undesirable attention from a nice police officer if you started launching missiles
from it ;) .
How many are you planing on launching ?? 1 ? 13 , Having done more reading on the subject think you could if designed
better use around 500 feet of straight track you get airborn, But now the missle looks more like a glider with larger wings to
provide lift
Nasa has some interesting reading on the subject of ramjets, after playing with there "enginesim 1.7a" I think that a ramjet is
not effecient enought, How many people have access to multi-tons of fuel for a long range missle using ramjet, And ramjet is
not worth while short range

The ramjet is the most efficient engine design in it's speed range of 2 to 5 Mach, if only because it is the *only* efficient
design in those speed ranges. The power-to-weight is unbeatable, as is the thrust per unit fuel.
Going back towards the topic, you are daft if you try to make a radio controlled bomber. You would need either a very neat
system to aim the bombs correctly, or you would need a second set of radio controls to steer it! And since you are probably
only after a single target, you would be carrying only one bomb, or perhaps two. After two bombs fall, they are going to have
started looking for your plane and checking radio traffic. Then they follow the RC bomber back to your base.
Far better to use the simple idea to the max, and use a fairly large plane to carry a far higher ratio of explosive to the
terminal target, and not worry about what to do next.
The V1 was a brilliant idea. With a few hundred thousand more of those, the Germans could have run out of planes all the
faster. The warhead in a V1 was relatively small, and expensive, and all the non-explosive stuff was dead weight. In a war,
that is wasteful, as you have a nice plane and cheap labour you can re-use x times, dropping n bombs (which are cheap) each
time. With a V1 you get 1 use max. and 1 explosion.
The Allied forces couldn't follow the Axis planes back, as the Axis had it's own planes, and it was symetric warfare. A cruise
missile is used for asymetric warfare - you either can't afford a pilot (or a pilot to be lost) or you don't want it to be traceable.

Yes Jack is right ramjet is very efficient, but whole story started with free fall "jump-start" of ramjet engine...which I think won't
work. But ramjet is used even today on some AA rockets, and I think Russians had a design (tested on pilot scale) for ICBM
which had one ramjet stage - project was named GNOM :D (now that is appropriate name). It was supposed to have 29t weight
rocket which is great even by todays measures. Today Russia is developing booster rocket system named Baykal that should
use ramjet engine to return back the rocket booster to cosmodrome and land it on the paveway on its own landing gear in
autopilot mode...now that is neat and I guess they finaly become bored to chase remains out in tundra. USA also worked on
similar ICBM concept before USSR but quit that before any projectile were made AFAIK. So to put the story short...yes it is very
good propulsion method but also a complex engeneering problem for those who should design the engine and projectile.
As for the V1 I think we are on the same side, but you seem to exagerate the effort Germans put into their production. Most
of the V1 bomb was wood (well it did cost 500$), except naturaly the engine which was so thick that fighters had problems to
damage it by shooting, since machineguns bullets just bounced off, so they had to use cannons (at closer range)...and
sometimes if you aim wrong and that projectile hits through the wooden bomb body...BOOM!..and here goes down the bomb
and brave and unlucky (poorsighted) pilot with his plane. Much later they discovered that bomb was instable in flight and that
their gyroscope could be offset by rapidly pushing V1 with planes wing off-route. Small warhead is tradeoff for the simplicity of
the design and low power engine they used.
I don't think anyone thought about this thread along the armed UAV lines Jack though that is tempting idea. Cheap (one use
only I guess) Guided (now this is open subject) Missile (well I guess this means explosive warhead although someone
mentioned kinetic energy and I wasn't sure what he mean as the projectiles that I have in my mind linked to those words use
exotic rocket propulsion systems with high velocity).
Cobalt.45 December 21st, 2006, 10:22 PM

Much later they discovered that bomb was instable in flight and that their gyroscope could be offset by rapidly pushing V1 with
planes wing off-route.
Which has got to be one of the coolest, ballsy-est maneuvers in all of WWII aerial warfare!
Where there's a will, there's a way...
nbk2000 December 22nd, 2006, 09:13 AM

If the Nazi's had known about it, it would have been easy to counter, by making the V1 instantly explode if knocked out of its
normal vertical flight profile, taking any brave pilots out with it. :)
Jacks Complete December 23rd, 2006, 09:30 PM

I'd have made it do that anyway! I believe the system only armed the warhead after it started to decelerate, which meant that
a lot of the bombs failed to go off when they ploughed into soft mud in the estuaries. A better way would have been a simple
timer set to, say, 5 minutes. This would ensure it didn't take out the launch crew. The Germans always love to over-engineer.
The Tiger tank was worth between 4 and 10 Shermans. The US made 10 for every one Tiger, and nearly every part could be
canabilised for spares for another. The Tigers couldn't even be swapped between the same design revisions! But that is by the
by.
A cheap COTS GPS mapping system is well below 150 now, I suspect they are cheaper in the US. I've also seen GPS modules
that are perfectly suitable for under $50 on the web, designed to be integrated into a system.
Digital compasses cost about $10 each, last I looked, and two or three of those at right angles would give a great way to
measure location from the magnetic deflections as you pass by.
Last I heard, the UK's fighter planes had big brass and berylium gyroscopes in them, as well as compass, radar locators,
visual cues, etc. and the pilots basically mash up the data set to ensure they are where the instruments say they are. More
instruments means greater likelihood of being correct, as GPS often drops out for a short time (few seconds), which at 600mph
is far too long, or SA might be turned on in your area, or you might lose lock, or whatever. Also, depending on the target
value, GPS jamming might be in use.
Cheap silicon gyroscopes are also available (ok, comparatively cheap) which are used in R/C helicopters to keep them flying
straight without constant adjustment of the tail rotor torque. 3 of those tied together (or a bought unit) would provide a poor
man's inertial navigation system!
The thing about inertial units is they drift. The rate of drift is always different, and they are always drift in different directions
and so you cannot trust them over long time periods. GPS cannot be trusted over short periods. Glue the two together with a
basic compass, in software, and you can be pretty sure of where you are for anything you need to do. Lose GPS for the
terminal phase? Use the inertial for the next 25 seconds, and it's not an issue. Gyros drift so you are 14 miles out at max
range? Who cares! You can reset from a few GPS data points.
Going back for a moment to the ramjet issue, they aren't used for spaceflight becuase the time that a rocket spends in the
lower atmosphere whilst going fast enough to be using a ramjet is under 60 seconds. It simply isn't worth the extra mass of
an angine that is just drag for so much of the flight profile. For a high-speed missile, however, they are ideal. Use a hybrid
rocket/ramjet design, and boost the missile to Mach 1.3+ before the rocket burns out, the empty tube of which is a ramjet and
core. This carries on burning and boosts or maintains the speed for a far longer time than any rocket, as it takes its oxidiser
from the air instead.
Sure it is difficult, but so is the whole project! I'd start with a design that used a solid rocket motor that was carefully packed
around the central flame holder and had a solid fuel in the design. On ignition the bottom half, under the flame holder, burns
as a rocket would. On burn-out, the final action is a small charge that shatters the rocket nozzle, and ignites the next stage,
the fuel flame holder. You might also want a nose cone to pop off so the design starts off aerodynamic for a rocket, before
becoming aerodynamic for a ramjet.

The whole idea of a ramjet missile sounds just like the article in this months Popular Mechanics, about the X-51 hypersonic
cruise missile (AKA Prompt Global Strike) which is designed to hit Mach 5 roughly 3600 mph, and destroy a target anywhere
within 600 miles of its launch in under 10 minutes.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html
FUTI December 24th, 2006, 05:46 PM

Jack my congratulations on your ideas and determination. You are again correct about ramjet and spaceflight, but GNOM was
ICBM project (if your sentence has any relation with mine post). And if you look last Russian test they used lower balistic
trajectory then usual and warheads had separate guidance system and autonomous propulsion in final phase...so maybe they
dig up that project from the archive back again just a little upside down. I'm also prone to over-engineering things :) so I love
German stuff although V1 wasn't over-engineered but oposite over-simplified IMHO. Jack if you need any help with your
project I would like to help you...I had an idea about ramjet once but alas it isn't my field of work and I find it above my
powers but I guess I could be usefull member of a team. I totally aprove your point in system redundancy needed for safe/
reliable flight. I follow space programs very much and I'm unhappy about Soyuz last revisions since they cut some system out
(as redundant and therefore not needed) and over-integrated things too much for my taste since I wouldn't like to sit upon
hundreds of tonnes of rocket fuel and got "burned" because fu*king monitor on central console burn-out.
NBK mentioning of the Prompt Global Strike dig up an info from the back off my brain about old USSR GR-1 (and 2) project.
That was practically space launch of warheads in LEO so that they could hit any target on Earth, but I think they didn't
implement that anywhere except in space exploration (good for us lovers of space) - lots of good things has come up from
projects that initialy started as military top secret weapons project. That is how I know a much about different rocket systems
although I'm quite peacefull guy. Awesome article NBK thanks.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Dogs as weapons
Log in
View Full Version : Dogs as weapons
nbk2000 June 5th, 2003, 01:39 AM

It's been a long staple of "Gangsta's", of the ghetto variety, to have at least one (sometimes more) pit bulls/rotweillers/
dobermans to act as attack dogs in defense of their "crib" (AKA crack house). Usually, though, the dogs serve only as a minor
annoyance, since the muds neither train them to be the lethal killers they could be, nor have them in the numbers needed to
ensure sucessful attack.
The pork are well aware of this fact, and have developed tactics to deal with them, tactics I won't get into here since that's not
the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is how to best use dogs as weapons. Either offensively as autonomous weapons that'll seek out and
destroy their target, or defensively to defend against attacking pork.
Personally, I can't stand dogs, being a cat person myself. Cats have been worshipped around the world as the graceful and
dignified gods that they are, while dogs have generally been regarded as the stupid and loathsome animals that they are.
But, despite their loathsome nature, mutts do have their uses.
First thing, though, is that they're most effective when used in a "swarming" mode. Taking our cue from both the japanese
honeybee, and the woodland ant, we find that, when dealing with more lethal agressors (hornets/fire ants), these insects
overpower the superiorly armed agressor by swarming them in large numbers.
So too must you use dogs in quantities, when dealing with pork, to ensure that at least a few make it to their targets, since
the pigs WILL be shooting at them. By supplying a surplus of mutt meat, there's too many to target in the limited time they'll
have.
Also, the elements of speed and surprise are important, since the pigs won't be prepared for a swarm of dogs if they've never
seen them, if they appear from (seemingly) nowhere, and are upon the pork in only a couple of seconds and in numbers.
OFFENSE
Dogs have been used in WW2 by the russians as anti-tank weapons. This was accomplished by putting the dogs food
underneath captured nazi tanks, so the dogs would crawl underneath them to eat.
On the battlefield, the dogs would be starved for a couple days, prior to being used.
The commies would strap a bomb of some few pounds of TNT on the dogs back, that had a tilt-rod fuze sticking up, then
release the dogs so they'd run underneath the tanks that (they thought) had food. When the dog tried to get underneath the
tank...BOOM!
This had the slight problem, though, of the dogs sometimes confusing soviet tanks for nazi tanks, resulting in "friendly" fire.
Same idea could be put to use by criminals to engage the pork. Fortunately for us, cops make it easy by having bright
flashing lights and contrasting color schemes on their cars, making the likelyhood of a dog confusing the porks car for a
citizens highly unlikely.
The dogs, having been trained to home in on pig-mobiles, would be kept in an ready/armed state, in support of a criminal
operation. If pork show up, the dogs are released to seek out and destroy the intruding pigs. While they're engaged in either
trying to kill the dogs (which explodes the bombs), flee from the dogs, or getting blown up, the crims make their getaway. :)
Remotely operated door releases are available through aftermarket car suppliers, that would be useable to release a van door
to release a swarm of dog "torpedoes". Dog armor would be useful if you knew the pork was coming (or had already arrived),
to increase the dogs survivability prior to releasing your canine "torpedoes", to give you a chaotic event so you can escape.
Kevlar fabric covering their front torso, and steel "helmets" to cover their heads, would make an otherwise lethal hit a stunning
blow, that'd do nothing to deter the starving dogs from their "food". So, instead of being able to kill three dogs, the cops may
only be able to kill one, allowing the extra two to "feed" on pork!
I read about how some K-9 handlers have had their dogs fangs replaced with stainless-steel prosthetic fangs. The
psychological impact of this mod on suspects is said to be quite impressive. The idea of steel fangs glinting in the sun does
strike me as an impressive sight.
But why stop there? There's no reason why a crim can't have the same thing done, only the fangs snap off in the victim when
bitten, opening an interior capsule that contains a deadly poison. In training, the capsules are empty, so the dog doesn't die
(of course), only to be emplaced prior to a killing.
The dogs would be trained to home in on a specific victim, by smell (like pheromones), that smell being something unique
that'd be sprayed onto the victims clothing in an inconspicuous manner sometime prior. Dogs, having vastly superior senses of
smell, would home in, attack, and die from the poison along with the victim ( if the victim wasn't mauled to death first. :D),
removing them as possible evidence.
Dogs have a natural instinct to go for the throat, which removes two of their legs from the ground, and exposes their
vulnerable underside to attack. When training dogs to kill humans, you need to teach them to stay low to the ground, go for
the legs/groin, and maul the throat only AFTER the victim is down on the ground. This allows the dog to use it's superior
traction (4 legs) to its advantage. A good example of this is the scene in the movie Boys from Brazil where Dr. Mengela gets
mauled to death by a pack of killer dobermans, siced on him by the Hitler clone. Oh, the irony....
DEFENSE
Every "Lair of Evil" ;) needs a pack of guard dogs.
Pork is used to having to deal with 'em, so you'll have to RTPB "Break patterns" and be different with your tactics, if you wish
to FUBAR the SQUAT team's raid tactics.
Now it's becoming more and more common to find police departments arming their SQUAT teams with suppressed weapons,
for the express purpose of taking out guard dogs, without giving themselves away.
Several ways of defeating this tactic comes to mind.
Provide "bunkers" for the dogs to sleep in. The usual dog house isn't going to cut it. But, if you half-bury one of those plastic
dome dog-houses, and put a U shaped berm of sandbags in front of the opening, what does that do? When a dog is lying
down, it's impossible to shoot it since the dog is below the LOS of any piggie sniper, requiring the dog to be awake and up to
be shot.
Since you'll have several dogs, all of whom are "bunkered" like this, this makes it impossible to kill them all before one of
them starts barking, since dogs can hear suppressed weapons fire very well (ultrasound).
Roving dogs need to be monitered by some sort of "proof-of-life" device so that, when shot, their death immediately sounds
an alarm, bark or no bark.
Here in the in-bred midwest, every house has a basement, which would be a good place to keep the kennel.
Say you had six dogs, all the same breed and approximate size, kept in the kennel. The dogs are released one at a time, to
roam around for a few hours, before being called back into the kennel by whatever means. To anyone observing the house, it
seems that there's only one dog (that never sleeps :D), so that's what they'll be planning for.
Imagine the surprise the SQUAT team would get if, instead of one dog, SIX dogs came swarming out from hidden exits
underneath the patio, falling upon them within a mere two seconds and from (literally) underneath their feet! :eek: It'd be a
bad day to be pork, that's for sure.
Six man-eaters, panicing pork, full-auto guns, close quarters with nowhere to run...MWAHAHAHA!! Cops killing cops!
The problems of feeding/caring/cleaning up after a half-dozen or more mutts is one I leave to the reader to figure out for
themselves. Also, it'd be best if the dogs had been surgically fixed to prevent barking, or at least trained to not bark unless
attacking, to prevent warning of their presence.
Fear June 5th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Interesting idea to say the least.
The obvious wa y for the multiple dog rotation would just b e colla r and remote, computer (the ol brea dboard and so lder) or a
programmed interface on your computer,. Also using that underground wire idea, except they may get used to the boundary
and not run into the street when they need to. better train that into them, make sure they commit suicide when you want them
to. Even with a fence its sill seems to be a problem.
They also have claw caps, maybe go the way of the rooster fighters, and use blades, might get a bit nasty if they get a flea
though. Surgery is another idea, some smugglers have use all the way up the line to humans to hide drugs in the body, why
not explosives, not very practical though.
Drugs enhance the aggressive qualities and would probably allow it to go on after what would normally kill it, but anyone that
has tried to kill one will know that dogs are VERY hard to kill with a 9mm, one of the reasons that several agencies are bulking
up to higher caliber guns. Police and military use doggy body armor, try to find there supplier, metal is rather inflexible, so
only on skull, most animals run with their whole body, not just their legs.
Also they would provide distraction if they started barking, more noise to cover your suppressed gunfire. Make escape or
destruction of evidence easier by delaying entry and early detection of intrusion, gorillas are some of the smartest of the ape
family, right below chimpanzees. :)
Your device holders are pre-made for your convenience, dog hiking packs.
http://www.greatoutdoorsdepot.com/canine-packs.html plenty of links if you just search.
Maybe tunnels for dogs not coming from the house or kennels, but by that bush beside the drive.
It was once a big thing in Europe once, hunting wild pigs with dogs. :)

While attack-style dogs would be perfect for an "evil layer" type situation, I would imagine that american pit bull terriers would
be much less conspicuous. APBT's are very loyal dogs that protect their owners to the death, yet treat friendly humans with
loving affection. This way, less worry about random child-bitings or unwanted piggy attention. Having two or three of these
dogs would atract less attention than an "attack pack" :) ... Plus, you wouldn't have to starve'em into guard duty....
A-BOMB June 5th, 2003, 09:41 AM

I love dogs and cats, my dad had the most evil dog ever it was a german wirehair pointer. One time my dad went out hunting
he came back with all the shells I had reloaded him, but with 5 pheasants, the dog had snuck up on the bird and broke there
necks, evil dog. That dog could sneek up on anything, one day we were out hunting doves in some waist high tall grass, we
couldnt hide the dog till when hear someone screaming body murder about something so we run to see what it was. It seems
that our dog had snuck up on this amish guy and had bit a big chunk out of the back of this leg and was chaseing him and all
the while hes screaming like a woman that hes being attacked by a wolf. That dog was fucking scary. So if you were to plant
some tall grasses all around you "lair of evil" and had one of those electronic fences in place so the dont leave the grass the
pigs won't know that there 7 mean evil specialy trained pig killing dogs in there waiting to bite there nuts off. It would also be
great for putting trip guns in so as the swat is coming up to the side of your "lair of evil"
bang! bang! bang! as the knee knockers and mini-clamores rip through the swats legs over the radio officers down, officers
down (pigs are all rolling on the ground in the tall grass where the other pigs cant see them, gropeing at whats left of there
legs) then you releses your automatic pig killers(dogs) to finish them off in a grusome and bloody fashion. And you don't
need a big dog to be a alarm dog it could be a doxen, those dogs are loud for there size (size of a football), my aunt had
one that would bark as if it were a mastif if anyone came near there house.
Mr Cool June 5th, 2003, 04:09 PM

Cats are much better. Imagine the fear when a pack of evil cats attacks you!
RTPB "Break Patterns" - dogs might be suspected, cats have an element of surprise!
This (http://www.boomspeed.com/mrcool/scarycat.jpg), for example, would certainly scare me!

Lol.
Seriously, it is a good idea, but would take considerable planning.
nbk2000 June 5th, 2003, 05:18 PM

What's the difference between a pit bull and a APBT...none. Only training makes the "friendly" APBT into a vicious "pit bull".
Besides which, there'd be no problems with brats getting chewed because the "Lair of Evil" has decent fencing to keep them
out, and the dogs in.
You could have a pack of little "doxhounds" (NOT the proper spelling) running around, and they'd be harmless enough...and
that's the problem. If you're going to bother with dogs at all, then those dogs might as well be the most ferocious and
agressive dogs you can get, so they can attack/defend as well as warn.
Jakio, you wouldn't be starving your guard dogs, only the dogs trained to seek out pig-mobiles for destruction. Starving them
makes them "motivated" to get to the pigs car, despite the noise of gunfire and sirens. ;)
Fear, you were thinking what I was thinking, about how to schedule the dogs. But I was thinking more along the lines of
mechanical timers that unlock the kennel doors, and an electronic dog whistle (ultrasound) to call the dog back in. Computers
have a nasty way of going out when piggies cut the power prior to a raid.
The claw caps would have to be put on immediately prior to a hit, for the very reason you mentioned, though if they were
mounted only of the front legs, then the dogs would be reasonably safe from injuring themselves, since I've never seen a dog
scratching itself with its front legs. Only cats are smart enough to do that. :p

MrC, I'm 99% sure that cat is only yawning! Note the casual way it's standing and how its ears aren't put back.
I think cats would be hard to train for this kind of job, dogs just do what they're told because they're stupid, cats tend to do
what the fuck they like. Although they'll attack a person 100 times their size, I think they lack the killer instinct to charge
across the threshold to do so.
I've noticed that my cats can open their jaws as wide as I can, not too bad considering their comparitive size.
I wonder if break-off fangs would reduce the damage a dog could inflict? Obviously the first cop bit will likely die, but the dog
would probably have a hard time tearing his and targets' throats out after. I'm assuming that a dog mainly uses its fangs to
tear, I could be wrong.
I can't think of a better way to release the poison into the target though. Bearing in mind that the poison has to be contained
reliable in day-to-day doggie activity for significant lengths of time.
A-BOMB June 5th, 2003, 08:21 PM

With doxens you can put a million of them into the space needed for 6 bigger dogs, Though they may be smaller you can still
use them think of a handgrenade taped to its back then think of 50 handgrenades running radomly through the police lines
doxens are smaller than the bigger dogs so harder to hit, need less food, and if all else fails at least the swat team can trip
over them or try shooting them.
Jakio June 5th, 2003, 10:58 PM

Jakio, you wouldn't be starving your guard dogs, only the dogs trained to seek out pig-mobiles for destruction. Starving them
makes them "motivated" to get to the pigs car, despite the noise of gunfire and sirens.
Of course, I'm from the school of thought that says dogs that are well fed and exercised will be much more loyal and willing to
defend their owners...
As far as apbt, I was just trying to make the distinction between American pit bull terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers... both
are good house dogs... a doberman or rotwieler would be a more vigilant guard dog, but apbt's are friendlier...
Fear June 5th, 2003, 11:40 PM

Jakio , these are not going to be your family pet, let you daughter feed e m d og biscuits dog, you want em mean and viciou s,
y o u d o n t wan t to put your hand near them to hit them vicious, R ed neck trailer trash lap dog vicious. Also keep the m inta ct,
not only will it keep your fence posts free of weeds, but their much more territorial = more aggressive
Rabies wou ldn t be a good thing to give them to increase lethality, dro wsin ess and muscle fatigue a long with bra in is s u e s ,
not to mention the fact that they might test for that, a slow acting poison wouldn t have much impact on the battle itself but if
you could find s omething that s lethal to humans bu t not dogs. Mayb e bacteria, feed to the do gs before the assa ult (just a
bit), but prompt treatment would make nil. Just a poison that kills the dog after the battle is expected to be over might work,
but as with rabies it could decrease the dogs battle effectiveness.
Another bad thing about collars is that the simple fact that they can fall off, get snared in stuff, and batteries and repair. Dogs
could also be used for the removal of evidence from the site, one mangy flea bitten mutt sulking away during a standoff
might not be pursued. Or for the disruption of cop dogs tracking you, its dog eat dog out there in the woods. :)
"fetch the glock rover, fetch the glock"
nbk2000 June 6th, 2003, 01:33 AM

RABIES?!
That's stupid. Not only is it 100% fatal to the animal, but there's also a serum that'll stop it from reproducing if injected
immediately after being bite, which I'm sure the piggies would get.
Also, the dogs will bite ANYTHING, even their packmates and YOU, while deranged by rabies.
To instill killer instincts in the dogs, feed them some live food, in the form of rabbits, which they have to chase down and tear
apart. I'd also say cats, but cats have claws, and they'll use them on dogs, so best not to risk injury to your mutts. Unless
you'll cut off the cats paws first...;)
The poisoned teeth (the tooth...remember the tooth... ;)) would only be installed in murder dogs, not torpedoes, nor sentries.
The murder dogs have the poison since they're specifically targeted, under pre-arranged conditions, on one person. Torpedoes
and sentries are going to engage targets of opportunity at some unknown time in the future.
Pure-breed wolves are very aggressive, but they may be rather unusual "pets" to have in a city, instigating the very police
contact you wish to avoid. The hybrids are too unstable to be reliable, being prone to spontaneously turning on their masters,
which is a very bad thing.
The idea of having several anti-tracking dogs of your own is good. The dogs sit in ambush besides the trail, and attack the K-
9 following your scent, injuring it too much for it to continue the pursuit. Of course, since all K-9's have handlers, the handler is
in for a beasting as well. :)
I'm not too sure about the idea of using a dog to carry away evidence. While it may initially do so, it's very likely to come back
to the house when it's time to eat, bringing the evidence right back into the piggies lap. That is, unless, you've poisoned the
dog, prior to release, and trained it to go to one spot far away, where it'll die, depositing the evidience for your later retrieval.
The idea had occurred to me of using trained dogs as couriers to deliver drugs/collect money without personal risk. The dogs
would wait, wherever you tell it to, for someone to approach it. The person approaching them has to hold out the money where
you could see it via the "doggy-cam" you've attached to a dog. If it's OK, the person can put the money in the dogs pouch,
taking the dope out in exchange.
If they try to get the dope without paying, the dogs maul them, or run away. Dogs are must faster than humans, and could
slither through thick brush and narrow gaps, making it impossible to follow them back to their handler (you).
Also, dogs would make for interesting "smart" bombs. Thanks to the ADA, most federal buildings have doors with handles,
instead of knobs, so a dog could open a door. The dog is trained to follow voice commands given to it via radio by its handler,
who monitors its progress by TV. Commands would be like UP(stairs)/DOWN(stairs)/LEFT/RIGHT/STOP/OPEN(door)/
CLOSE(door)/JUMP/ and some others I'm sure.
The dog could be guided through a building to an interior room, where it would be exploded, killing the target.
You may wish to have some other dogs to run with it, who'd act as blocking elements, to prevent interference with the "cruise
(missle) dog". :D
Or have the dogs make like ragheads and explode at random throughout the building, each having been trained to go up a
certain number of stairs, and through a door, before sitting down and waiting for the bomb timers to expire.
Anyone interesting in training dogs for use as weapons may wish to rent a copy of "The Doberman Gang", a rather chessy '70's
movie, that had a pack of dobermans trained to commit a robbery. Fiction, but interesting. There was a sequel too, but not
worth watching, since the dogs went "rogue" and took off with the loot. :mad:
Of course, all this assumes you can train dogs, which I haven't the first clue to how you'd do so. Presumably, if the results
would be worth the effort, you could get one of those former-soviet military trainers to do so, they having trained dogs for the
express purpose of man-killing.
BTW, it's spelt "dachshunds", not "doxhounds".
Jakio, stop with the quotes, we know what you're referring to, and it's incredibly annoying. People who annoy me here have a
lifespan that makes a gnat's look positively Methuselan by comparison. :D
FragmentedSanity June 6th, 2003, 05:47 AM

Lo all :)
While this is in theory an interesting idea, the training required for some of the tasks mentioned would be extreme. Seeing
eye dogs are trained intesively for 18 months or so - this is the sort of level of training required. This raises a couple of issues
- Aside form the dedication and expertise required, people become attached to anything they put that much work into and
may get all sentimental when it comes time blow up fido.
One other thing - if the dog was used for a job - you would need some kind of failsafe, ie. something to kill it once it was
finished, because Dogs are ususally very good at finding their way home. Last thing you want is fido trotting home with the
cops in toe.
FS
Mr Cool June 6th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Yes Anthony, it was only yawning. No matter how much I taunted it with a bit of string I couldn't get it to kill, I only tired it out
:(.
Maybe dogs are the way to go after all :).
nbk2000 June 6th, 2003, 08:54 PM

Training a dog to be reliable enough to guide a blind person through traffic, and training a dog to crawl under a cop car, is
orders of magnitude different in difficulty. :)

Lo again
While I agree its not that hard to train a dog to a single task (ie Spot the piggy bomb) Some of the other suggested
applications (remotely guiding them with a series of commands, condtioning them to attack specified targets - while retaining
the dominance needed to stop them eating you)
Would require a substantial effort. Dont get me wrong - I think Dogs are wonderfully useful - They just take a lot of work.
I imagine a sniffer Doberman - trained to find gear - then intimidate the holder until you can relieve them of it. Just imagine -
walking the dog around till he bails up some wannabe gangsta - you then simply tell him if he dosent hand over the gear
you'll let Fido get it - how many times have you seen a guy with the goods down his pants :p
Oh and just a quick heads up to anyone who decides dogs might just be useful - If you are like NBK and dont know how to
train a dog - dont start with attack dogs - try a labrador or a jack russel or something, Maybe a Staffy if you want something
that is a little more intimidating. IMO 90% of cases you hear about where a dog "turned " on it owner could be traced back to
defficiencies in its training/handling.
Later
FS
Fear June 9th, 2003, 05:40 AM

I was thinking more along the lines of infecting them prior to use, but in defense your opponent chooses, making it rather
ineffective. More specifically I was looking for elapses of time between infection, and the animal capable of spreading the virus
and when symptoms arise, the preferred time being after its capable of being spread and before symptoms appear if
possible. The %100 fatality could be the fail-safe for the other methods of disposing of your canine warriors after the battle.
Dogs are simple minded, the most common ways of training them is positive reinforcement and punishing the negative,
focusing on the later will make the dog more hostile, just like in children. :)

Nbk, no more quotes, I'm flexible...
Honestly, packs of mean-looking dogs draw suspision unless you live in the ghetto. If you live in the (nice) city or suburbs,
you won't have a choice but to be less obvious! Obviously a dog-missle's personality doesn't matter at all, but if you have a
family or non-accomplice friends then you will need dogs that apear to be friendly house-pets, Right? A dozen dogs just
waiting to attack vs. 3-5 house pets that love you but happen to be able to rip an invader's throat out? I'll take the latter.
Another thing to keep in mind: Dog fighting is a popular (illegal) sport in the US, and in many areas the police are very
inquisitive towards people who happen to have more than 2 dogs of the breeds we are discussing. Not that I care, but caution
and secrecy is always good.
nbk2000 June 13th, 2003, 12:34 AM

I just saw some "news" show that my landlord was watching, and they had a segment about "Killer Dogs", these being the
"nice" breeds like labradors, spaniels, etc.
The usual hype of exagerated risks, with "300 have died in the last 20 years!". :eek: :rolleyes:
Nigger, please...that many die in a day from driving, so let's hear about "Killer Cars!" instead.
(Speaking of numbers, I read about how 1 in 7 firearm deaths are caused by police shooting people. Now THAT is truely scary,
but you'll never hear that on TV.)
Anyways, you do have a point about starting out with a "nice" breed, if you don't know how to train dogs without them turning
on you. I'd start with a breed small enough to kick to death if it turned.
Begals (SP?), chiuhahuas (SP?), and other lap dog breeds would be good for starting out.

"The Koehler Method of Guard Dog Training" is available from Amazon and seems to be the definitive book for our purposes.
Apparently, it is a no-nonsese type book and covers basic dog training as well as man-stopping tactics. At around $9 US, I
think I might just pick myself up a copy!
From what I have been able to peice together, The Koehler method uses very straight forward positive/negative re-
enforcement to teach dogs what is expected of them. When such a system is used the risk of getting bit (or having your dog
bite some little girl) is very low. The trained dog n behaves like a loyal agent that knows how to react to threatening people (or
piggies, if you will). Also, this system will minimize the 'crazy dog' syndrom that the gang bangers seem to love, but rather will
result in a happy dog that attacks with precision when required. I'll take a strong heroic defender over a dumb abused animal
any day... dosn't that make sense?
if the interest is there, I'll scan it up :)
nbk2000 June 13th, 2003, 08:14 PM

If you're going to scan it, do a proper job of it. There's a archive thread by machiavelli in which he and I give some pointers on
doing a proper job of it. Find it and read it.
And don't ask if you should scan a book, just do. We really hate it when people do that, especially newbies, because it almost
always turns into a bunch of one line replies saying "Yeah, I'd like a copy", then newbie never does it, gets banned for lying,
etc.
Rather, just scan it, post it somewhere, and people will tell you if it was a good book or not. If it is, you'll get props for it. If
not, big deal, you still contributed and that gets you respect anyways.
Flake2m June 14th, 2003, 09:40 AM

Your ideas about using dogs is intresting.
Though your analogy on comparing swarming insects to dogs made me have an idea.
Why not use insects instead?
You could keep several hives of honey bees in the back yard. All you would need to do to make them swarm and go beserk
would be to iritate them or use a chemical tigger. If you had notice that the bacon was going to raid the the house. You could
encourage the bees to swarm by turning on a garden sprinkler system that had a resovoir containing a chemical that caused
them to be aggressive.
All you would need to do is turn on the sprinkler system. To make it more effective if you shook the hive before the bees were
let loose they would be more effective.
You could use swarms of bees as a backup if the dogs dont do there job. The other advantage of using bees is the honey. If
you had enough hives the honey could used to help with money laundering.
Besides how many cops are going to believe they have a problem when you say "release the bees"? :cool:
zaibatsu June 14th, 2003, 11:17 AM

Flake2M, NBK has already discussed the idea of using insects as weapons, and it can't have been much more than a year ago.
Do a search.
Dathai July 14th, 2003, 06:10 PM

If you are attacked by an attack dog it is an easy win for you if you know what you are doing.
Attack dogs are trained by a man in a padded suit acting like a maniac with a gun and the trainer releases the dog and the
dog simply locks on to the man and the man just shakes his arm and shouts his head off.But in a real life situation if an
attack dog happens to lock onto your arm or perhaps your leg all you have to do is to (lets just say it grabs your left arm) try
and manouvre(sp?) your arm so you can see the dogs chest and hit it a punch in the ribs once or twice and the dog will
retreat.The reason for this is the dog is only trained to lock onto one of your limbs and not let go until instructed to,so when
you punch it the dog has never experienced that before so it will let go and retreat.
FragmentedSanity July 15th, 2003, 05:36 AM

Dathai - while that might work against a single dog - trained in the methopd you described - I really dont think simply
punching the dog a couple of times could be relied upon to discourage attack. Do you have any idea how much damage a dog
can inflict? not to mention the amount that they can take and still dish it out! Ive known pitbull's that wouldnt let go after
being hit in the head with a hammer -sometimes they dont let go until they are dead.
But the main flaw to you thinking is that your talking about a single dog - if you re-read the eniter thread you'll see that we
have been generally talking about a pack of viscious trained dogs. Single K9 units were only referred to as potential suicide
bombers, and they arent going to attack you - so you dont need to defend yourself from them.
But I spose your commments could be used to illustrate possible deficiencies training methiods - which is something to think
about when training your own.
FS

The only advice I've ever read regarding dog bites (presuming an arm bite) is not to pull, go "with" the dog, so as to minimise
tearing. Dogs seem to hate being forced to walk backwards for some reason, so that might help. The other thing was to punch
the dog on the nose. Supposedly it's very painful and maybe the dog would momentarily release its jaw pressure by reflex
allowing you to retrieve your limb.
I have reservations of whether that would work on an normal domestic/stray dog, let alone a trained attack dog. Especially one
trained to pull you to the ground and then go for the throat!
stickfigure July 20th, 2003, 01:15 AM

If I were to train an animal for that I would catch a couple Mountian Lion cubs, and have a large forest around my home that
they could stalk. They would of cource be trained by and loyal to me and woe to thee who tries to break into my home.
Mountian Lions are plentiful throughout the Northwest and lots of people keep them as pets. I know that they are capable of
killing nearly any type of dog and are a lot more self-sufficiant than canines.
My freind Sausha is learning to be a bear handler, her Dad owned the Kodiak from "The Bear", "White Fang", and "Legends of
the Fall". Bart died of few years ago, but
she is learning to train a grizzly named Tank and a couple of brown bear cubs, Honey Bump and Little Bart. These animals are
not only valued "family" members but a source of income for her family. In their case to much would be at stake to make
them "attack" animals but for someone vaguely depraved they would make the "ultimate" attack animal.
These animals aren't for the faint of heart, and would be potentially extremely dangerous for the owner. The cages that they
keep these bears in have to be located at least 500 feet from their house to keep them from reacting when her and her mom
have their periods. The bears smell that and go nuts so it is typically better for them to be handled by men.
It would be interesting to see a bear maul a couple of robbers or thrill-seekers who decided to break in. Or see a SWAT Team
shit their drawers when they see a 10 foot Kodiak bust out of your garage.
Arkangel July 21st, 2003, 10:31 AM

Slightly off topic here, but did anyone see the documentary about the guy who survived meeting a grizzly, and then devoted
the next few years building a grizzly-proof suit? There was all sorts of footage of him being shot at/hit by a pickup truck/
thrown off a quarry wearing it. When he finally (years later) had the impregnable version he wanted, he set off to find a
grizzly, only to discover that he couldn't walk across anything other than a parking lot in it. He set off toward a grizzly over a
grassy field, kept falling on his face and having to be picked up, before giving up after a couple of hundred yards:D
nbk2000 July 21st, 2003, 06:46 PM

Mountain lions and bears aren't pack animals, they're solitary hunters, thus they wouldn't be able to co-ordinate an attack like
dogs can, more likely fighting each other than attacking your victim.
I saw that bear suit guy. What a hoot! :)
nbk2000 July 24th, 2003, 01:43 AM

Here's an article I scanned about how to assert your dominance over dogs to ensure compliance.
+++++++++++++
One of the more popular questions that I often field as a professional trainer is whether it is detrimental for a gun dog to be
allowed to live in the house. It seems that over the years the myth continues to surface that hunting dogs should only be
raised outside and shouldn't be allowed indoors for a variety of senseless reasons.
Actually, the opposite is true; communication, attention, bonding, focus, and responsiveness can't be established nearly as
well in brief training sessions as it can in day-today living. Dogs that are strictly outside or kennel dogs don't have nearly the
relationship or the level of communication with their owners, and their training doesn't generally advance nearly as smoothly,
as those that are raised in the house.
This became obvious to me when I noticed the responses to their short daily lessons of the dogs that have been sent to my
kennel for training. When a dog is out only for short concentrated periods of training, the dog's eyes reveal his true feelings
about the lessons that he is being asked to perform. If he is looking away, yawning, shaking his head, and generally trying to
avoid paying attention, he is not learning. (Read, "I Really Don't Want To Do This!" Retriever Journal July/August'99.)
But my personal dogs that are raised in the house as well as being intermittently rotated into their outdoor kennels are more
attentive and have learned to read me by paying attention to my every move.
The positive aspects of raising a gun dog pup in the house also far outweigh the negatives when it comes to basic training and
socialization. Similarly, one of the many side benefits of youngsters learning housebreaking at an early age is that they also
begin to absorb a level of understanding as to what pleases and displeases the "leader of the pack" - their owner.
This requires the pup to begin focusing on pleasing a human rather than being left to be largely self-reliant, as he would if he
were raised strictly in an outdoor kennel. And, by learning what pleases a human, he is beginning to learn cooperation and
behavior interaction or what is commonly called socialization.
Another positive facet of housebreaking is overall cleanliness. From my experience dealing with a great number of dogs in my
training business, it has become quite clear to me that the dogs that are housebroken are much cleaner in their outdoor
kennels as well. I have noticed that when a dog comes to the kennel for training, those that have been raised primarily in an
outdoor kennel or loose in a fenced yard have little concept of soiling their kennel (their home), and they smear mess up and
down the floor and all over the gate and the wire until it resembles a disgusting, sticky brown carpet.
On the other hand, housebroken dogs, even when temporarily required to live in an outdoor kennel run, almost always learn
to "hold it" and wait until released to relieve themselves. And. if they do "go" in their kennel, rarely do they smear it all over
everything.
All dogs have a need to either be the leader of the pack or to recognize a well-defined leader. And for a new owner to assume
this position of leadership, he needs to continually send signals reminding his dog that he is in charge, in the language that
the dog understands -body language.
But it is a natural human tendency to apply the relationship practices that work with other humans to their dogs, and when the
dogs don't respond (because dogs have an entirely different language of relationship behavior), the owner can't understand
why. Often this technique consists of a mixture of punishment or threat of punishment and spoiling - mixed messages that
result in confusion in the dog.
With the vast number of dogs that we have in the world today, there is something seriously wrong in the ways that people
relate to dogs and most other animals - they believe that physical domination is the total answer to eontrol. But, physical
domination is much less effective than psychological domination. And mental domination, because it is such a powerful
influence, is far more reliable.
There are certain regions of a dog's body that evoke the response of allowing other dogs or humans to establish or relinquish
psychological dominance or leadership over the dog. And just like the body language rituals that dogs perform, contact in
these areas is what he understands best. These two areas are his muzzle and the scruff of the neck or shoulder region, which
would be called the withers on a horse.
Therefore, to establish yourself in your dogs mind in the dominant position in the peeking order, sufficient correction should
be to hold and shake the muzzle along with firmly grabbing the scruff of the neck or shoulder area and shaking hard. Or if you
are strong enough and know the dog well enough to be assured that you won't get bitten, grabbing him by the scruff of the
neek and the skin immediately in front of his tail and lifting him completely off the ground while shaking. This method does
not in any way harm the dog, and it's doubtful that it's even too uncomfortable, so don't worry about being "mean."
That should be the extent of the physical and psychological correction that is necessary. Hitting a dog is certainly not the wav
to establish the necessary authority.
Also, if you don't trust the dog to not bite when you grab him, place a muzzle on him to establish control. In fact, the simple
act of putting a muzzle on an antagonistic dog will usually change his demeanor from one of aggression to one of total
acquiescence. Try it if you don't believe it.
So let's look at some "tricks" that you can employ to help you get started confirming your leadership position, thereby easing
your formal training time and in all likelihood your stress level as well.
Eveny so often, when sitting around the house or watching TV, simply stare directly at your dog and make eye contact with
him. And don't give in by looking away. Make him feel uncomfortable so he'll look away first. He will
have resigned himself to you when this happens. If he feels uncomfortable and begins acting silly or nudges you to pet him,
don't do it - just continue to stare. And, whatever you do, when he finally gives in and looks away, don't relinquish the
dominant position you have established by playing with him as a reward. When he looks away and doesn't look back, just
move your attention elsewhere without saying a word.
Staring and this non-vocal intense eye contact is an extremely effective method of establishing behavioral control. But be
careful - a direct stare can be conceived as a challenge, too. So only do this with a dog that you are familiar with or he may
begin growling and get agitated, resulting in the possibility of a confrontation.
Never pet your dog when he nudges you. Avoid the urge to pet him when he requests it, doing so puts you in a position of
submitting to him. Pet him when you choose to, primarily on his hack, the top of his head, or by grabbing him firmly on the
muzzle and play-shaking it.
Occasionally, put your arm, legs or feet over your dog's back when he is lying or sitting on the floor or even when he is
standing. But never allow him to put his feet on you or lay his head on you or even lay his body across your feet. If he lies on
your feet when you are sitting reading or watching TV, simply pull them out and put them on top of him or across his back.
This may seem very subtle - and it is - but he is being subtle in his attempts to elevate his standing in the pecking order!
Never allow your dog to jump up and put his front feet on you. Again, this may seem Insignificant, but it is unquestionably an
attempt on his part to assert his dominance over you. And it undermines your leadership position much the same as when one
dog mounts another in a sexual manner or puts his front feet on another's shoulders to establish control.
All dogs, especially at a young age, jump on their owners and other people; but your dog must be stopped from this
unacceptable behavior. We have all heard for years that that jumping tip can be cured by squatting down to play with your pup,
since the jumping is an attempt to get up to your level. Well, squatting down, just like some of the more customary, but
possibly risky, methods of breaking him of the behavior (such as kneeing the dog in the chest or holding his front feet while
stepping on his back feet) may serve to alleviate or end the immediate problem, but that is like masking the symptoms, not
curing the disease.
New dogs that come to my kennel for training often try to jump on me in an effort to determine their position in the pack
hierarchy, but once I begin their formal obedience training and show them that I am in charge, the jumping miraculously
stops. Likewise, it is almost comical to watch when the dogs are loose in my kennel yard with visitors. They will certainly try to
jump on any kids and maybe the adults, but none would even think ot jumping on me! They know better - instinctive canine
behavior will not allow them to jump on the acknowledged pack leader.
Just like jumping up, don't allow your dog to put his mouth on you. This is not to say that he can't lick you. Licking a human
on the face or under the chin is a sign of the dog's submission. What I am talking about is nipping or mouthing you. One of
the ways that puppies play is by nipping, so it is natural for them to think that you or your family are just part of their pack of
littermates. But, this is also how puppies and older dogs assert dominance and determine their status
in the pack. So stop the practice as quickly as it shows itself, and you will assert your position of leadership. Firmly grabbing
the pup by the muzzle and giving it a good shake, along with a sharp rebuke of, "No," or, "No biting" continued over a period
of time should be sufficient to end the problem.
The next method ot asserting control that I am going to mention might seem a bit disgusting to you but it works; I learned
this from a horse trainer. Every now and then, just grab your dog's muzzle, open his mouth, and spit in his mouth! This works
especially well on dogs that are being obstinate. I was told that it has the same effect as if Mama canine regurgitated food
into a puppy's mouth - and all dogs remember the respect that they had for Mama, I regularly spit in each dogs' mouth when
I have them on my force-fetch table; it has the effect of calming them down and reaffirms control.
Similarly, if you don't mind doing it, any treats that you give should be held in your mouth or spit on and moistened with your
saliva before giving it to your dog. This, too, I would guess, is suggestive of Mama regurgitating food, and it reinforces the
dog's understanding of his lower rung on the peeking order ladder.
Now, of all of the suggestions for establishing a leadership position that I have mentioned, the following might be the either
the easiest or the most difficult of all, depending upon your family's lifestyle: Keep your dog off your furniture and out of your
bed. If you are to maintain a leadership status, he needs to have his own bed or sleep in his crate, but never be allowed up
on your bed or on the sofa.
If you want to play or sit with your dog in the house, go down to his level by sitting on the floor or kneeling down; but do not
elevate him to your level, or you will be elevating his status in the peeking order too.
So I guess the eventual question that everyone asks about starting this training is, "How soon or at what age should I begin
establishing this form of communication and my leadership position?" And, the inevitable answer has to be: the moment that
the pup comes into your life. After all, you are now stepping in and taking Mama's place as the leader of the pack. You have
mighty big shoes to fill!
jeffchem2000 July 24th, 2003, 05:55 PM

this thread reminded me of a great russian (I think is was) tactic of strapping explosives to dogs that were trained to run
under enemy tanks and blow up the tank. The only problem with this weird idea was that the dogs were trained to run under
the only tanks russia had to spare and that was russian tanks. And so these dogs saw the tanks whilst they were in conflict and
run under the russian tanks. So this was a waste of a trained tank crew a tank and a trained dog so the stopped the explosive
dog thing. It is almost as clever as the sticky grenades that stick to the taget then blow up. The only problem was they stuck
to the hands of the soldiers throwing them and off came there arm.
nbk2000 July 24th, 2003, 10:38 PM

Either someone didn't read the whole thread before replying to it, thus making themselves look foolish, or they copied a
certain admins words and rephrased it to sound as if they thought them up themselves, thus making themselves walking dead
men.
Which one describes you jeffchem2000...2000?! :mad:

Ah, Shit! I hear the HED gun being primed.:eek:
knowledgehungry July 25th, 2003, 11:56 AM

I like the Idea of using big cats as weapons, mainly as an anti burglar use. Dogs give wraning before they attack whereas a
mountain lion is quiet, also dogs dont kill instantly, burglar has ability to shoot whereas a mountain lion can break your neck
with one swipe. The main reason is actually i just like cats more, cleaner, far more beautiful and generally more intelligent,
sure they are harder to train but i doubt it is because they are too dumb. I think they are too smart to let people exploit
them. My cat is the perfect example of how intelligent cats can be, and how sadistic. When he catches a mouse the first thing
he does is take the live mouse to tthe bathtub, ensuring there is no escape, then he will spend almost an hour playing with it
till he kills it.
yt2095 July 25th, 2003, 12:20 PM

Fuckin Eh! too right they do!
I lost all my Lab rats (yes I used to keep lab rats) in one night only to find them all lined up neatly at my bedroom door,
thanx to `Reboot` my cat.
I couldn`t shout at her, she thought of me 1`st, and me as Master got to pick the best rats for myself before she would touch
them *YUCK*
but hey... it`s the thought that counts :)
here`s what I DO find surprising on this forum though... People that I`ve talked to via Email and seen websites of and from
reading some threads on here seem to all prefer cats (when pets are mentioned), and in fact keep them as pets.
maybe it`s just me noticing it more because I have 3 of my own perhaps? but I`ve not seen any mention thier own dog yet (I
don`t like dogs as pets much).
coincidence?
GibboNet July 25th, 2003, 08:43 PM

I'm sure that it is just a coincidence.
I had a dog, till I moved out, and I still have a dislike of cats. Recently, one came in and knocked a bowl of defrosting chicken
pieces off the bench, breaking the bowl.
Living with my girlfriend, there were three cats in the house, that pissed around the house every now and again, and always
wanted to sleep in the beds, made a huge racket in the middle of the night to be let in and the like.
At my old place, they used to crawl through our sheds, and we always had them hanging around and going through our
garbage, which I often had to clean up.
I kept a small pile of broken brick pieces near the back door, but I never managed to more than clip one. I got a video
recently, from someone on MSN, (soemone from here I think) that showed a cat getting caught in a trip snare. I should have
been doing that a long time ago.
Big cats are a totally different story. They are immensely more powerful, but very difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to
train.
I would rather a dog. My dog was loyal to a fault, if I was play fighting with anyone, she would instantly go for them, in a hold,
not a bite, but often causing a big bruise and swelling. This caused good friends to get shitty with me on many occasions. She
was never allowed on furniture or on the bed, knew her place, was a great guard dog (The power inspection people had to
make an appointment to check our meter, they were too afraid to coime in the yard) and wa great company for excercise and
the like. I could have trained her much better, but I've had her since I was 10 yrs old, what do you expect ?
Dogs go ahead a long way in my book. Easy to train, no mess, no fuss, and do exactly what they're told. If not, you've done a
lousy training job. I'm going to think about some of your points when it comes to training my next dog NBK, I might document
it and see how it goes.
nbk2000 July 26th, 2003, 02:00 AM

You know how they have those horse races with the jockey riding some kind of carriage behind the horse?
Well...dogs will pull a sled, right? So why not a cart with you in it? :D
Quiet, small, easy to make, beats the shit out of pedaling a bike, and you've got your own pack of assualt dogs with you at all
times. Oh, and it's eco-friendly. :p Just the thing for that post-apocalytpic Mad-Max look. :D

A giant attack cat might be good.
There was/is a place in England called Longleat, where this stately home was guarded by lions!
If you want to get really silly, try a liger ( from http://lionshrine.topcities.com/otherlions.htm)
http://lionshrine.topcities.com/liger2.jpg
Check out the size of that thing! Combined with body armour and some lion training, you could hold a small army at bay!
dinkydexy February 27th, 2004, 06:33 PM

Interesting.
However, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that using animals as cheap guided missiles doesn't work...if it did, then
how come the Ragheads don't do it? Or the IRA? How come all the soldiers going ashore on D-Day, for example, weren't
supported by platoons of bunker-busting poodles, etc?

I read somewhere about the German and USA attempts to guide a missile by having pigeons peck on a button for steering. It
totally didn't work. However, it was probably the interface that let it down!
Pigeons fly really well, but they don't understand the abstract concept of steering! Neither do flys. Yet both steer really
effectively.
Below is an article. I didn't bother with the ones about dolphins, but this first one is about the history of sea-lions being used
against sea targets.
<hr>
Pinnipeds on parade
New Scientist vol 181 issue 2434 - 14 February 2004, page 48
For Barker and Queenie, it was a chance to get their flippers on some extra herrings. Britain was at war, and fish were in short
supply. For Joseph Woodward, sea-lion trainer extraordinaire, it was a chance to prove that these smart, sharp-eared
pinnipeds could do their bit for king and country. On 23 February 1917, Barker and Queenie were billed to appear at a public
swimming baths in London. The audience was small but discerning - a few boffins and a vice-admiral or two. There would be
no cycling, no juggling, no bouncing balls on noses. All the animals had to do was listen for strange sounds beneath the water
and locate the source. If they could home in on the faintest rumble or whirr, then they might be just what the Royal Navy
needed to fend off the U-boats that were terrorising the nation.
JOSEPH WOODWARD wanted to help. When the first world war began in 1914, Britain was unprepared for the U-boat.
Germany's fast-growing fleet of submarines was soon taking a huge toll of British ships, threatening to starve the country into
submission. Without the technology to detect U-boats, the nation was powerless to stop them. Woodward, "captain" of the
"world famous, original performing seals and juggling sea lions", thought he might have the answer. Sea lions were intelligent
and easy to train: they would do anything for fish. If they learned to associate the sound of an engine under water with a
handout of herring, they might be able to locate subs lurking around the coast.
Woodward's suggestion, like thousands of others, landed on a desk at the Board of Invention and Research. The BIR, a group
of civilian scientists expert in everything from optics and acoustics to psychology and physiology, had been set up by the
Admiralty in 1915 in an attempt to address two awkward problems. One was the widespread concern that the armed forces
were not making full use of the nation's best brains to help win the war. The other was the question of how to deal with the
torrent of ideas from patriotic members of the public.
While the scientists of the BIR carried out research into better ways to fight the war, they also vetted the ideas conjured up in
the nation's pubs, clubs and factory canteens - more than 37,500 of them in the 29 months of the BIR's existence. With the
U-boat menace uppermost in people's minds, the largest piles of letters ended up with William Bragg, Nobel-prizewinning
physicist and head of the BIR's section investigating ways to detect and destroy submarines.
The first challenge was finding the U-boats. Most suggestions were farcical: strong magnets, divining rods held over a map of
the coast, a crack force of seagulls trained to spot periscopes. The best hope lay in picking up the distant throb of a sub's
engines, but this was easier said than done. Underwater microphones, or hydrophones, were primitive and not very sensitive.
To stand any chance of finding its quarry, a ship would have to stop and turn off its engines, making it a sitting duck for the
very sub it was hunting. By late 1916, losses to U-boats were escalating. The BIR decided that maybe sea lions were worth a
look.
In December, the board sent marine biologist Ernest Allen to Scotland to see Woodward, who was appearing with Barker and
Jumbo at Hengler's Circus in Glasgow. Woodward thought the animals would be able to detect submarines by their sound, but
Allen had another suggestion: could he train the animals not just to listen out for subs, but to pursue them and raise the
alarm? If sea lions learned to associate the sound of a sub with a supply of fresh fish, maybe they could lead the navy's patrol
boats to the enemy.
Woodward was willing to give the idea a try. Between performances, he put Barker and Jumbo through their paces at one of
the city's swimming pools. Within a week, Barker had learned that if he swam towards a bell or an electric buzzer there would
be a fish when he got there. At sea, though, there was a risk the animals might veer off course in hot pursuit of herring. So
Woodward designed a muzzle for the sea lions, then added live fish to the pool. In no time, Barker and Jumbo realised they
were wasting their time chasing the fish: the only guarantee of a meal was to make for the sound of the "sub".
The next step was to find out how quiet a sound they could hear. Was it as faint as a distant U-boat? Could they really do
better than a hydrophone? Bragg asked acoustics expert Albert Wood to find out. Wood was working at the Admiralty research
station at Aberdour on the Firth of Forth. Glasgow was only a short train ride away, but getting together with the sea lions was
proving tricky.
Woodward planned the trials at a large open-air pool on Sunday 7 January, and telegraphed Wood to tell him. Wood's reply
was brief: "No trains Sundays. Any weekday suitable." But Woodward was adamant. "Offer weekend hospitality," he cabled.
"Can experiment Sundays only 86-yard park pond." The next day brought a letter of explanation. "Afternoons are full up on
account of the daily matinees now established at the circus," wrote Woodward. "I could risk morning work upon them at the
baths but if I took them to the park, they might play about with me and not come out of the pond just when wanted. This
might make them lose an afternoon's performance." The large pool was vital to the new tests and on Sundays there was no
circus.
That Saturday night, Wood was in the front row of the circus watching the sea lions show off their regular tricks. The next day,
Woodward and Wood continued their secret work, pitting sea lion against hydrophone with a range of sounds, from a noisy
tapping and a loud buzz to a muffled buzzer inside a box and the jingle of small bells from a pony's harness. The hydrophone
picked up the louder noises, failed to detect the muffled buzz, and could only hear the jingling bells from a few metres. The
sea lions were good at locating even the feeblest of sounds - and while swimming at high speed. The results, reported Wood,
"give considerable promise of success".
Even a raw recruit could be useful, Woodward found. Within a fortnight, Queenie, a sea lion lent by London Zoo, graduated as
a sub hunter. It was time to show the bigwigs at the BIR what sea lions could do. The show moved to London, where Queenie
and Barker convinced a sceptical board that this mad idea wasn't so mad after all. Woodward - joined by his brother Fred and
three more stars of the stage - redoubled his efforts.
At the end of March, Queenie and Billiken, one of Fred's sea lions, moved to Lake Bala in Wales. There they homed in on
bells and buzzers from a distance of several kilometres. But the work at the lake highlighted a problem. Sea lions may be
able to track down a sub, but human observers had trouble keeping track of the sea lions, which surfaced irregularly and
briefly.
The sea lions were tagged with bright wooden floats on the end of a fishing line. Life became easier for the spotters, but it was
all too much for the sea lions. Dragging a float around was hard work and the lines frequently fouled. They started to rebel.
Besides, the weather was growing warmer and it was more fun to explore the lake than swim back and forth when a bell rang.
The BIR was worried. Could sea lions be relied on to do their duty in the open sea? In July, Queenie and Billiken were shipped
to the south coast to find out.
Queenie began well, but was distracted by passing steamers. Billiken was not even vaguely interested in pursuing a sub. In his
defence, Woodward pointed out that Billiken "had some bad herrings about last Friday, and with the following hot spell has
been off colour ever since".
The Admiralty was not swayed and the notion of a crack team of sea lions swimming to the defence of the realm was shelved.
In the 1960s, the US navy picked up where Woodward left off. And today, sea lions are trained to protect American ships from
mines and underwater saboteurs. The USNavy's sea lions saw active service for the first time last year.
Stephanie Pain<hr>
redbull September 5th, 2004, 06:33 AM

Speaking of attack animals... Back in WWII the US tried using bats as weapons. There were time bomb vests strapped to
them. I cant remember if they were HE or incindary
or a mix of the two. Anyway they were tested in the southwest and eventually accidently got out of their cages on a military
base and blew up a bunch of hangars and planes. They did what they were supposed to do though... go find a nice place to
rest and then go off. In fact some US army folks were saying the manhattan project was silly when we had perfectly good bat
bombs to use. Infact at Indian head naval warfare station, MD (USA) I had to show the engineers the website documenting the
bat bombs before they would believe me. Now they use that as justifications for any project that gets turned down :-p you
funded the bat bombs.... Another funny thing.. that base "lost" a tomahawk missile 9 years ago. Yup... someone came in with
phony transfer papers and they loaded it on a flatbed and it drove off. Back to fun with animals.. the bats were dropped in
bomb hulls with crates nside and would open at an appropriate altitude and let the bats out over industrial complexes in
Japan... I think they were even successfully used a couple of times. Oh I just remembered the name of this project.... project
x-ray.
I was thinking of using poisionous snakes instad of dogs. Coral snakes, black mambas,
etc. are quite poisionous... they can be caged until they need to be released. Shooting them with anything other than a
shotgun is probally going to be difficult. Since you won't be using rattle snakes, the swat team wont know whats up until
someone gets bitten, by then they might be in a heavily infested area. In a place like a hallway there is no getting by them.
Police would be seriously delayed and terrified that their dogs would get bitten and the swat team themselves. They would
have to stop everything and retreat. I know of cops that "wont do dogs" and I can't imagine any LEO trying to get by 10-15
poisionous snakes. I would prefer a landmine, the sentry that never sleeps, but thats off topic. Also imagine how funny it
would be to mail a box with LOTS of angry poisionous snakes to a federal building! :-) They would have to shut the place down
for quite a while.... It would be sure to make the news :-)
Im definately on board with the dogs. I was thinking... train the dogs to be attack dogs and use command detonation... fit
them with radio reciever and explosive device. I would not feel comfortable putting a tilt rod on a dog. I would think using
snakes for assasinations would be easier... get a poisionous snake in a cop's garage, cop car, dog kennel, etc. Depending on
the circumstances and breed of snake it might be considered an accident. Dogs are great for keeping looky loos out of your
private area. I have been saving up slowly for a little retreat of my own... one of thoes steelmaster buildings that look like
airplane hangars. 14 ft tall, 20 ft wide, 60 ft. long. for example. That would only cost about 6000 and you could complete the
affair with a large area fenced with chain link fence (maybe some electrified wiring, more discrete than barbed wire / razor
ribbon / concertina) and fill the area with your 6 pack of mutts. Personally, I would make them visual deterrants since average
people HATE to mess with dogs. The idea of a life monitor is great, I have no idea how to make one but I would buy it :-) Im
supposing a pulse monitor with a radio relay.
raptor1956 September 5th, 2004, 07:15 PM

the idea is feasible enough in general. After all, chihuahuas were bred to hunt pigs by going in in large packs. Another idea
could be a pack of ferrets. They're agile, will run willingly down a tube or tunnel, and anyone who's been bitten by one has a
healthy respect for the pain of the bite. I saw a ferret once hanging off the cheek muscle of a pit bull. The ferret lived, and the
dog needed 25 stitches to put its face back together.
Jacks Complete September 6th, 2004, 09:14 PM

I must say, I have never heard of chihuahuas being used to hunt anything at all.
I can see the trained pack of rats or ferrets working quite well, except for once they get the taste for blood you can never trust
them nor handle them again. They draw blood, they get a taste for it, and they bite every time after that...

Anyone who's seen "Willard" or "1984" knows how terrifying rats can be. >)
What about training large rats to crawl through air vents and such into protected buildings? The rats have ampuoles of
chemical agents strapped to them that will release (silently) after some period of time, causing multiple releases past any
filters or sensors that might be installed in the A/C systems. :p
If the rats could be trained to home in on a specific scent, you could mail a letter or item with the scent in it, and the rats
would congregate at the air vent to that specific place, creating a very specific targeting. :)
A life-sensor shouldn't be too hard to make. A respirometer would be perfect. A tube goes around the dogs chest, and as the
dog breathes, it's chest expands and contracts, causing variation in the tubes length, which are measured.
If the dog is dead or highly excited, the tube either stops varying or varies wildly, either way being an alarm condition.

nbk2000,
it would be difficult to get the rats through the vents, since they tend to try that normally, so there is a large market for
designs to stop them! It might work on a 1960's (or earlier) office building, but it wouldn't be much use on a modern place
unless you already had some form of access to drop the "package" inside the perimeter.
The respiration sensor sounds about right. I believe they used to use a mercury fill inside them and detect the resistance
change.
You could train the other dogs/animals to swarm on the sound of the sensor (have it radio out as well, in case you are out of
earshot), and go totally nuts, so that if one was killed, it would enrage the others, even if it died in a "quiet" manner. You
could use ultrasound, which would be amusing as it would be silent to human ears. It would also sort out the people who try
those "bark buster" things to scare dogs away...
Lurking_Shadows September 11th, 2004, 01:17 AM

I was just thinking on a sort of cat that would have to be contained at all time but are naturally vicious and are a relatively
good size to keep in a house.
A Bob Tailed Lynx.
They're fast, silent, vicious as all hell and if you had a tunnel system all you would have to do is release them through the
tunnels and they'll attack anything in site if you make them made enough or just run away.
But thinking on a high fence to keep kids out they would be cornered and a cornered animal is one scary thing.
Or maybe if you into exotic animals a few wolverines would be more to your taste.
(Sorry a bit off topic but the idea was itching in the back of my mind)
Bugger September 11th, 2004, 01:36 AM

Do you realize that "dog" is God spelled backwards?
Bugger.
knowledgehungry September 11th, 2004, 03:12 PM

Another benefit of rats in defense/offense is their use against blacks. In my experience black people are extremely scared of
rats. Why I don't know but the black culture just seems to be terrified of them. Someone I know once said "If you could train
rats right you could rule this city."
festergrump September 11th, 2004, 06:22 PM

Someone I know once said "If you could train rats right you could rule this city."
...and if you could teach blacks right you might LIKE this city. :D
Speaking on the topic of dogs as weapons, It's interesting to note how dogs pick up on the slightest body language of their
owners. They simply learn the preferences of their master's company (house guests, invited and not) and act accordingly.
Example: I hadn't been to my friends house in a few of years because of the long drive between us. I went there to visit and
to meet his then 2 year old Great Dane. Having never met me before the dog barked a few times as I waited for my friend to
answer the door. A couple hours into my visit a white van backed into the drive and a black man got out and walked to the
door. The dog went fucking BALLISTIC! Apparently the guy was a delivery man and at the wrong address. If my friend hadn't
contained the dog in his bedroom before opening the door, that dog might have had his first taste of living flesh.
Now, I happen to know my friend doesn't train his dog to hate blacks. HE happens to dislike them and living where I happen
to-- I do also. (likely similar to some Aussies hating the "Abbos"). It seems that the dog sensed a slight tension in my friend
and acted upon it. (I could say that the dog hates the smell of jerry-curl, relaxer, or whatever, but that's really not the case.
The delivery guy's head was as clean shaven as mine own). My point is simply that you cannot expect cats, rats, bats, or
otherwise to cater to your preferences like good old Fido can and will do every time. The other animals just couldn't any care
less what you think and are more likely thinking about reward if you have conditioned them to behave in a certain way.
Of course I do realize that all the other animals were mostly mentioned to be trainable and have some weapon attached to
them, explosive or such. (and canines, too, from the first post). But animals who can attack with natural means seem more
reliable. (If not trainable, then give me sharks with friggen laser beams on their heads!) :D
I happen to like Bull Terriers (remember "Jiggs", or more appropriately "General Grant", the dog from the Little Rascals with a
[painted on] ring around his eye? Pit bull). I am looking for one with a good blood-line. They get alot of bad press because of
the abuse they so often get from their masters trying to "train" them to protect by ritual beatings, starving, and even feeding
them KNO3 (can you believe it? It slowly drives them MAD!...sickening, if you ask me). They're as tame as tulips (unless
provoked) when treated with kindness. My second choice would be a Canary Dog, though hard to find.
Mastiffs, Danes, Dobes, Rottweilers, Shepherds, Labradors...all excellent choices for guard dogs. What do the rest of you guys
prefer and for what reason?
Bugger September 11th, 2004, 08:09 PM

The two-legged rats are the worst ones, of course. But, seriously, rats are easily dealt with by poisoning, usually pellets made
up with grain or cereal embedded in an edible wax plus an attractant odor and the poison, usually warfarin or bromodifacoum
or a similar coumarone derivative. Here in New Zealand, and also Australia's Lord Howe Island, large rat-infested offshore
islands, having many tens of thousands of rats - mostly black rats, Rattus rattus, Norway rats, Rattus Norvegicus, and in a few
cases the much smaller Polynesian rat, Rattus Exulans (which is predated by the larger species, being extinct on the
mainland) - have been entirely cleared of rats by poisoning so that native birds could be reintroduced. Most of them got onto
the islands from early whaling or sealing ships, or shipwrecks, in the late 18th and the 19th centuries.
Bugger.
knowledgehungry September 12th, 2004, 10:05 AM

Labradors as good guard dogs? What do they lick you to death? Rhodesian Ridgebacks are great guard dogs.

Rhodesian Ridgebacks...WOW, they're very rare around here. I heard something about them being so agile as to be able to
walk along the top of a fence. (Can't be true).
Labradors can be great guard dogs. None of your Frisbees will ever be able to escape. Really, though, they're not the most
aggresive dogs but a few of them will take an intruder apart in no time at all.
Davo September 13th, 2004, 12:20 PM

there was a recent article on slashdot about home defence. Some people advocated the use of dogs in protecting their owner.
Here is the article if anyone wants to read:
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/09/12/2039244.shtml
A dog trainer also suggested that Chessies make very good guard dogs; here is a quote from him:
"BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a
Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard
dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if
necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean."
It seems as though german shepards make quite good guard dogs, and sometimes labradors too.
just my $0.02
knowledgehungry September 14th, 2004, 08:29 AM

"BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a
Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard
dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if
necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean."
Those arent characteristics I want in a guard dog, while the chessie is snarling in the persons face they shoot them in the
head. Mean is quite often nescessary in a guard dog.
Dank$taVegas July 9th, 2006, 07:54 PM

:p :eek: Hope bumping an old thread like this is acceptable, but since I found this post very interesting and thought maybe I
could add some interesting content to this post and maybe able to provide forum member who are interested in this post or
were interested with some useful information, since I have been very involved with training working dogs, and have lots of
material I could contribute to the FTP on Working dogs, and the training methods used. If this is wrong to bump a thread this
old by all mean delete this.
NBK2000:
Of course, all this assumes you can train dogs, which I haven't the first clue to how you'd do so. Presumably, if the results
would be worth the effort, you could get one of those former-soviet military trainers to do so, they having trained dogs for the
express purpose of man-killing
I have been training "Working Dogs" for over 15 years, and have been breeding working line Doberman Pinschers for 5 years
(Small time breeder) but with very highly know working lines imported from Belgium, Denmark. Most of the work I do is for
dog sports such as Schutzhund & French Ring Sport I have been a helper/Bite man for many Schutzhund Trials across Canada
& the U.S., but have trained and have titles in many other sports (Protection, Tracking/Nose work, Guard/attack, security,
Agility & Obedience, etc). My 4 year old Doberman is classified & Titled as a working dog, and I have worked in the past with
many K9 Security companies with him. In my time I have had the opportunity to work & help train with various police agencies
(lending helper work etc), I am also a member of the local Search & Rescue Team and work with my 4 year old Doberman
Pinscher on this team & am doing some work with my female in this organization as well, I also help train new comers to the
club who wish to get involved with their dogs (Provided they have the nose and workable characteristics needed for such work).
In my 15+ years, I have been able to meet some very well known dog trainers from all over the world (SV working Judges
from Germany/Belgium/USA/Canada etc, and have attended & video taped many seminars on dog training that include
(Search & Rescue, Personal Protection, Tracking, Nose Work {Drug Dogs, Arson Dogs, Explosives Dogs & Cadaver Dogs},
Attack & Guard Dogs etc.), but are not limited to these. I have a very large collection of training books, articles & videos on all
the above topics if any one is interested in one of the above subjects and would like me to scan some books on the topic let
me know which ones you are interested in and I'll scan some material for the FTP. I won't bother wasting time scanning this
stuff unless someone express's and interest in one of the above topics. The videos, are on VHS, so if someone is interested
in videos, they will have to give me directions or point me in the right direction to get the videos on my computer from the VHS
tape.
Some of the most well known and used dogs for such jobs as indicated above include German Shepard's, Doberman Pinschers,
Belgium Malinois, Boxers, Rottweiler's, Bouvier des Flanders. Due to the fact that some of these were breed for hundreds of
years for this type of work, and it is genetically passed down though the working lines which gives the dogs much higher drives
and better workable characteristics. Most dogs sold as pets now a days have had many of the breeds work characteristics breed
out of them, due to the fact that a high strung dog with a high prey drive is not welcome in today's society. The two main
working lines are that are available in most countries with out too much searching are German Shepard's & Belgium Malinois
and would be the cheapest dog to acquire and train. The other dogs listed are rather hard to find with good working lines; so
the price for a good working line will be much higher.
So if you were looking for an expendable working dog a German Shepard would be the choice hands down! While Belgium
Malinois are fairly cheap, they are very high strung and hard to train and are better left for more advanced trainer who has
experience training this type of dog. Same goes for a Doberman & Rottweiler, not to mention that if they get the chance they
will take advantage of you and see how far they can go; and being such a big dog that has been trained to attack with such
high drives, that can be a very scary situation for a beginner.
Other working dogs are hard to come by i.e. pit bulls, are mostly breed by back yard breeders, and all you get from them are
inbreed dogs where no care or planning has gone into the breeding, which are ticking time bombs waiting to go off when you
put a dog through the paces of advanced training for personal protection and attack dog training. There are some decent Pit-
bull breeder out there that produce very good working stock, but the price will reflect the breeding lines $$$$$$.
The cost of a average working line dog, is anywhere from $2500 - $10,000 + depending on the kind of lines you get and what
kind of breeding the breeder does with their lines. This will all affect how a dog handles the workload given to him/her. The
trainability of a given dog, workability of a give dog and every other aspect of training a dog to do such a hard task.. It's no
walk in the park for a dog. 62% of Show lines (with the work line breed out of them) will fail when put to the hard and
demanding training needed to train a dog for work. When training an attack/Personal Protection dog, you can not settle for
anything but the best, since this type of training is very hard on a dog, and many will cave under the pressures put on then in
the 1st few months of training. Thus one must look for the best work line he can find for the price he can afford. It is often
very hard for a novice to pick out a decent puppy, due to the fact they are unaware of what to look for.
A dog that is well trained and looked after is a weapon/force to be reckoned with, they are very loyal and will fight till their
dying breath for their master. They can be trained to do many jobs/tasks, the number of jobs a dog can be trained to do is
only limited to the trainer/handlers ability to train the dog and how smart he the handler is.
Training a dog to do some of the above tasks, dose require lots of experience, the last thing you want is a vicious dog that
has been trained to attack; to turn on you or someone that is not the target. Someone with no experience in training dogs
should not try to train a dog to attack, 2 people are needed to teach a dog properly, one being the handler (You) the other
being the helper (Trained with lots of experience training dogs for this type of work). Once you have invested the amount of
time in training a dog like this, I myself would find it hard to kill the dog when the time came. There for I could find 100+ uses
for the dog alive. Which would justify the time and money spent in training a dog like this. Not to mention the cost of all the
equipment, food and everything else concerned with raiding & teach a dog to Attack (puppy tugs, tugs, Puppy sleeve bite
sleeve, bite suit, new bite bars etc). So it's not for the average person, to be able to teach a dog to perform most of these
tasks.
A good alternative is to get involved in one of the many Protection Sports by joining a club, there for you get the experience of
other dog handlers and trainers, and you have experienced helpers showing you the ropes. Try to find one of the few clubs
who tend to lean away form the sport aspect of the whole protection work, since you want to train your dog to be a "Man
Stopper" not a pretty show dog that can bite a sleeve (AKC, CKC and other affiliated clubs :rolleyes: ). You need to train in
real life situations I.E. with hidden sleeves, gun fire, and other distractions to ensure your dog will not falter under the stress of
a real life situation. I have made many a dog fail, while doing helper work by not offering the bite sleeve freely until he/she
committed to the bite by leaving the ground with all four feet. Some even ran away from me with their tail between their legs;
And that is poor training on the handlers part. I expect a good working dog to commit to the bite, weather the sleeve is there
or not, If one of my dogs, failed to commit to a bite, it would be back to boot camp for them .
There is no better weapon than one that can't be used against you ;) A highly trained attack/personal protection dog is that
weapon.
My dogs, are very well trained and aside from the 80+ tricks (Play dead, roll over, speak etc), they can do they have been
trained with such commands as:
1)Attack on command & Release on command
2)Track by foot print/crushed vegetation scent, air born scent or from a scent pad (Human, Game, Drugs, Cadavers, some
chemicals {Very limited as I do not have the resources to train my dogs})
3)Search on command (Houses/Rooms objects etc)
4)Guard a prisoner/object & Escort a prisoner
5)Follow hand signals/voice commands & Body language
6)Retreave and carry objects
7)Climbe walls (6 meters is the highest to date with un aided help) & Jump obstacles
8)Advanced obedience (Heel, Long down, come, stay, watch etc all done off leash)
9)Follow commands such as Seek (Run strait forward) Right, Left, Stop & Back
10)Open Doors, turn off lights
11)Hearding (Sheep & cows other animals)
Just to name a few
Now mind you he is only 4 years old and I'm still training him new things all the time. Tasks like this take a lot of training and
involve lots of hours and require you to keep training to keep the dog fresh, so I would not conceder a dog like this
expendable but a highly trained partner that will help me in what ever way is need to achieve my goal! The time I have
invested in training my dogs are years... It starts off when they are puppies all they way into their adult hood. They are never
too old to learn new tricks. I spend a good 3 hours per day training each dog. There are no short cuts some dogs learn quicker
than others, some dogs just don't have the proper drives to carry out such work and in the process of training them, some can
go a little crazy with all the pressure put on them; while other love the challenge and enjoy learning new things. My personal
choice for a good working dog is a Doberman Pinscher with a good solid working line. They are extremely smart (One of the
smartest), easy to teach, Very powerful, full of energy, Extremely agile and inspire fear in the common man just by their looks
& their trigger hair; all this = "Man Stopper"!
As of this my 4year old Doberman Pinscher is titled with: I won't bother to list the CKC & AKC titles as they are nothing fancy
and do not compare to these titles. :eek:
SchHA -Novice Schutzhund obedience and protection
Bh -Basic companion dog - traffic sureness
WH -Watch Dog
AD -Endurance
SchH1-Novice Schutzhund qualification in tracking, obedience, and protection
SchH2 -Intermediate Schutzhund qualification in tracking, obedience, and protection
SchH3 -Masters level of Schutzhund tracking, obedience, and protection.
FH1 -Advanced tracking
FH2 -Superior tracking qualification.
IPO1 -International Novice Schutzhund trial qualification.
IPO2 -International Intermediate Schutzhund.
IPO3 -International Masters level Schutzhund.
DH -Service Dog
DPH -Service Police Dog (Local Civilian Police School)
HGH -Herding Dog
LwH -Avalanche Dog (Search & Rescue)
PFP1 PFP2 -Police Tracking Dog
PH -Police Dog (obtained through the Danish Politihundeforeningen, a police dog association open to civilians)
PSP1, 2 3 -Police Guard Dog
RtH -Rescue Dog (Search & Rescue)
Currently working on obtaining:

BIH - Blind Leader Dog (Currently working on getting this through a local organization)
Female Doberman is titled in:

SchHA -Novice Schutzhund obedience and protection
Bh -Basic companion dog - traffic sureness
WH -Watch Dog
AD -Endurance
SchH1-Novice Schutzhund qualification in tracking, obedience, and protection
SchH2 -Intermediate Schutzhund qualification in tracking, obedience, and protection
FH1 -Advanced tracking
IPO1 -International Novice Schutzhund trial qualification.
IPO2 -International Intermediate Schutzhund.
HGH -Herding Dog
Currently working on obtaining this summer & winter

SchH3 -Masters level of Schutzhund tracking, obedience, and protection.
IPO3 -International Masters level Schutzhund.
FH2 -Superior tracking qualification.
LwH -Avalanche Dog (Winter)
I'm sure many users here could come up with a few ideas you could use a dog like this for. I can legally walk down the street
with 2 very lethal loaded weapons, that are ready to go off at my whim and no one can say or do anything about it.. ;)
I can find more uses for a dog, than just strapping a set of bombs on his back and blowing him up or having a pack of wild
killer dogs, that will keep the police, and everyone including you out of the yard. This kind of thing might attract the attention
you are trying to avoid.
I would trust a dog (that is trained and loved) far more than another person/partner. If you treat that dog well he will be loyal
to the death, follow your every command to the tee, and will not speak a word of incriminating evidence against you. The dog
will not fear for his life like a normal person will so he will complete his mission or will die trying.
Here is to expand on a few to the ideas by NBK2000 and other members....
"Demolition Dog"
How about giving the dog a satchel charge to carry and put down where you see fit, have a small CCTV camera strapped on
him (It could be incorporated into a K9 Ballistics Vest) and command him via a ear piece/ or some type of vibration device
hooked up to a Dog vest that will vibrate on his right side to go right and on his chest to go forward etc to carry the charge and
place it where you see fit (Training a dog to do this would not be very hard at all but would require time, and would not be very
expendable), then have him return so you can use him again at a later date. All the effort involved in training the dog, dose
not get wasted with one mission, he returns to carry out your next order and to be your faithful servant if you treat him well.
This could even be applied to the cop car situation, have then sent out with a set command, to carry the satchel charge and
place it under the piggy's car, then detonate it once they are clear, then they could be used again to carry out more tasks you
have planned for them.
"Murder Dog"
One could even use this type of training to teach a dog to be use as a so called "Murder Dog" using a CCTV and a ear piece/
vibration device, you could direct the dog and have him attack on command. You could teach a dog where to attack and bite
as well. Since Police agencies train their dogs to go for the gun hand (Weapon) or body (Arms/Legs) for law suit reasons, why
not teach a dog to go for the neck. One powerful bite and a shake later the guy would be dead or would die very quickly with
no noise at all (Maybe a slight bubbling/gurgling sound).
But all one would really need to do, is if he had access to or was able to get his hand on an object (Cloths or something the
target has had on his person) use that as a scent pad, and give the order to "Kill" and send the dog lose in the general area
of the target. Dogs would need to be highly trained to pull off something like this, such as lots of nose work like air born
scenting, Scent pad scenting, attack & kill command just to name a few.
"Sentry Dogs"
Bark or not to Bark ..
Instead of give the cops/intruder the chance to figure out you have dogs, by the noisy & useless barking, train the dogs to be
silent sentry dogs, they could be taught to come directly to you and alert you or one could rig up a button they could push to
set off a silent alarm, then you could give the dog (s) a command to stalk their pray when they enter the yard.. They would
have the surprise attack on their side as well, meaning a better chance they take out more unwanted people.
Many other methods of silent alerting could be taught to the dog as well.
Dogs have an incredible nose, so depending on where you live (Since I live in the country) my dogs are aware of people long
before the people are anywhere near my place & they wouldn't even know the dogs were on to them until it was too late. So
that can be use to my advantage, you could train a dog to alert you as soon as the smell of humans come to their nose. This
could be done with one for the above methods to maximize your stealth plan and attack.
"Tracking Dogs"
Used to track a fleeing target, on any type of surface (Vegetation, Soil, concrete etc). You can train a dog to track in many
different ways as well.
Most common was are:
Air Born Scenting- Mainly used by the Police to pin point a suspect, dogs are set with the wind blowing towards them, and are
trained to pick up the scent blowing into their nose's and to lead the handler to the location.
Scent Pads-Used if one has a desired scent object. Which could be anything the target has come in contact with.
Tracks/Crushed Vegetation- Follows the scent trail left by a fleeing person, this is by far the slowest form of tracking, but it is
by far the most accurate way to track a target.
These are just a few tracking methods, the most common used.
"Scout Dog"
You could use a dog to scout of a given area via CCTV and a ear piece/Vibration device. Good for spotting out an area of
interest if you want to stay unseen, Dogs are very quiet when walking around, and their dark coat (Some dogs) will blend in
very well to the surrounding area. This could come in very handy when casing a spot to pick out security and their patrol
movements.
"Stalking dog"
A dog could be use to follow a target, by use of a GPS system that could be fitted to his vest and monitored by a lap-top GPS
receiver, so one could follow a target where ever he is going with out being seen.
"Diversion Dog"
One could train a dog to be a diversion in may situations.
I.E. Being tracked by a police dog handler, have your dog run in the opposite direction with a piece of your cloths dragging
behind him, then have him double back, this will royally confuse the tracking dog, as your scent will be going in 2 different
directions... Depending on how well the dog is trained this might not work. As it is fairly easy for a dog to see the real path with
his nose.
Or they could as NBK2000 has said wait in ambush to buy you the extra time at escaping.
Diversion dogs could be use to make noise in a bush or where ever to attract attention by perusing people giving you the
extra time to make your escape. only to have the dog recalled via Voice communications or vibrations to your awaiting escape
vehicle.
"Pack Dogs"
Dogs could be used to carry supplies or other items for the handler. Via, a special rigged back pack or sled, cart.
There are hundreds of other uses a well trained, loyal faithful companion could do for you alive rather than dead, if your going
to invest the time to train a dog you might as well use him to your full advantage. Use of a Custom fit & Outfitted K9 Bullet
Proof Vest (Like the ones I have for my dogs) http://www.k9storm.com/home.html could allow you to hoist your dog in to a
given area of operation, and also give him the proper protection from bullets and knifes and other weapons so he can
complete his task and return. You could even outfit this vest or similar one with sharp blades and spikes to give the dog an
even better lethal attack. (As some dogs were used in was before in wars). Out fit this vest with a CCTV voice & Vibration
features, and you have one hell of a trained tactical dog ready for deployment in any situation.
Labradors can be great guard dogs. None of your Frisbees will ever be able to escape. Really, though, they're not the most
aggresive dogs but a few of them will take an intruder apart in no time at all.
Well not too sure about that, since I have never seen a guard/attack Labrador, but I'm sure the odd Labrador was a killing
machine.
They do have their uses though. In the Viet Nam War, "Combat Tracker Teams" were used; they were highly trained units
usually consisting of five men & a Labrador Retriever. The purpose of CTT was to reestablish contact with the elusive enemy,
reconnaissance of an area for possible enemy activities, Locate enemy weapon caches and locate lost or missing friendly
personal. These small canine tactical tracking units, were usually supported by a platoon or larger force but worked well ahead
of them to maintain noise discipline and the element of surprise.
Today Labradors are use as "Fire Arson" dogs, well they are the most common. They train on a food reward system to sniff out
common fire accelerants. Which means the dog will only eat if he sniffs of said material. So at a fire crime scene, dogs are
used to comb thought the rubble, and once they pick up the scent of a accelerant they are trained to alert the handler by
some means (Usually by sitting down). Then they are feed, the handler takes samples of the pointed out area for lab testing.
Dogs are better able to find accelerants on a fire scene than humans with electronic detection devices. Hydrocarbon detectors
are sensitive to gasoline components in the parts-per-million (ppm) range. These detectors resemble a flashlight with a wand
on it. It has a little vacuum in it that sucks in the vapors as you run it across the floor, it gives you a reading and tells you if
it's light or medium or heavy fuel. What it doesn't tell is whether it was there prior to the fire.
In an independent study that was designed to determine the smallest amount detectable by the dogs, they found .01
microliter of 50 percent evaporated gasoline 100 percent of the time, a .01 microliter sample is about the size of a thousandth
of a drop.:eek:
WMD July 10th, 2006, 08:37 PM

Wow, impressive posting. Just one thing I'd like to add, I recently read an article http://www.realfighting.com/1102/index.html
that dealt with street fighting tactics of gangs in Paris.
Apparently one of their tricks is to train their dogs to attack a target that is illuminated with a laser pointer. The area of the
victim that is illuminated by the laser is attacked.

Dank$taVegas, wow, that's the longest post for a while! Nice one, very informative.
Do you have any insight into things that really throw a dog off the trail? There was some argument about chilli, pepper, etc.
further back in either this thread or another one.
I'd not use a lab as an attack dog, but for anything else, they are great. If you get one in black, they look a lot more
intimidating! And if you can get them to bite, they have powerful jaws and a solid head with big teeth, so despite the lack of
killer instinct, they would still do damage.
I agree about the Alsatian/German Shepard being the best dog to train up. They are fast, smart and I agree that Dobermans
and Rotties are a bit too smart sometimes, especially when the Rottie weighs more than you do!
WMD, that's a neat idea. Certainly a simple thing to train for, just use a pointer to show which of ten pots has food under it,
and work up from there. Reinforce it with pad work after they get the hang of it.
teshilo July 11th, 2006, 02:32 PM

Russian counterterror group "Alfa" used dogs for various means.For control of dog used radio receiver with microphone
installed on dog head..Dogs also used by Israeli special group for delivering of demolition charges to arabic terrorists bases
,camp etc.Control also by radio commands transmitted on mick... In more crude version may be used remote controlled
electroshock with visible contact .Dog run,run and...:cool: :cool:

WOW! I never thought of that, I sometimes play with my Dobermans with a laser pointer. They go ape shit and bite what ever
the red dot lands on, but depending on the size of the red dot, they can be hard to see for the dog,& if it is moved too fast
they will lose it rather quick, since dogs don't really have too good of eye sight. But that's still a very good idea for close
combat. as dogs can get confused with the point and attack command when there are a lot of people around and there is no
Sleeve present on the helper/target.
Incorporating a laser pointer into a dog vest which is aimed with a CCTV camera to be turned on when the command is given
to light up the target might be a good idea, kind of like how the army will paint a target to be blow up by plains dropping
bombs/missiles. Would be something interesting to look into and try out.
All my dogs are trained in German commands but they also know English, CZECH & DUTCH. I have been made fun of by some
judges when pronouncing some of the commands since English is the only language I can speak fluently. When competing
with judges from various parts of the world they usually like to hear the command in their own language so there is no
question in their mind if the dog follows the command. It's also nice since most people don't know the command in various
languages and can't try to confuse a dog.
Looks like you live in Germany form your location you gave, the home where the BEST working dogs have come from! Its truly
a shame to see what "Show Breeders" are doing the working lines, makes me sick. They were breed for a purpose to "WORK",
not too look pretty and stand there. And don't get me going on the CKC & AKC Personal Protection; that is a laughing joke.
Some of the best seminars I have had the honor of attending & video taping were from German working dog judges, and they
are the hardest when it comes to judging how a dog performs in the ring. Here in Canada & the USA we have a lot of very bad
judges that let dogs pass when they should have failed. The Schutzhund club I train with try's to get the best judges and have
flown them in from all over the world (including Germany) for trials & seminars.
On another note, while I have heard people saying it's really easy to through a piece of meat for the dog to eat laced with
poison, well for a well trained dog, this will not work, they are not aloud to touch food until you give them the command to eat
"In Ordnung Nimm Futter/OK Eat Food" until till that command is given to them, they will not touch even the juiciest piece of
food they will not touch. But most pet dogs will not be able to resist this, so in most cases to get rid of the pesky dog, that
would work.
Jacks Complete
Do you have any insight into things that really throw a dog off the trail? There was some argument about chilli, pepper, etc.
further back in either this thread or another one.
I believe this is the archived post you are talking about, I too have taken a look at this one
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/water-cooler/5033-ways-mislead-stop-police-dogs-2-a.html?highlight=dogs
The only sure way I know of to make a dog lose a trail is by water such as a fast flowing river, as water will break up the cells/
skin partials that one sheds as he his walking. Every step we take we shake loose millions of invisible partials that the dogs
can smell/see with his noes, so when one goes into fast flowing water the water will carry off the skin cells with the flow of the
water. But a good handler will take the dog up and down the sides of a river bank for quite some ways to try to pick up the
scent of the person/target where he has come out of the water.
There are different type's of tracking that a dog can do

If you are tracking someone in the past 1/2 hour the usually method (Of the Police) will be to "Air Born Scent"- this is done by
putting the dog into the wind and having the scent blow to him and the scent of a fleeing person will be strong since more than
likely he will be sweating. Then the dog will pin point the smell and lead the handler to the person.
Tracking a person over a 45min/ to a day time frame, they will usually switch their tactics, they will set up a perimeter of a few
kilometers/Miles which will be patrolled by people; so say the guy has fled from a car they will bring in the dog, give the
command Such (German)/Track, then the dog will pick up the scent of the fleeing person, and begin to track his path, via
crushed vegetation/disturbed ground medium & personal scent. The dog keeps a close deep nose to the trail, and only
leaving about a 1foot to each side since as the particles of skin fall off they get blown slightly to the side of the track. They
move fairly fast, and are not over a given patch of earth for too long.
Anything a day or older will be one tough track, but it's still doable depending on the wind conditions and the amount of
humidity. If it has been really windy most of the scent will have blown away if it has been a raniy day, water will trap the scent
in the ground making the track much easier. But the above method will be used the posible use of a scent pad if one is
avalibule to help refresh the dog of the smell he is tracking. Usually a Blood Hound will be called in for such a track, since they
have one of the most amazing noses around, and this skin on their face is designed to fold down over the eyes and nose to
help trap the scent and direct it toward the receptors in their nose the skin will also render his eyes useless, so he will be
tracking with his nose and only his nose.
Now the chances of anyone having either ammonia/ether or other chemicals on their person if they are running from the cops,
is highly unlikely, but I'm sure you chemist out there could think of some highly corrosive/Lethal chemicals one could use to
be inhaled that would be fatal to anyone/anything. But since we are talking about an out side situation/environment, the
chances of the smell be dissipated are very likely. Meaning nothing short of floating down a fast flowing river will through a dog
off in my mind. And still if the dog is Air born scenting and he is down wind of you, he will pick up you scent. weather your in
the water or not.
But you can mask you scent to help stay unseen, say there were dog patrols and you were concealed in the bush/grass etc you
could use natural scent's animal droppings etc to help cover our god awful smells we give off.
I'm not too sure about the stuff sold in hunting stores, there are many types of scent maskers but have never tried them
myself when I hunt, since I usually make it a habit of hunting with my dogs into the wind, and circling around with the wind to
keep unseen/smelt.
I'd be willing to conduct some experiments in my free time to see if these so called scent maskers really work. Might be
interesting to find out if what they sell works. But with regard to the tracking aspect unless you had a huge tank you could lug
around and spray behind you a small bottle of this stuff wont cover you tracks.
On another note or other type of trained working dog:

If your ever attacked by a police dog try yelling one of these at him since most of them are trained in German this command
might work, police dogs are trained to listen to other handlers as well. You could also search out other languages for these
words, since these are the most common use in the dog handling world. Simple and to the point, easy for a handler to say
and easy for the dog to learn.
1) "Out" English, "Aus" (Ouss)German - This is use to make the dog let go of a bite
2) "No!" English "Pfui" (fooey)/Nein (Nine) German-Used to scold a dog and let him know he has done wrong.
Most dogs, will respond to anyone giving off the commands they are familiar with, Being the helper at our dog club, is a dog
comes into a blind search and bumps me or in any other way he is dirty I'll yell "Pfui" and give him a hard smack in the face
with the baton/whip which is a bamboo reed stick with a whip attached to one end. Which usually will set them straight.
Jacks Complete
I'd not use a lab as an attack dog, but for anything else, they are great. If you get one in black, they look a lot more
intimidating! And if you can get them to bite, they have powerful jaws and a solid head with big teeth, so despite the lack of
killer instinct, they would still do damage.
You can teach any dog to bite, it's a natural thing for a dog to bite, some are just better than others. Every puppy, like's to
chew on things as they are young, and labs being such good gun dogs, and considered good working dogs, usually have very
high prey drives (Since they like to chase thing) once would start off teaching the puppy to bite on a tug. This tug for a puppy
would be a face cloth or a leather shammy (the one used in schools to erase the black boards) rolled up and tapped on the
ends with duct tap (Home made one) with a string attached to one end. This is use to get help bring active the dogs prey drive
(like if he was chasing a duck/rat or other animal) he would attack and bite the face cloth/Animal with his teeth. This is the 1st
step in teaching a dog to bit, as the dog grown, you move up to bigger/softer things for them to bite, such as a towel, rolled
up as the above but with no string then as the dog loses his puppy teeth and this adult teeth come in you would begin to
move on to a puppy tug (which is a jute/burlap covered biting tool. Once the dog has learnt how to target and bite calmly, and
his mouth is of suitable size you would move him on to a puppy sleeve and then on to a hard adult sleeve. Usually by 1 year
they are onto a Adult sleeve, but some dogs are ready sooner.
This of course is just a quick overview and by no shot close to how you would teach a dog to bite but the beginning process of
teaching a puppy. There are many more steps on must take to teach a dog to bite right.
Jacks Complete
Dobermans and Rotties are a bit too smart sometimes, especially when the Rottie weighs more than you do!
I do a lot of helper work as I said in my above post, and in our club we have 2 Rotties, and being the helper means you give
the bites to the dog. In Schutzhund there is a drill called the courage test, this is where the helper is at the far end of the
field, and the handler/dog are at the other end, some 40-50 years away, the helper has a gun (Blank pistol or a Baton with
whip) to make a short story short, the helper runs at the handler & dog the dog is sent to attack, Now German Shepard's and
Dobermans and all other dogs come in VERY FAST! But when you have a Rottie coming at you full speed with one thing on his
mind (The Bite) that weighs about the same as you or more that's one hell of a feeling; the dog will be coming at close to 30-
40 Km's on a full out sprint, and the helper will be running to meet him, and the dog leave the ground, a few feet from you
with his mouth wide open, and you have to give him that sleeve in the mouth or else he'll catch what ever his mouth hits. I
have been knocked down and acutely hurt from the force of these massive dogs. One of the Rotties actually broke my arm
about 10 years ago, when I was 15. Now that I know how to catch a dog and use his weight to spin him, it's not too bad, but its
still one hell of a rush. I'd hate to be on the receiving end of an attack like that with no sleeve.
A little off topic but: ***Edited***

As of a few days 2 Mounties were shot and seriously wounded after responding to a domestic disturbance call in Saskatchewan
(Spelling), the guy made an escape into the back country. One of the K9 Tracking units is a member of my dog club, he is
one of the best trackers I have ever seen, he's a 4 year old German Shepard, and I have learnt a lot of useful information
from this handler on police tactics using dogs. I'll try to find a story and post a link here later today.
Here is a recent news post of the incident.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/11072006/2/national-father-man-suspected-sask-rcmp-shootings-charged-obstruction.html
Looks like he has had success in eluding the K9 officers, Helicopters & other police task forcesc for 4 days. The area is
unfamilier to me, but is a large section of land 208-square-kilometre of farmland which is mixed with heavy bush, creeks &
swamps. So this type of environment would make it extremely hard for k9 officers to get around, and for them to stay on a
good track due to all the water and creeks crossings that would dissipate the scent they were tracking in the area. Hence they
would have to comb the banks on both sides of the creek/swamp to try to pick up a track again.
Depending on how long it took K9 officers to deploy their 1st team would also be a factor as there have been heavy
thundershowers in the area for the past 4 days, which will wash away all the disturbed dirt and muck along with the scent; which
would be the most likely type of ground medium in a swampy area and from what I have heard the area is a very windy place
so that will also blow the scent away. So if K9 officers were not on scene right away (which 4 days would suggest) the direction
of the suspect might not be know and with such a large area they are working with makes this one tough job. More than likely
they would be using Air Scenting to locate the suspect due to the fact it has been 4 days already and no sight of him, which
means no tracks to follow. They usually stop the man hunt at night time, and dogs need frequent rested through out the day
for food and water.
I know it would have taken K9 officers (the guy I know) who was dispatched from my province at least 7 hours to drive there,
once he received the call; less if they flew him down, I'm not too familiar with their provinces K9 teams & how many they have
available at their disposal, what kind of means they have to deploy the units into the given ground areas, which would be very
un-accessible on foot for the most part.
WMD July 18th, 2006, 03:38 AM

Since I can't find the edit button right now, here's the correct link for the paris gangwar article:
http://www.realfighting.com/1102/FredPerrinART.html

So as I said, in my spare time I would conduct an experiment to see weather the scent masking products worked. Well in my
initial tests they seemed to work rather well. Using the scent maskers to mask objects.
I conducted the test on the 3 brands which are sold at the local "Canadian Tire" store
Using all 3 products conducted in 3 separate tests in the same manor as below, on the same types of objects which were on
the helper (a friend) for 2 hours prior to applying the products to them. I sprayed 4 large pumps on each side of the objects to
ensure full coverage of the articles.
Object 1-Sock X2
Object 2-hankerchif X2
Object 3-glove X2
1)The objects were carried on his person for 3 hours prior to applying the scent maskers to the objects to one of each articles.
(3 were sprayed with 3 were left unsprayed.
2)The objects were placed in a box & sprayed with product
3)Box was sealed with packing tape and left to sit for 1 hour
4)Dog were given a scent object (Shirt) and given the scenting command.
All three scent products failed the test. I conducted the test 3 time, with the exact same results. The dogs were able to pick
out the scent even when they were heavily masked with the spray (6 pumps on each side of object).
I'm in the process of writing an E-Mail to the manufactures of each of these products to ask them why they failed my test. I'll
post information when I receive conformation from companies.
I think I already know the answer, the products are designed to mask the scent to a limited degree when hunting game such
as Deer, Elk etc, which to my knowledge don't have a nose that is as powerful as a dog, so on given animals with limited scent
capability it more than likely will work.
A little off topic but: ***Edited***

An update, watching the news about the man who shot the 2 Mounties during a domestic violence incident, the man
successfully evaded the police, choppers and dog teams that were deployed in the huge man hunt. The two Mounties died
from their wounds a few days ago; and to the best of my knowledge the man is still at large with a "Canada Wide Warrant"
issued for him.
http://www.realfighting.com/1102/FredPerrinART.html
Thanks for the article it was a interesting read. Some of those gangs have some interesting methods of using improvised
weapons. I'm not too sure how well the razor blade attached to the Identification Card would work though (I'm sure it will catch
the officer off guard), I'm sure if you were to try that here in Canada the police would be able to use deadly force/lethal force
to stop you i.e they more than likley will shoot you, and well most people can't out run a bullet, although some of those black
guys can run fast :p .
Jacks Complete July 20th, 2006, 03:35 PM

Once again, we see that outlawing weapons leaves the outlaws with all the good stuff, and the inventive emergency weapons
are being used by them too!
Technically the French police can use lethal force, but they there get a lot of shit for it. In the UK, they don't get any shit, so
you are more likely to be shot by police than anyone else, unless you are a gangster fighting another gangster - they seem to
leave them alone mostly! Perhaps because they aren't disarmed?
Dogs in the UK are covered by the "Dangerous Dogs Act" and means that bandogs, Rhodesian ridgebacks and a Japanese
fighting dog (that has never been imported into the UK) are outlawed. Any dog that bites anyone, even in self-defence, even
if on command, is very likely to be destroyed, even if it saved the lawful owner from the thug. Which is absolute crap.
nbk2000 July 21st, 2006, 07:01 AM

I remember reading somewhere that wolves can see the lower end of the infrared spectrum, whereas dogs can't.
Wolves can be trained, just like dogs, and aimed using IR laser pointers instead of visible red.
Of course, the person doing the aiming either needs NVD's to see where they are aiming, or a very good sense of aim.
I also read on some cop forum about how some police dogs in the US were having prosthetic steel fang replacements done,
for psychological impact on suspects who see gleaming steel teeth in the K9's mouth. :eek:
Dank$taVegas July 21st, 2006, 04:43 PM

Dogs in the UK are covered by the "Dangerous Dogs Act" and means that bandogs, Rhodesian ridgebacks and a Japanese
fighting dog (that has never been imported into the UK) are outlawed. Any dog that bites anyone, even in self-defence, even
if on command, is very likely to be destroyed, even if it saved the lawful owner from the thug. Which is absolute crap.
Holy laws you guys have in the UK :eek:
Handgun ban, full auto ban, dog bans I think the UK is in need of a revolution time to take back some of the things that have
been taken from you!
Here in Canada, the only banned dogs that I know of are Wolf breed dogs, and pit-bulls have been banned in Toronto and
they are trying to ban them else where.
I know many people who have wolf hybrids, but with hybrids it's so had to tell them apart. Only real way is a DNA test, and
they are a little too costly to be running on every suspected dog.
Another way, which I have no sound proof, is the eyes, of hybrids are usually blue, like Huskies and other related breeds which
have been cross breed with wolfs.
The Chinese fighting dog you are talking about is the Shar-Pei I think. They are small but pack a punch! I have been bitten
by this breed on a number of occasions, one of my friends breeds these dogs, for their size they are a force to be reckoned
with and they wont back down from any dog!
They were trying to pass a bill that would make Dangerous Dogs, such as Pit-bulls, Dobermans, Rottweiler's, and the like,
require the owner to have a special license to own one (kind of like gun control). Hasn't gone anywhere yet, and I don't think it
will.
Here they are fairly lenient about dogs biting people. If the dog has a legitimate reason for biting then all is usually well. Dogs
get a few chances, but all dog bites must be reported etc and put on the dogs file. If a dog is a habitual bitter 3-5 un
prevoked then he will be euthanized. The are usually quicker to act on the so called Dangerous Breeds.
If someone were to break into my house and they got mauled by the dog, as long as I have signs posted then it is his own
fault. If your attack by a person and the dog attacks, it is again the offends fault. As it should be.
It's usualy the owners who catch more shit than the dogs.
also read on some cop forum about how some police dogs in the US were having prosthetic steel fang replacements done, for
psychological impact on suspects who see gleaming steel teeth in the K9's mouth.
This is a common thing with working dogs, since many have teeth injuries from the bite work. A dog in one of my dog clubs
has 1 steel tooth cap, He lost the top portion of his tooth doing bite work on a sleeve. Cost a pretty penny thought since the
amount of work that is needed when doing this, since the prosthetic tooth needs to be anchored in there really well! I'm not
too sure if one can just walk in and ask for a steel prosthetic tooth for their dog unless they really need the work done. But the
police have ways around that kind of thing, and well money talks, so if you have enough you can get anything.
If you were just looking for the effect a steel cap would suffice, much cheaper, for a fraction of the cost of a prosthetic one.
More than likely the police forums were talking about putting a steel cap on the tooth.
The sight of a dog with 4 steel K-9 would be enough to inflict some serious fear in anyone. and make them think twice. :D
I remember reading somewhere that wolves can see the lower end of
the infrared spectrum, whereas dogs can't.
Not too many people know that or have heard about these reports. You knowledge amazes me NBK2000, it's not limited to
any single topic! I too have read an article about this, it also stated that Tigers, Lions & Bears are thought to see in the lower
end of the Infrared spectrum as well and I'm trying to find it as I write this. Although this is a touchy topic since people/
scientist don't seem to agree with each other on this. There are arguments to both sides of the story.
But it is a proven fact that wolfs do see a lot better than dogs, and the reason why Wolves see better than most dogs is
because their optic nerve cells are more densely packed.
Here is an interesting site on Dogs & Wild dog eye sight.

http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/formfunction/sight.html
Here is something else that is interesting about wolfs:

According to Barry Lopez in Of Wolves and Men, the jaws of a wolf have a "crushing pressure of 1,500 (lbs/square inch) :eek:
compared to 740 (lbs/square inch) for a German Shepard." The dentition of the wolf consists of twenty-two teeth: twelve
incisors, four canines, sixteen pre molars, and ten carnassials and molars. The canines of the wolf are easily 1-inch (2.54
centimeters) long and known to be up to 2-inch's, strong, sharp, and slightly curved. These are the teeth used for grasping
prey. The wolf does not chew its food, using its carnassials to scissor off a piece of meat that can then be swallowed in a
manageable chunk.
So if you were looking for a killing machine a wolf would be the best choice of all!
But the work that would go into training a wild animal would be phenomenal! The best methods for training wild animals seems
to be the food reward system. This is just what I have read on the internet about people training bears, tigers and the like.
Also they must know their place and where they stand (whose the boss) well before they reach their full size and full potential
to kill. ;)
mr_h3x December 18th, 2006, 10:26 PM

I agree. The amount of work to train a pure wolf would be great. In fact it would likely be more trouble than it's worth. The
other problem with wolves is that they still have the innate desire to survive, this is why they are more shy than domestic dogs.
This is not to say they couldn't be great as general purpose attack dogs.
I would say that the best bet is to find a breed that is already bred for protection work. I hear that it's hard to find a solid
german shepherd due to poor breedings.
Regardless, if one was looking for a dog to go after anyone attempting to break into the house or otherwise even come to the
door while at the same time having no desire to hurt anyone in the family then the Brazilian Mastiff (Fila Brasileiro) could be a
good choice.
This breed will only ever like it's family (read: those who live in the house) and will hate all others. Sure, it could be a hassle,
but if you don't expect much company then this wouldn't matter. Without going into great detail that could be read elsewhere,
this breed is large and definitely aggressive.
The temperament section of this page: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/filabrasileiro.htm gives a basic idea of what this breed is
about. You don't have to train the aggression into them so it'd be a matter of just training the specifics of the job.
If this much dog is too much for your liking then the South African Boerboel could be easily trained in protection work quite
readily by someone with the knowledge to do so while it still has protection qualities bred right in. Some information can be
found here: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/boerboel.htm
Anyway these are two relatively unknown breeds and from my research of them they seem like they'd be ideal for general
protection/attack work. I have gathered up alot of URLs about these dogs and while much of it is breeders one can gain alot of
knowledge about them if you can weed through the hype.
Really, with these breeds (like many working breeds) you don't have to know much other than to know how to show the dog
who is boss and you don't have to starve or beat them (in fact this would be detrimental to their temperament to do so) to get
them to be "protective".
cyclosarin January 29th, 2007, 01:58 AM

I was reading the discussion on using poisoned fangs in "murder dogs" which reminded me of how the komodo dragon
sometimes kills its prey.
The komodo dragon is a 2-3 metre long monitor lizard that isn't venomous like snakes but due to its diet and immune
system it produces a cocktail of bacteria in its saliva that can cause fatal blood poisoning in a victim of a bite.
What I was thinking was that if dogs are immune to bacteria such as Botulinium would it be possible to culture a biological
agent in the mouth of the dog that would poison the victim after the attack?
nbk2000 January 29th, 2007, 09:35 AM

If I remember correctly, the Komodos 'venom' stems from it eating dead things and having decayed and putrescent matter
stuck in its craw all the time.
Since the Komodo is a very primitive animal, highly adapted to such a diet, the bacteria and what-not that would kill any
mammal are harmless to the dragon.
I don't think such a thing could be done with dogs - feeding them decaying carcasses and hoping for pathogenic bacteria to
take root in their mouths.
However, I do know that there are types of pathogens that, while lethal in the blood and tissues, are rendered inert by the
acids in the stomach.
It may be possible to supplement the dogs food with such organisms, so that any remaining food bits in its mouth that gets
into a bite wound would implant the pathogen into the victim.
As for how long such pathogens would remain in a concentrated enough state in a dogs mouth would be a subject for testing.
:)
Hirudinea January 30th, 2007, 09:12 PM

Since the Komoda is a very primitive animal, highly adapted to such a diet, the bacteria and what-not that would kill any
mammal are harmless to the dragon.
I don't think such a thing could be done with dogs - feeding them decaying carcasses and hoping for pathogenic bacteria to
take root in their mouths.
Well I don't know about dogs but I can tell you, as a former cat owner, a cats mouth can most certainly support some bad ass
bacteria, vets will tell you a cat's bite it the worst pet bite you can get, untreated it can cause a massive infection, but part of
the reason a cats bite is so nasty is the shape of their canine teeth, they act as small needles which "inject" bacteria ladden
plaque into the wound and then when they withdraw they close up the wound behind them, not allowing the wound to drain, a
dog bite would cause more damage, more bleeding and might clean out the wound, but as for a mammals mouth being able
to cause a nasty infection, yes it can.
It may be possibe to supplement the dogs food with such organisms, so that any remaining food bits in its mouth that gets
into a bite wound would implant the pathogen into the victim.
As for how long such pathogens would remain in a concentrated enough state in a dogs mouth would be a subject for testing.
I would suggest training your dog to eat meat in yogurt (which they would probably like anyway, think of tandoori chicken) and
slowly add more "aged" meat to gague the dogs reaction to it, once the dog can handle fairly nasty meat (and in the wild they
can handle meat that would kill people) simply feed them this yougurt/meat mixture before you put them on guard duty.
defiant January 30th, 2007, 10:46 PM

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9137/fuckinmonkeyoc1.gif
Why train a dog for what a chimp can do?
anonymous411 January 31st, 2007, 04:35 AM

"simply feed them this yougurt/meat mixture before you put them on guard duty."
...and their rancid breath will cause the perps to run for their lives? Sounds like a great way make your dogs weak and give
them gum disease. I'd hate to risk harming my animals for something that wouldn't work, since dog germs are usually
harmless to humans (unless you want to infect your dogs with rabies). I read a human bite is far more likely to be dangerous
than a dog bite, no matter what kind of dog germs they're dosed up with.
Bad meat is for other people's dogs.
chembio April 2nd, 2007, 04:58 AM

Just on the topic of using snakes to assassinate someone...
Obtain a venomous snake, a hollow tube and four sets of clothes belonging to your intended victim.
Make a fire. Let it burn until the embers remain. Plug one of the tube ends with 2 sets of clothes. Insert the snake thru the
other end, then seal it with the last set of clothes.
Bury the sealed tube in hot embers. This is to cause suffering to the snake :eek: The scent of the victim will be in the tube
because of the clothes.
Remove the snake from the tube after ~2 minutes (experiment with cheaper snakes to get a better estimate of timing) and
keep it.
Release it near your victim. The snake will recognize said victim's scent due to the clothes used earlier. The snake then
proceeds to kill the victim for causing it suffering.
Just something I read about when I was in high school. Apparently assassins in India do this with cobras.
NoltaiR April 2nd, 2007, 10:55 AM

A simple point I would like to make is that when using a dog (or any attack creature), the animal can serve more of a purpose
than to do all the damage. Having a dog as a decoy can cause enough confusion and chaos that the owner can be elsewhere
scoping out the enemy without being seen.
Most dogs can bark loud enough to drown out the sound of a rifle reloading in the background...
Also an intestesting idea could be to feed the dog any drug that would numb it to shots fired until actual bleeding would cause
death (In other words the animal would attack as long as the body was functional, reguardless of actual pain suffered).
Jacks Complete April 3rd, 2007, 07:28 PM

I'm pretty sure most dogs have a pretty high pain threshold anyway, but any vet should know of something to stop a dog
feeling pain. Not sure how you would phrase the question though!
chembio April 5th, 2007, 06:04 AM

In Michael Crichton's book 'The Andromeda Strain', several 'soundless' alsations were trained as guard dogs for a military
biological research facility. According to the book, the dogs had their larynx removed to disable their barking.
A logical-sounding method of creating silent killer dogs :D
Jacks Complete April 6th, 2007, 08:23 AM

A neat, if expensive, way of doing it. However, I'd think that having a guard dog running around a biological research center
would be rather dangerous if there were a leak or anything!
Must point out that it is fairly easy to train a dog to make no barks or whimpers, however. Cries when it takes damage are
another thing entirely.
Alexires April 10th, 2007, 01:17 AM

I would suggest something like PCP or Ketamine (which is a tranquilizer). Mix with some meth or get the puppy going. See,
the problem I think might happen would be the same as getting a numb leg.
Have you ever sat on your leg until it was TOTALLY numb? It is virtually impossible to walk. Same with getting a tooth pulled,
its virtually impossible to talk. I think that the dog would have some serious problems with movement/attack if you made it
feel no pain.
Personally, I would move towards something that lets the dog feel pain, but makes it so it doesn't give a fuck about it.
My experiences with drugs are limited though, so I have no idea really what drugs those might be.
Anyone else?
junk12 March 13th, 2008, 05:19 PM

The best thing of using dogs as weapon, is that it's not viewed as you are wielding the weapon, but as animal is having will of
his own. Of course this is all relative and you are still responsible for dog's behavior, but that responsibility can be insured at
insurance company. In some countries insurance companies won't insure your dog, if breed is pit bull, rottweiler or similar; but
in that case, one can choose next appropriate breed which can be insured and if trained correctly, it doesn't make a lot of
difference in the end.
The next thing is how to train your dog properly, so when he attacks, the most damage can be made. If one wants to kill
burglar, it is logical to train dog, so that he immediately jumps at burglar's neck and crush it as fast as possible. Of course this
kind of training dog won't acquire at dog schools. There they will teach him opposite to dog's instinct (at least aggressive
breeds), that it goes for neck. They will teach him to go for arm or legs.
To train dog to go for neck, one of course can not train with living person, but a some kind of doll instead. For begging placing
steak at doll's neck would be required, but at the later stages, just some cookie and praise would be enough.
a3990918 March 14th, 2008, 02:27 AM

The best thing of using dogs as weapon, is that it's not viewed as you are wielding the weapon, but as animal is having will of
his own. Of course this is all relative and you are still responsible for dog's behavior, but that responsibility can be insured at
insurance company. In some countries insurance companies won't insure your dog, if breed is pit bull, rottweiler or similar; but
in that case, one can choose next appropriate breed which can be insured and if trained correctly, it doesn't make a lot of
difference in the end.
The next thing is how to train your dog properly, so when he attacks, the most damage can be made. If one wants to kill
burglar, it is logical to train dog, so that he immediately jumps at burglar's neck and crush it as fast as possible. Of course this
kind of training dog won't acquire at dog schools. There they will teach him opposite to dog's instinct (at least aggressive
breeds), that it goes for neck. They will teach him to go for arm or legs.
To train dog to go for neck, one of course can not train with living person, but a some kind of doll instead. For begging placing
steak at doll's neck would be required, but at the later stages, just some cookie and praise would be enough.
The insurance will only protect you from a civil (monetary) lawsuit not a criminal lawsuit(reckless endangerment, man-slaughter
even murder if it can be proved you knew the dogs potential and sicked it on some body) Having a dog trained as you
described would be more of a liability that an asset. Doesn't matter if it is on your property and your dog kills a burgler, you
will still be held liable for the persons death. This has already happened several times here in the States, it's basically the
same thing as boobytraapping a window in your house.
Suppose your "weapon dog" gets lose at about the time a school bus is dropping off kids.:( Don't you know there will be a
price to pay for a child's injury or death?? Agressive (Death) dogs have their place, most likely in a military application, but not
for the common man to keep as a weapon.
junk12 March 14th, 2008, 09:39 AM

Agressive (Death) dogs have their place, most likely in a military application, but not for the common man to keep as a
weapon.
The same could be sad for firearms and explosives.
If one has his property fenced and warning boards "dangerous dog, keep off, private property" hang out, I believe, that owner
is not responsible if anyone is so stupid and climb over the fence.
So if at ZOO visitor climb over the cage wall to the lions and lions eat him, is it Zoo fault? I believe not, as long they have
properly fenced cage and warning signs.
Just my humble opinion. :cool:
a3990918 March 14th, 2008, 07:13 PM

The same could be sad for firearms and explosives.
Because you put up a fence and signs does not absolve you from criminal or civil liability. Somebody tresspassing on my
marked, fenced property can still cause me a criminal suit if they get killed or seriously injured on my property by my
deliberate or negligent leaving out in the open a potentially hazardous item ie. a loaded weapon, bottle of nitroglycerin,
aggressive dog, punji pit, etc.
Tresspass is not viewed as an offense worth injury or death of another human being. If you shoot and kill someone on your
property or even breaking into your house and there is no apparent threat of bodily harm to you or your family, in all likely
hood you will be prosecuted. Same with the dog. If there is no threat of imminent danger, and your dog kills a tresspasser
chances are you'll see the inside of a courtroom. The big difference between a dog and a gun, is the gun does not attack on
it's own volition. A human being has to physically fire the weapon. By putting a deadly dog in your yard the courts are saying
you acknowledge it as a deadly weapon and are firing at a would be tresspasser.
I'm not saying it should be illegal to own a deadly dog,(though several communities, including the small town I live in, have
outlawed the possession of certain breeds of aggressive dogs)
Example:
Miami Pit Bull Law
It is illegal in Miami-Dade County to own any dog which substantially conforms to a pit bull breed dog, unless it was specially
registered with Miami-Dade County prior to 1989. Acquisition or keeping of a pit bull dog: $500.00 fine and County Court
action to force the removal of the animal from Miami-Dade County. ONLY an Animal Services Investigator trained in pit bull
identification will determine if the dog conforms to pit bull breed standards.
but just like a firearm, it needs to be kept in a safe, secure area such as a pen and from what I've seen so far a fenced
backyard does not consitute a pen in most courts eyes.
A number of states make it a specific crime to possess a dog that is trained to fight, attack or kill. California Penal Code
section 399.5 makes it a misdemeanor or felony (in the prosecutor's discretion) to merely own or have custody or control of
such a dog, if four conditions are met:
1. The dog was trained to fight, attack or kill.

2. The owner or keeper knew of the dangerous nature of the dog.
3. The dog bit one or more people on two separate occasions causing any kind of injury, or on one occasion which caused
substantial injuries.
4. The attack(s) resulted from the owner's or keeper's failure to exercise ordinary care.
As to the Zoo, would you expect to be attacked by Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh My, :eek: while you are walking from one
exhibit to another? Didn't think so, but if you climb into the pit, you damn sure better be looking forward to something bad
happening.
gaussincarnate March 16th, 2008, 09:44 PM

If you wanted to have all kinds of fun and did not mind a little bit of construction work, you could always put dogs up in a cage
in your attic (over a trap door) and released when the door opens without disabling the alarm system. The dogs come down
directly on top of the intruders. The dogs would be immensely pissed off, so much so that no training would be needed to
make them dangerous. How would you feel if you were woken up by being dropped ten feet through the floor?
Going back to the idea of kamakazi dachsunds, you could attach grenades to their backs and tie strings to the pins and up to
the rafters. Walk in the door and SUPRISE, it's raining dachsunds (with live grenades).
Again, a little difficult, but effective and humerous enough to make it worth it.
a3990918 March 16th, 2008, 09:52 PM

Walk in the door and SUPRISE, it's raining dachsunds (with live grenades).
A veritable "Blitzkrieg" of wiener dogs...:)

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Traffic stops
Log in
View Full Version : Traffic stops
nbk2000 June 5th, 2003, 11:50 PM

It's inevitable that a criminal will be pulled over by the cops if he's on the road long enough. If you're clean, then this isn't a
problem, since you can act like a good sheeple and be on your way.
But, if you're dirty (transporting drugs/wanted felon), then you're going to have to engage the pork, since being stopped will
quickly result in arrest anyways.
So, with this in mind, how do you go about taking out the piggy who's stopped you?
In this scenario, you presumably have a competent crimey with you, and are being stopped by one pig. This is a common
scenario when the pig doesn't have reason to suspect you of anything other than some petty traffic violation.
The important thing to remember about pigs is that they tend to call for more pork as backup, which is SOP.
So, when stopped by one that you intend to engage, you must act almost the second you stop, to catch piggy by surprise
before his fellow swine have time to arrive on the scene to give him backup.
You're goal isn't so much to kill the pig, but rather to immobilize his vehicle, so that you can flee the scene and ditch the
vehicle out of pork sight, before they have time to arrive in numbers looking for your ass.
To do this, you'll use a military tactic known as "Hammer and Anvil", the "anvil" being one person who fixes the piggies
attention, while "hammer" swings around and takes out the vehicle.
http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Hammer-Anvil.jpg
Ideally, you'd catch the pork out of his vehicle before beginning your assault, to prevent him from taking cover in his vehicle,
but you'll have to assume that piggy is waiting for backup.
In practice, both driver and passenger open their doors at the same time. Driver is armed with compact semi-auto rifle (CAR-
15?) or carbine, passenger with shotgun (preferably SAIGA-12) loaded with shot-slugs or quadrangle shot (see NBK PDF).
The drivers (anvil) job is to engage the pig, so that piggy is forced to either engage driver or flee for cover, either one of which
keeps him from stopping the passenger (hammer) who swings out (using vehicle as concealment) till he can see the pig-
mobile. At this point, hammer proceeds to do a number of the engine compartment of pig-mobile, rendering the vehicle
inoperable.
Anvil continues to engage piggy while hammer comes back to vehicle and drives it away by grabbing the wheel and stepping
on the gas till driver can resume control.
From start to finish, the operation would take less than 30 seconds, immobilize the vehicle, and likely kill the cop, at
acceptable personal risk to the felons.
Further tactics for solo felon and/or multiple cops are on the DVD.
I know this isn't about a weapon per se, but weapons without good tactics to use them with, are useless.
Sarevok June 6th, 2003, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by nbk2000
In this scenario, you presumably have a competent crimey with you, and are being stopped by one pig. This is a common
scenario when the pig doesn't have reason to suspect you of anything other than some petty traffic violation.
Instead of violence and shooting, Is not it better to just tell the cop that a bad criminal (your companion) threatened you and
forced you into helping him in the transportation of drugs (if there is some on the car) or just say that he kidnaped you? Since
he is a competent crimey, he should be well know, and as you said, there is no reason for the cop to suspect you. This way
you avoid risking your self and would have to use weapons and tactics only as a last resource.
Forgive me if I said any shit... :confused:
nbk2000 June 6th, 2003, 01:41 AM

It's not wish to rat a guy off when he's got a gun...is sitting next to you...and in front of his face. :rolleyes:
Besides, your crimey might do the same thing to you first, so it's best to make it impossible for him to turn on you, by
involving him in a homicide (or attempted anyways) on a cop. Then, the BEST he could hope for would be life without parole,
as a conspirator. :)
GibboNet June 6th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Are they lego men in your picture NBK ? :p
I like the idea, but surely, even if this was a quick, practised response, the time it would take to practice would not be worth it,
unless of course you're doing something REALLY high profile, which I would then assume you had more at you disposal than
two guys and hand weapons.
The guy next to you, well, if he wasn't entirely trusted in the first place, he shouldn't be in the car, so no probs with him ratting
you out, and you wouldn't be about to either. Plus, a firefight 2 to 1 is much more favourable.
Engaging the cop means a firefight, which I would personally try to avoid at all costs, unless you were sure you had maximum
avaliable firepower, body armour, and some protection on my own vehicle. When the hammer does his bit, I would envision
not enough of an angle across the police vehicle, I don't know about the shotgun slugs, as even the sharp edged shot from
your PDF wouldn't be able to go through the radiator / grille etc, then do enough damage to the engine. (I'm going on your
picture here.) What if this is not your everyday police car, but one of the 4WD types ?
Also, the chances (whether you initiate the 'contact' or not) of you or your companion getting hurt are pretty great unless
you're a great shot and the cop isn't. I know you wouldn't really care if your companion got shot..... but if it was you..... What
if there are two cops in the cruiser ?
What if the cop was just going to politely remind you that a rear light wasn't working ? I don't know about things there in
America, but here I don't think cops radio in unless there is trouble. I would assume before even pulling right over they would
have radioed in that they are pulling over whatever car at whatever location.
Assuming that you are in an untraceable car, with nothing to identify the driver or passenger, and assuming you're not wanted
after a 'job' in that car, you may just be able to talk your way out of it, assuming you don't mind getting your liscence checked
etc. Can a cop search the car without a good reason ?
The downside to this play it softly approach is the cop has to approach you, and therefore puts you at a great disadvantage if
it does turn nasty. I think there are too many factors involved, (think about how many 'assuming's' and if / maybe's in this
post. ) to be able to decide on the right course of action depending on when / where / who and what is involved.
As a quick response, it should work wonders, as long as you have the setup you need to pull it off, without anyone getting
killed first up. (Unless it's the cop of course).
j_rico1951 June 6th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Hey...Lame...keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about.
All that "Bond" crap isn't going to do it.
RTPB "K.I.S.S"
NBK
Sarevok June 7th, 2003, 02:29 AM

it's best to make it impossible for him to turn on you, by involving him in a homicide (or attempted anyways) on a cop.
Well thought, I did not realized that.
Originally posted by GibboNet

Also, the chances (whether you initiate the 'contact' or not) of you or your companion getting hurt are pretty great unless
you're a great shot and the cop isn't.
Two criminals capable of doing a flawless (perfection achieved through practice) "Hammer and Anvil" tactic should be better
shooters than a joe cop. :rolleyes:
As GibboNet said hammer and anvil is risky but we should remeber that the goal is not to use a perfect plan, but to use the
best plan possible. Just because it's risky does not mean that there is something better to do. No pain, no gain... (quote from
porn sites)
Agent Blak June 7th, 2003, 03:34 AM

Some of you seem to have problems grasping the NBK2000 Philosophies:
"Kill'em All... Let Hades Sort'em Out"
"Shoot First, Shoot Again, Ask A Few Questions. Then Double Tap"
The problem is there are tons of variables out in the really streets. So we try to formulate plans for the worst case, which will
still be effective in other cases, just some over-kill.
If you come out shooting the cops has to draw his gun and take cover before he can shoot back. This definitely gives you the
advantage.
I hope this doesn't sound to James Bond-ish but;
you could use Direction MicroWaves(See Poor Man's Ray Gun) to fry the electrical components. The Pork always pulls up quite
close to behind you.
You could also have a 12 gauge in a piece of 3/4"water pipe hooked up electronicly in your door facing out. Steel plate
backing it about where the door lock is located. If you were talented with out body you could have fill and painted over this.
Have the trigger for that on the stearing wheel.
Just a few thoughts...
nbk2000 June 7th, 2003, 03:54 AM

Yes, they are lego men. :D
I've found that using LegoCAD, in addition to PS7, allows me to very quickly illustrate tactics by not having to muck about with
hand drawing every building and vehicle. Plus, it makes for a very uniform appearance, and I can even do 3-D rotations if I
wanted to get fancy with it. :)
As for the tactic, it's all about making the best of a bad situation. Besides which, haven't we all learned by now that technology
is our friend? ;)
Why stick your head out where Mr. Piggy might get lucky and blow it off, when you could stick your gun-cam'd rifle out instead?
Gun mounted shields (very small) are covered in the DVD. Hey, how about Hammer tosses some molotov's filled with
exploding incendiary gel? That'd take care of the vehicle.
By whatever means you do it, the most important thing is disabling the vehicle. Anvil simply serves as distraction to allow
Hammer to do his job.
The quadrangle shot would be more than adequate for the job of shredding the radiator. Without the cooling system, a cars
engine dies QUICK, I know having lost several this way. :( Besides which, the shot will be tearing up the electrical wiring, oil
hoses, etc, making it very unlikely that the vehicle will be going anywhere soon.
If you're really paranoid, there's no reason we can't take the tactic of the DC sniper, and have a guy in the trunk who snipes
the pig through a hole hidden under the license plate. He'd never see it coming...
Now, once you've killed the pig, than you'd might want to take the time to destroy the videotape/HDD, mounted in the trunk.
Oh yes, you have to RTPB "Assume you're on camera..." since many piggies now have videosystems recording everything they
do.
Fortunately, the recorders are always mounted in the trunk, so that simplifies the task. For this, you'd want to use frangible
slugs, these being slugs that disintegrate into dust on impact. One slug blows the trunk lock, then several go into recorder
box, scrambling its guts. :D Tossing a molotov into the trunk afterwards wouldn't hurt either. The extra step of video
destruction should take another 30 seconds or so, so your whole time, start to finish should be about a minute.
With the video destroyed, the only witness dead, and your vehicle ditched and torched, there'd not be a whole lot the piggies
could do at the moment. Oh sure, they'd devote a lot of resources to tracking you down (a given), but you wouldn't have
capped the pig in the first place if you weren't already wanted for some very serious and nefarious acts, now would you?
If you think this too quick, realize that most pig/crim gunfights last less than 5 seconds (FBI), so that leaves plenty of time for
mopping up. Especially if you've avoided any dramatic gunfights and had a trunk sniper DOA the pork before he ever stepped
out the car.
In my cinematographer's minds eye, I could see this as a very "hard-core" scene for a "Reservoir Dogs" or "Heat" kind of
movie. :D The two killers don't say a word during the whole event, being the stone-cold Natural Born Killers that they are (;)),
with Hammer putting an insurance shot into the downed pigs head on his way to blow the trunk.
Now imagine a whole movie with hard scenes like this! Quentin Tarintino would look like a teat-sucking punk compared to what
I could make! I'm afraid I'd be too hard for Hollywood, though.
BTW, blak, it'd be "...Double Tap, Then Ask NO Questions because dead men tell no tales". Oh, and check your e-mail.
john_smith June 7th, 2003, 07:40 AM

The biggest problem with this is that for most of us it's going to be two pigs vs. one criminal, not the other way around...Also,
at night you could use a couple of powerful rearward facing spotlights since the pigs almost always turn on theirs, be it a
broken taillight or 2 mph over or whatever.
GibboNet June 8th, 2003, 01:17 AM

Took me a while to work out where I'd seen the shape of those car doors before. :rolleyes:
I assume there are a lot of blocky figures in graphics on the DVD ? It's a god idea tho.
I had another look at my car's front end, and although I'm not much of an expert (more the noob) when it comes to
shotguns, I reckon quadrangle shot would go through, they're just thin foils of metal close together. I was lucky anough to
have the water pump fail on me recently, I've learnt a lot about the cooling system since then........
I would love to see a movie NBK..... Though I doubt, as you say, hollywood would be ready for it.
Did you get a copy of swordfish like you wanted a while back ? I'm downloading it now, by the time it's finished I can cut a
section (say the human claymore bit) out and upload it for you.
+++++++++++++++
Do that if you can. I never got around to renting it, hearing how it was such shite, I didn't feel it worth $5 for the one scene.
NBK.
j_rico1951 June 8th, 2003, 03:25 AM

NBK; I have no doubt that what I am about to say will probably, if you have any say-so about it, result in my being banned
from this forum. If that is so, well then 'que sera, sera'.
Having been a visitor, both to this forum and your website when it was up, for several years now, I found your editing of my
post to be just a tad bit irksome. As a result, my regard for your opinions have plummeted like a rock in a pond.
Let's start with your first comment:

" Hey...Lame..."
This reminds me of what a liberal does when confronted by someone who doesn't agree with or accept their opinions. Rather
than debating the merits/demerits of the differing views, they choose to belittle, ridicule and insult the 'offending' party without
even knowing anything about them. Is there a little bit of 'liberal' lurking in your heart?
" keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about."
Would nine years working in security and law enforcement both military and civilian in two states meet your qualifications for
'knowing what I am talking about'? Or how about having distant relatives that used to run bootleg booze in the Carolinas?
All that "Bond" crap isn't going to do it.

For your information, that 'Bond crap' is from real life events. Most of the readers of this forum will know that movies tend to
sensationalize events, but I mentioned them so that readers could obtain a visual examples of what I was talking about.
Bootleggers have used both methods of avoiding traffic stops. The dumping of oil on the road causes loss of control &
possibly crashes the pursuing vehicle while the smoke screen hides a change in route & also hides hazards that could result in
the cop becoming disabled & no longer able to continue pursuit. The military has been using smoke screens since the turn of
the century to mask troop and vehicle movements on the battlefield & they work just as I decribed.
It's SOP for police departments to teach their officers to call in the license plate & vehicle description for a 'wants & warrents'
before exiting their patrol car. So in your scenario, while you are tied up dealing with the cop, backup is already rolling. Then
too, being involved in this type of action, having a partner involved means having one person too many that can rat out. The
'interrogation' of anyone involved in your scenario will be horrendous, so ratting out is a definite probablity.
And with this, I sadly hope you enjoy a healthy slice of 'humble pie'.
j_rico1951 June 8th, 2003, 03:43 AM

AgentBlak; Having read 'Poor Man's Ray Gun', the only way I would use this is as a boobytrap. The biggest problem you would
have in the scenario you propose is that of shielding the PMRG since as written, it would be just as dangerous to you as to the
cop. Also, if you have it located in the trunk of your car, it would be nearly worthless as the metal of the car body would
attenuate the microwave beam rendering it ineffective. BTW, plice have available to them, a device that when placed on the
road, will shoot off a beam of microwave energy when a car passes over it, thereby frying the cars electrical system causing it
to stall out & stop. Doesn't work with the older cars very well as they don't have computers of electronic ignitions. They also
have a unit that is based on an RC car that can be driven under a vehicle to disable it ala one of Tom Selleck's movies only
not as James Bond-ish as the movie. DARPA is playing around with a microwave gun that causes surface skin irritaion (pain)
so as to be able to break up riots. None of this though would prevetn the cop from ID'ing you if you are later caught. Avoiding
traffic stops is the best course of action, barring that is terminating with extreme predudice. Radio jammers to prevent
communication, then two to the chest & one to the head.
Aaron-V2.0 June 8th, 2003, 04:42 AM

I agree with john_smith's idea of a few high power spotlights on a simple toggle switch which face rearwards. If it's an offroad
rig you can justify them for visibility when offroading. ;)
But just take it a step further, two cheap strobelights at 10 FPM and an inverter to convert the electricity would cost around $70
to put together. The strobes should flash at the same time since they'll both be powered at the same time with a toggle switch
near the driver's seat. Though this would only work good at night and at night you have the problem at firing at a guy who's
only appearing 10 times a second.
Still, in a pitch dark road the pig will be worse off!
Zyklon_B June 8th, 2003, 06:03 AM

2 people means twice the possibility of mistake. I would avoid having anyone else along for the ride.
Now consider this, your alone in the car whaiting for the cop to come up to your window and ask for you license and
registration, detach your seatbelt, now grab you cup of coffee and whait for the cop to come up, pretend to drink the coffee,
then roll down the window and when he sticks his face close eneugh throw the coffee is his face, the proceed to open the door
in this time prefferably hitting the pig with the door at the same time. Then begin to shoot the police officer in the head, or at
all if you arent too nervous.
To improve on this plan you can you could also replace your coffee with some form of homemade mace or acid. Just make
sure to remember what is in the cup for when you get real thirsty.
Another technique is once the police officer is up to the window jam the car into reverse, this will slam you into his car and
place him either to the side of you or infron of you, proceed to run him over with your vehicle if possible.
nbk2000 June 9th, 2003, 06:08 PM

j-rico:
Ah...yes...the classic "impossibility of disproving a negative" reply.
You say you're well experienced in security, yet provide no proof, thus making it impossible for us to disprove your statement.
And trying to claim some special skills or knowledge because of what your ancestors/relatives did, or were, is lame by anyones
definition. I've got three generations of cops on my fathers side, and the same number of chicago/kansas city mafia on my
mothers. So what the fuck does that have to do with this discussion? Nothing!
Therefore, we must judge you based on the postings you've made (all three of them), and decide from that whether you've
the "skillz" you claim to have.
Well, judging by the few lines you posted as a reply in this topic, you don't.
Spraying oil into an exhaust produces a miserably thin smoke that would simply make you even more visible by leaving a trail
for the pigs to follow, since it'd certainly do nothing to obscure the road.
Caltrops are perfectly valid, but then you add the complication of a mechanism to disperse them, when a flimsy cardboard box
tossed out the window would accomplish the same thing.
Oil on the road? Nigger...please...urban myth. Sure, if you've got GALLONS of it in a nice puddle, that'll work great. But
sprayed out on a road? Don't work. Roads are wonderfully craggy, and rubber wonderfully pliant, allowing the two to join quite
well despite a microscopically thin layer of oil sprayed out at low volume during high speed. Also, doesn't work at all on dirt
roads.
Also, I find your (almost literal) word-by-word rebuttal to be strangely reminiscint of a person who's been previously banned (in
various incarnations) for thinking they knew more then they actually did, and who'd go ballistically ape-shit over any well-
deserved criticism, posting huge word-by-word rebuttals, paragraphs devoted to a few words, in some pathetic attempt to
justify their previous tripe.
Hmmm...who was that...Madscientist....Pu239....shitHED? Something like that. :p
Seems you still haven't learned to glean the difference between speaking a vital few (words) and the trivial many. But, being a
"liberal", I'm inclined to let people post as many trivial words as they wish, for it only shows even better how worthless they
are.
Anyways, it matters not, for you've broken the rules. The supreme rule, actually, so doom on you. :)
Oh, and since you'll no longer be able to see The Forum any longer, I've e-mailed you a copy of this reply so you can see
what everyone else (who's still a member :p) will be seeing, in the interest of fairness and all. :D
nbk2000 June 9th, 2003, 08:24 PM

It's SOP for police departments to teach their officers to call in the license plate & vehicle description for a 'wants & warrents'
before exiting their patrol car.
Gee, really? No shit, I'd never have guessed that. :rolleyes:
You're rolling along after having done something suitably horrible, when Mr. Pig pulls up behind you. You can see he's on the
radio, and you know he's going to get back some "interesting" info on your vehicle being seen at the scene of the crime. So,
rather than having him follow you for 10 minutes while backup comes swarming from across the county, you pre-empt him by
pulling over, before he's even turned on the lights.
What's he going to do now? He can't simply keep on driving by like he doesn't know what the deal is. He HAS to pull over too,
which puts him in the position of having to deal with you by himself, without any backup. :)
If it's just you and him, then it's to your advantage, because you're shooting to kill (and presumably have already done so),
while he may be hampered by all that "appropriate use of force" training that liberals have foisted on the police, which may
slow him down a fraction of a second...long enough to get him killed.
Any semi-trained pork is going to be standing to the rear of the driver, making the "cup o' acid in the face" trick rather
problematic and dangerous for the driver, what with acid splashback being a real bitch.
If there's two crims', then the odds are vastly in your favor at this point. Hammer time!
If piggy gets out, that's great. If not, that's fine too.
Piggy will be expecting you to be waiting for him to step out before trying to run away. He might even be expecting the
passenger to bail out of the car when you stop.
But what he won't be expecting is for you to slam it into reverse and smash into him. Nor will he be expecting the guy who
bailed out to be running towards him, plugging the cops car with slugs into the engine, prior to hopping back into the car and
burning rubber out of there, leaving a dazed (or dead) cop by the side of the road in a shot up and immobile car. :p
There's always the slight chance that your bumpers will get hooked together, in which case you might be S.O.L., but it's a
chance you take.
If there's two cops, and just you, then you're outgunned. That's why it'd be good to have a second guy with you. Even if the
second guy turns chicken shit and runs, that's still a decoy to draw half their fire and attention away from you. :)
As for the second guy ratting on you, that'd be a problem if you've got the wrong guy with you. But, if you've got the right
crimey...that's not going to be a problem. Platt and Mattox, LA Bank Robbers...these guys went out shooting, choosing death
over cowardly surrender.
So, if you find the right psychopath as your partner, ratting isn't going to be a problem you'll have to worry about. Especially
after you've blasted a cop or two, because the rest of the piggies are going to be shooting to kill, so your partner wouldn't
even be given the chance to rat on you before the pigs blow him to gibblets. :D
Also, since you're traveling together, you could always blast him if you feel that he's turning squirrelly and might try to
surrender. There's no place for cowards in my car.
Anyways, if there's room on the shoulder, you may wish to pull over too much and "overcorrect" so that the nose of the vehicle
is pointed towards the road, and the ass end towards to shoulder. Not too much, but enough so that the driver can shoot out
the door without having to lean out and back, and putting the passengers side door opposite the pigs line of sight on the
other side of the car.
Once hammer has rolled out, anvil taps the gas and moves forward a bit, clearing hammers line of fire, and blocking the
nearest lanes of traffic, obstructing piggies escape, while giving anvil a nice enfilade field of fire on the piggy.
This also has the advantage of, at night, taking you out of the blinding "cone of light" that cops throw up to blind you.
I've left out all the "Bond" crap out of the possibilities since you may have to have ditched your Bond car on site, being forced
to escape in the first vehicle you could snag. RTPB "Plan for failure", hence the need to rely on tactics and whatever small-
arms you have on you, rather than specially gimmicked cars you may not be able to get to.
If you have a Bond car, then just turn on your laser blinders, broad-spectrum RF jammers, fire your heat-seeking missles, and
be done with it. :p
RTPB "K.I.S.S" and "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".

So you are working as a pair in an unprepared car, right? Why not have the passenger sit in the back seat with a shotgun,
Break the rear window, and shoot out the piggy radiator through the broken rear window? At that distance, you could take out a
Crown Vic radiator with two or three shots before the piggies even left the car. If you are concerned with maintaining the
appearance of the car so as to not attract attention from others, a small clean hole towards the top of the rear window taped
over with newspaper would be far less obtrusive than a recently broken window.
GibboNet June 10th, 2003, 02:57 PM

By the time you've broken the window (wouldn't be too easy to get much of a swing in the back of your average car, but I
haven't tried) The cop will realise what's going on, and will have at least spotted the shotgun you're trying to break the window
with. He would then of course take action, and you're at a disadvantage.
Like you say, the window would also be noticeable, though you would be dumping the car after any police contact such as this
would be.
NBK, what would you like the swordfish clip as ? original DivX, or Real Media or something else ?
Also:
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DBw04D150ZG3PmoycQEADjiWnkEdohdyvrb9ikA5RMPp BF38K3h3hCwQ5C
WQhBi88+lehv/wcQRFL53QkPldu8I7zeX0HeTNcpR+w8IamZt+qh2zqPR394q4S D
htSo1LjCfqz3nqqfGDDC0dDn30be3eKJVVW2AcThPHsglZ0Iuo 1ROHabHHHOwbID
3h7+0vVeiznnHP4Up3cJcCuVHiD9C/f6GPB7zlTsQZBK2R/UaQvwJ/Yu2EqsDwtc
DPfblu0eFG63mpfMmH3mFo4i9/W1HSwbunbJQp5bsjeCXqj0rlADQamFlBgV5Knx
q3MEz+3U1sEbmTCBrgn9yh9jj9s5ljL2uOuDtBVSTCghgXcmLn ez+XoYLJEpq2un
o141EQmcbvLtUpX9e1GUoW2slMMuYO0u1jqEk2Ml/nxB/oN7iJkfK5cmtRDPv2wJ
289z8p2+0Rx85QsvHoF2ycsDFqACCIfj90CquEZfEXFIm6gV17 pj/Log0zyiy4Qz
ZDoO1WlgHfpOtLD/z1zTiwzStkChS2PHIyQK8STugqgkM87R5dnwSAxxJFbyNgrE
pYg5P71SDfEW5ioorZtgt2oKHa8OGdXL1ccycFFPr4xJGZUMmj yUho6T62tSV43U
5edq5MsagcbEwn6RF2BWeLsZIvqf2VvFWt+zeFdk+vmWh1WfDv xTeOEILZiEBUn4
6by1Hg/+JuxsORHo4bCdw+wMD7fNicGDjc7kbxmWqx6CnVbItMWvs8HN7 TDlsBrD
siKqktlSMi66eMN+05uEO154y6ZtTaBmPxrtWFlTcBGbLzmv2+ CHn2ccB+U/cI0A
sb1VxMb6IYxLdpwCkwW7Qfb720kY7oosHsD+pU+VNNAhp6r4+A Z5B+ghG2C7LLEw
gzXQeRgSl2XE3HUHWGH38Ek35KGQuHUqM1JS8YC4etOOgY6ece CfSDiI7d0EtiCB
n3lyiV5XyRBXmKfyV/6SKCea0DAq8juMhfkC/pdOw03izOF3i9dnsqr+miC2pD/H
cpLT4jJnEGlb+p2kDQ1hrhNoZWn71Qvm2sPLPmSJgGG4Zb4HcM vzGnEfZUTgJQxH
a32Q5qA9sK0ttq21h82ON3Eu/hAfhwGUaYponDKkps9pB4oKcpERdJQR9neiEkJi
qPGzmIXpGsVzRkmrRwehAe6Jt32GvCkmn6q/eyH3XoL4Kq9PLB/3fBtnodmOc6CY
7Xd8e94HQcljbAZi+6+/cAL+/FGdWhEuT4XWcyIS1wj4y3y0ncBCXiG9uyK8NHIC
5OKXp0xB5fGCq73TqquAOoUdlDqQjiJzlsq43bBMznHhT4eEYY fbkyQjktyoUkQ2
mj3pE0rx+m8GuJGLbM+b6CISP9KttUpLPWU0cR0/uuDkFakbLN/Jwm+FDx+FGUfw
ChtCs8Dyha74K+TAVNFWExQnE58FlgQCxsfq2yI8MBMw8SFPhW ekTw5Ua2Ebbe5B
hs2QMZWjQV+5/jPKKwIOGXg48c4bcuQnGRvKDQfkZZt4djGRgOsv6fXhtSOG6fv c
LIZY3bCtdRjC14nq6KvqPVotO1Chz2VEt0YsTR/4WyoOp4/joHjypThG1rahu157
O+U7JtnRCtEaZ6rkLfZTSn44fVHBKlQ8gfRbFYdivw8Y0k5mg7 86hvLy5NW7SDDK
SUJ0WJLBChBtKBCjiCeybcETrxhm3l818Z1veCwQT2OGDdfvAQ EJ8TbNMKCryR6J
A9PZavkMF1OJJhiVA/wQ9C7yInXDZH08Bvl/8P4aht/GdIlmNUaXpGB/zLN4TzdD
Ix7PaM5CTHonAUYOCE5dq75a0qwJerLDj2v1PM9Fv/tBvz338qNrOUpRIyzg3X1t
jRLA7av2X1mXbJAa9Gx473eG0XLPVjgK6JnDcBlPvWcJ4+driO VIgxlZlVl2XN6W
lz0l738fHnDNZ7z+H+0s15iOFdytG8Z5yD/Gu7aWQoyR6Q581SLaM6kjsCPX5+NN
r7YzRbHKoGZCt4nbTp1TY51AEOLBDRYRllxXNkNz3LXdAbOtMi k5IC99uSGJ2OCd
Tw979zncbH5iMdv1RDrRQxbtRA8pDWtYMSHb2zdjAClRdVRitS KcwpsYY6BQqO9O
m62v4PeaCtoODng/ncGU5Xh8IhSJJ9bZ6vUxRFm6uhtJ9BWqQOyc0Gt1VVWuEyfG
kGnX4gPKkFWkAeacIs0g+TgQvwx3CWqE1LB9Ax0EUJkxWlzPNp mAWDpKWvQnV6LV
cvh8HdzpWllLhQIw8sy99jDpqPGz411D08vB+QbBEqWaJ8t82B LqPs2kfNx0wHgn
8YRHCOStGHYIbARJD3kyiHAS0y4Z2xk6h5LpImL6EgUinj6did 6Nr/bgtOoht2SF
UB5A+4+XO88LaUiYfF3sDLEh0XLRFI5J8pnZg0SH+zqCX6Bjsq nq+26y70Goox/X
ah30U+0/HWP279i0qtvM8T5WRdqLDGwkgRCF9UlwDdlS9bON9ryaGw==
=imvR
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
I think that's right, but I don't really know what I'm doing with PGP.
80r15 June 10th, 2003, 04:50 PM

I would just be sitting in the front seat with a Mac-11 and as soon as the piggie sticks his fat ass out of his little piggie-mobile
and gets close enough, take out the Mac-11, put it to his chest and squeeeeeze. Or if you do not wish to get blood all over
you, have the friend use a silenced pistol, pop out of the sunroof, and blow the pigs little head off. Then again, if you are
going to kill him, it might be better to try to take him hostage so if you are being pursued down the highway, they won't have
any stupid ideas of spikestrips because they know you will kill their fellow pig. Just an idea...

"as soon as the piggie sticks his fat ass out of his little piggie-mobile and gets close enough, take out the Mac-11, put it to
his chest and squeeeeeze"
The cop is approaching your car with his gun drawn and pointed at you, he won't enter your line of fire unless you've got both
hands on the wheel like he's demanded you do. You make a sudden move for something on the passenger seat and you get
a bullet in the ear.
Cops may not be that bright, but they're not *that* dumb either. Countless times have they pulled someone over and been
shot when they approached the car.
Rather than smashing the rear screen (Sod's law says the first blow would glance and not break the glass [they're surprisingly
resistant to blunt impact]), the passenger would have their window down/ Combined with NBK's idea of stopping the car
skewed, he should have a good shot at the radiator.
If the cop is still in the car, then chances are he'd duck behind the dash, so you could pump in a few shots without worrying
about returned fire.
Axt June 14th, 2003, 05:49 PM

Just be sure not to cooperate (http://www.bangedup.com/archives/triggercontrollessonl.mov) :rolleyes:

As far as breaking the rear window.... it would be possible to prepare any car one would be driving by breaking the rear window
and replacing it with newspaper... this could be done after a "job" as soon as a car was chosen and Borrowed (ie one man
drives, one man goes to work with the window)...
Police officers aren't stupid, but their cars are vulnerable... they always spend time on their little computers when they pull
someone over, and this would be the perfect time, imho, for a rear window shotgun assault on their radiator. Then, with a little
luck, you can just drive away and be done with it.
nbk2000 June 15th, 2003, 03:05 AM

And notice how it was a woman...:rolleyes:
Added further illustration of modifed "Hammer and Anvil".
ElectricJesus June 20th, 2003, 03:32 AM

I could not help but notice how much that plan would not work well, if at all.
First of all, it seems as though you're assuming that at the moment you were pulled over, the cop knows that you have
(whatever) in the car, and you must kill him, and his vehicle. If you're getting pulled over, out of the blue, it's going to be for
a traffic violation.
If they think you have guns, etc... in the vehicle, and are up to no good, they'll tail you, but you're not getting pulled over
untill backup (at least 1 or 2 cars) are there, with 2 officers in each car, possibly armed with shotguns.
If it's a traffic stop, play it off as a traffic stop, you're probably good to go. Unless you're acting all figity and nervous, or
whatever you have is in plain sight (and you know better than that) they don't have probable cause to search the car.
Second of all, if they do suspect something serious (more than drugs or something) they will make you get out of the car,
thier hand is on thier gun, ready to draw and fire. If they see you reaching for a gun, or any action that could be construed as
reaching for a gun that would hold up in court, you're getting shot.
In the event they don't call you out of the car, when they go back to radio for backup, they'll be facing you the whole time, still
ready to shoot at any moment. They CAN see through windows, so reaching for a gun is still a bad idea. If your windows are
tinted dark enough that they can't see you, they will have gotten you out of the car.
Ugh. I'm too tired to continue with the flaws in this plan for now.
I just think it's odd that you are assuming the cops are on the same level as a poorly trained hamster.
At any rate, if you get pulled over for a broken turn signal, don't jump out with an AK and start spraying the cop. He's just
doing his job, and if you give no reason to suspect anything, you're good. Keep your weapons, etc.. out of sight, and go with
the ol' "I couldn't have been doing more than 5 over" scheme.
No offense, although somewhat well thought out (if you were trying to kill a 6 year old on his big wheel), but there are too
many variables that cause this plan to put the odds against you. (cops, if suspicious at all, will err on the side of thier personal
safety, and will shoot you the second they think you're up to something)
Just think, if you weren't cool headed enough to talk your way through just getting a traffic ticket, what makes you think you're
getting out your gun and jumping out of the car without him noticing?
nbk2000 June 20th, 2003, 05:06 AM

If you're getting pulled over, out of the blue, it's going to be for a traffic violation.
BZZZZZ! You're now psychic and know why a pig is pulling you over? Could be a busted tail light, though I'd think you'd have
the sense to pre-check your vehicle to eliminate such possiblilities, or could be he got a APB to be on the lookout for a vehicle
matching your description.
Regardless of why you got pulled over, you must assume the worst, and react with overwhelming and violent force, before
piggy has a chance to get backup.
Remember McVeigh of OKC fame? He got pulled over for a petty traffic violation and ended up executed. He had blown up a
building, had a gun on the seat next to him, and let himself get arrested for a traffic violation. What a lame...(Though I think
he was a patsy, but that's besides the point.)
Best case scenario is that you talk your way out and are on your way. Worst case is your busted and executed. RTPB "Plan for
failure" and "Expect the worst and you'll never be unprepared". Plan for the failure of your get away by preparing for police
contact. You MUST assume the worst case and react accordingly. This means the pig is pulling you over to arrest you and
backup is on the way.
If they think you have guns, etc... in the vehicle, and are up to no good, they'll tail you, but you're not getting pulled over
untill backup (at least 1 or 2 cars) are there, with 2 officers in each car, possibly armed with shotguns.
You may wish to read this part of my earlier post, which would have enlightened you on how to deal with this situation. I'll re-
post it here for your edification. :)
You're rolling along after having done something suitably horrible, when Mr. Pig pulls up behind you. You can see he's on the
radio, and you know he's going to get back some "interesting" info on your vehicle being seen at the scene of the crime. So,
rather than having him follow you for 10 minutes while backup comes swarming from across the county, you pre-empt him by
pulling over, before he's even turned on the lights.
What's he going to do now? He can't simply keep on driving by like he doesn't know what the deal is. He HAS to pull over too,
which puts him in the position of having to deal with you by himself, without any backup.
Is that simple enough for you for you to understand now?
The objective is NOT to kill the cop, but to immobilize his vehicle, so you can flee without immediate pursuit, giving you the
opportunity to disperse into the sprawl. If you don't kill the cop, and aren't caught within 8 years, then statute of limitations
apply and you can't be charged for it.
However, if you've already killed, then you might as well kill the cop to ensure your own death at the hands of the police (if
they catch you), rather than rotting away in prison waiting for the needle.
...flaws in this plan for now...assuming the cops are on the same level as a poorly trained hamster...He's just doing his job...
No plan is without flaws, only God is perfect. But being without ANY plan is sure death.
As for the cop, he does traffic stops all the time and, as with any job, tedium and carelessness slips in because of the sheer
tedium of it. A cop can go years without so much as a scuffle before he meets the pair of career criminals with nothing to lose
by, and every intention of, killing him.
How well is he going to react to these crims who've planned and practiced for this very scenario, when he himself has settled
into the routine traffic stop trap. Cops are warned about this trap (tedium causing carelessness) all the time, but it happens
anyways, because of the tedious nature of the job.
Cops aren't poorly trained hamsters...rather more like well trained dogs. A dogs instincts are to chase fleeing prey. What do
you do when attacked by a dog? Run? NO! You attack! Predators attack, prey flee.
When I'm attacked by dogs, I attack them back, and they are often times cowed by this unexpected behavior coming from
their "prey". I was charged by two dogs (at different times) earlier today while walking to the grocer.
Did I run away? No. I ran at them, shouting and hitting them with my knapsack, all the while kicking them. They ran away. :D
So too with pigs. In this scenario, the piggy would be expecting you to flee, not attack using a pincer movement, engaging
both him and his vehicle simultaniously.
I'm curious...how many times have you been on the muzzle end of police guns? Ever live (literally) under the gun? I have
many times, and for many years, done just that. Not proud of it, but after enough times and enough years, you no longer fear
it, though you still respect it.
Fear is the mind killer. If you let your fear of getting shot override your thinking, then you WILL fail, and you WILL be shot.
But having a plan ahead of time, even one intended "to kill a 6 year old on his big wheel", beats trying to pull one out of your
ass when the shit hits the fan.
RTPB "Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it".
So, since you've decided to enlighten us with your criticism, perhaps it is now time for you to enlighten us with your vast
warehouse of experience and knowledge about such endeavors and tell us how YOU would do better.
I'm sure the reply will be most enlightening...:rolleyes:
(Typical troll reply "You'll ban me if I say anything")
Feel free to say anything you want. We're here to learn, and to share, not to cultivate a bunch of "Yes" men. If you've got
something better, we're all ears, and you'll get respect for your skills...IF you have any.
Mr-Eckted June 20th, 2003, 02:17 PM

Plus, NBK: ElectricJesus is from Edmonton, and I, also being from there, can assure you that most of the cops here are
intellectual equals to poorly trained hamsters.
You don't know for sure if the police are pulling you over because of a bad tag, or because of a bullitien out for your car, for
unspecified reasons. Of course, in most cases, this technique would be more than was called for, but you don't know
beforehand when the rare time that it is called for is going to happen. Far better to have it and not need it, than to need it
and not have it.
ElectricJesus June 21st, 2003, 03:28 AM

Based on experience (with the Edmonton police, whom are among the best trained in north america) getting busted on a
weapons complaint I can say not to underestimate the cops. They aren't going to send one officer. There were 3 cruisers and 2
unmarked cars, each with 2 cops, on the scene before any lightbars even came on. Now, this was when we were on foot mind
you, but I can assure you, they weren't going to take any risks/chances. Now if it's 2 guys in a car, they are going to be just as
cautious (if not more), and if you pull over, they will most likely drive by and not engage you, unless they have at thier
immediate disposal, more than one officer.
If he's running your plate to check for a crime recently reported involving a vehicle of your cars description, they are already
not in the position to put themselves in unnessicary danger, by following up on you pulling over, when they're alone. They
WILL wait for backup.
Just think. You're driving say, a white toyota, and you just blew up a gas station. (just an example. I'm sure you're not going
to blow up any gas stations soon) and an officer out on the freeway makes note of an APB on 2 males in a white toyota. If he/
she sees 2 males in a white toyota, they're going to report that right then. There will probably be more cars on thier way to
that area before it's even confirmed that your car is indeed the one they're after. By the time the plate has been run, a few
radio calls are exchanged, and they know for sure it's you, there's at least one, if not more, cars within visual range. If you
pull over, and the other cars are already there, they will box you in when you pull over, thus blocking your route of escape.
Here's a more accurate representation: http://www.pbase.com/image/18078428
nbk2000 June 21st, 2003, 06:50 AM

I liked that "I still draw pictures like like I'm in the 3rd grade" look that picture has. :D

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > impact grenades - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : impact grenades - Archive File
megalomania June 10th, 2003, 02:10 PM

IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 01-11-2001 07:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
does anyone here have any ideas about making grenades that dont use fuse but rather use an impact detonation?
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
posted 01-11-2001 07:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fill a pill bottle full of unwashed AP and throw it on the ground
(hmmm wait thats not safe...)
impact grenades are hard to get to work if you only have one end with an impact sensitive explosive you need fins or
streamers like some WWII german grenades had
the best advice I can give you is to just get nbk2000's file
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 01-11-2001 07:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i was thinking maybe a double end ignition, and nbk's file doesnt load right on my pc
------------------
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 01-11-2001 07:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 words.
Potato Masher Grenade.
I am sure the boys will fill you in. You can read up on the in the PMJB vol 1. it works off a Shot gun Shell Primer.
Do you have Adobe Acrobat? If not that is why you can't read NBK's Stuff
------------------
--RATM
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
posted 01-11-2001 08:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm it won't load right on mine either
(damn pdf files) how about a nitroglycerine molotov cocktail unsafe is an understatement...
phyrelord
Frequent Poster
Posts: 135
From:
posted 01-11-2001 11:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
balloons do the trick nicely if you cut the neck off of two or three of 'em and tape them to the bottom of your container put
something like black powder in the bottom then fill the rest of the container with HE put tassles on the end and voila. Another
fun thing to do with ballons is fill them up to where they are just a little bigger than the deflated balloon (there will be some
pressure on the rubber) then massage the balloon so the gunpowder is completely packed in and has no way of misfiring and
then tie it off and throw it at something
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 01-12-2001 07:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gunpowder" (whatever that is) won't go off if you simply throw a ballon full of it at something!
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 01-12-2001 04:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To get the grenades to land face down (or wherever the impact sensitive charge is) you simply put something really heavy on
the place where the impact sensitive charge is, and when you chuck it, the bit which is heavy will hit the ground. Or you could
just completely coat the grenade with the sensitive shit.
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 01-12-2001 11:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i had the greatest idea fora grenade, its not gonna blow someone to bits but it does what im looking for,
remember the pengun idea? well just fill it with some powder(your choice) then add some bb's or lead to the end where the
metal cap is (thats what hits for the impact) then just tape or stick a cap on the front and throw!! the weight from the lead or
bb's should pull the nose down and hit it, if that doesnt work just tie a streamer on the back, and dont spin it when you throw,
just toss it, ive only been able to throw them a good 30-40 feet though
------------------
Crux
Frequent Poster
Posts: 71
From: australia
posted 01-13-2001 08:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well a sort of impact grenade i made was just a shoty shell with a marball glued to the primer the ones i made i took the bb's
out of the shell so the weight would be different if you left them in these were very relyable just make shure the bb's are steel
not lead because when i used lead ones they just got bent out of shape and diddnt set anything off
Sgt_Starr
Frequent Poster
Posts: 120
From: Petersburg
posted 01-20-2001 07:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if you tookl a marbel sized ball of epoxy or resin and pushed some nail heads in it then you cut a ping pong ball open
and lined it with AP filled percussion caps then put the spike bal inside so that when the grenade hit the ground any way it hit
the nail ball would hit a percussion cap(put one of these in a softball sized grenade then fill it with RDX get a nice big
boom,Sorry If I said alot to say alittle (PLEASE NO BAD KARMA!! :rolleyes
------------------
"it"
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 232
posted 01-20-2001 09:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im suprised Pyro 500 hasn't said anything about his quarters taped together with AP in between the quarters.
Not really an anti-personnel weapon but it does make a loud report when thrown hard at concrete
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 01-21-2001 01:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i know about the quarter thing, i just use some pennies and matchpowder, a nice little bang, not an anti personell thing but
why would i need an anti personnel weapon in the first place?
------------------
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
posted 01-23-2001 06:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Grenades are a subject of weaponry where there are may possibilities, here are just some off the top of my head:
1)Grenade Full Of Shock Sensitive Mixture
2)Shock Sensetive explosive to set off a secondary explosive
3)Device with a seperator that when struck, breaks the seperator and allows chemicals to mix.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 01-23-2001 07:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) and 3) sound *very* dangerous.
endotherm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 164
From: dunno
posted 01-23-2001 07:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all explosive mixtures are dangerous, especially impact grenades, a grenade that is meant to go off when it is struck, that is
exactly the thing most wise pyrotechnicians fear the most, what if you were to drop it in the lab, or you sneezed and for ther
split second you closed your eyes, bumbed your desk, so when you say soihd very dngerous, any impact intended device is
very dangerous, i wasnt trying to criticize, just hoping to use your statement as an example towards anyone interested in
creating an "Impact Grenade"
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 01-23-2001 09:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had the idea for a long, missle like bomb with an impact sensitive nose made with a jar lid jutted against the tip of the bomb
( filled with ap of cource and have some sensitive compound between that and the explosive (like flash powder) and to get it
to go land nose first tie a bit of rope to the oppisite, I forgot, tape the nose on gently!!!!!) end and loop it above your head
and let go, kinda like throwing a rock tied to a short piece of rope, if you attach fins, even cheest ones it should have a better
chance of landing on it's nose.
MacCleod
Frequent Poster
Posts: 217
From:
posted 01-24-2001 03:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an idea I've been mulling over: a grenade case full of explosive filler,with a seperated two-part shock-sensitive initiator
which is mechanically mixed,immediately before use.Havn't figured out the logistics yet,but I'm workin' on it!.
------------------
"That which does not kill us,makes us stronger"
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 01-24-2001 01:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got an ok idea, how about using a 555 monostable timer to set a delay of about 3 seconds, and then it switches on. This
turns the rest of the electronics in the grenade on, which are basically a lod of push switches in parallel (i think, or is it series?)
and so when one hit, it completes the circuit and so ignites igniter etc, and boom.
The good thing about the delay is that it won't go off prematurely (hopefully) when you're holding it. Ideas please!
------------------
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 01-24-2001 05:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That sounds like a great idea :-) You'de have to test the circuit thoroughly first, and use it in a dummy grenade. With the
dummy grenade, you should deliberately try and get it to malfunction, or at least carry out many firings. Experiment with
different battery power levels, including dead/half charged batteries. Make sure the circuit's watertight. Immerse the dummy in
water for a day or two and open it up. Drop it, throw it, then open it up to make sure nothing's come loose. If it 'goes off'
during these tests, find out what went wrong and fix it before using it in a live device.
I've built many circuits, I don't think any have worked first time and none were without problems. With this kind of application,
an error could mean more than a few burnt out components!
Just a few thoughts.
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 01-25-2001 12:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that's a good idea, but I would used a motion/vibration switch instead of the push switches. If you had the delay fail safed
then at the worst you would have a grenade with a 3sec delay (I would increase to 5sec). 9volt batteries can last a long time I
found one that is at least 2 years old and is fine.
------------------
"ARE YOUR PAPERS IN ORDER" -- Jack Booted Thug
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 01-25-2001 02:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely a motion switch (possibly vibration too) would, if you threw the grenade, detonate it as soon as it armed?
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 01-26-2001 03:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, possibly you could have a 10sec timer running as well, so if the impact didn't set it off, then the timer would
------------------
[This message has been edited by zaibatsu (edited January 26, 2001).]
ASSGREMLIN
New Member
Posts: 16
From: NIL
posted 03-07-2001 02:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i was thinking of making some ammonium-triiodide ( i know its highly unstable, but there might be a way to make it less
sensitive? dilute the ammonia? anyway...)and taking some of those pill casings they sell -that people put medication in- and
then either filling them with the ammonium triiodide, or fill one half with that, and the other with BP. not quite a grenade, but
because of the small size you could throw them quite discreetly, and have a load of fun in a movie theatre .
------------------
the early worm gets eaten by the bird.
[This message has been edited by ASSGREMLIN (edited June 27, 2001).]
Foxtrot83
Frequent Poster
Posts: 70
From: USA
posted 03-07-2001 08:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stuff your thinking about using ASSGREMLIN is dangerous, almost as dangerous as using Armstrongs Explosive (which
isn't that bad of a possibility). You definitely got to scratch the nitrogen tri-iodide mix, besides iodine is hard to get.
------------------
~Semper Fi~
Foxtrot83
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 03-07-2001 02:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll second that.
Ni3 is extremely sensitive to shock, so much in fact, that an ant crawling on it can detonate it. Plus, it isn't very powerful, it
doesn't actually detonate, it just decomposes *very* rapidly.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-07-2001 03:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I think it actually detonates. nitrogen triiodide has not practical uses since it is so amazingly sensitive. It's for demos only.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-08-2001 12:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beileve Kurt mentioned that Nitrogen tri-iodide is a fulminate in one of the PMJBs'.
[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited March 08, 2001).]
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 03-12-2001 12:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well,i had a similar idea to assgremlins(love the name) but it was more fun and effective.What you do is take a huge empty
pill casing and fill it up with your favorite shock sensitive HE(perhaps even flash)ans stick a blowgun dart into it very
gently.Then shoot it out of that same caliber blowgunlater-Pyro
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 03-12-2001 01:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen tiiodide is not a fulminate, quite simply because it doesn't contain a fulminate group (ONC-). There's no carbon or
oxygen in it.
ASSGREMLIN
New Member
Posts: 16
From: NIL
posted 03-12-2001 11:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was *safe*, cause really, what is? I was thinking about diluting the ammonia with pure water, maybe making it
more stable? anyone know if it would work?
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-13-2001 01:27 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you'll just get a smaller yeild of the same product, You'll probably never make it stable.
Colza
New Member
Posts: 12
From: New Zealand
posted 03-16-2001 09:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got some recipies for making cracker balls and globe torpedoes. These work realy well as impact sensitive detonators and
you can scale them up or down depending on what you are detonating. If anyone wants me to post these then i will. I haven't
tried them but they are from a very reliable source (professional pyrotechnics thing)
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 61
From:
posted 03-16-2001 10:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forget nitrogen triodide. Saxton is a guy that admits blowing his fingers off trying to grind a mixture of KClO3 and red
phosphous with a mortar and pestle.
If you want to try a impact or motion switch try powering it with a thermocouple heated by a pyrotechnic heat source. The heat
source is ignited by a conventional grenade fuse, instantanous. Power becomes available 2 or 3 seconds after leaving your
hand.
Otherwise go with a percussion fuze and a body configuration that will orientate the grenade for fuze activation.
Frosty
New Member
Posts: 28
From:
posted 04-06-2001 07:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an idea. I was looking at the insides of a toy that said somthing when you through it on the ground. Anyway, you could
have a a battery with two wires on each end + and - and have the positive wire connected to one wire of an ignitor, and on the
other wire of the ignitor there is a wire leading to a spring in a small short tube on the end of the wire. And the wire from the
negative side of the battery is connected to the tube.So that when it is hit hard enough the spring will touch the side of the
short tube and will complete the curcuit and the igniter will start and ignite your explosive. This might work, but I dont know if
it would ignite the igniter because the spring doesnt stay on the side of the short tube too long.
[This message has been edited by Frosty (edited April 06, 2001).]
Ezikiel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 66
From: New Delhi, India
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 05-27-2001 10:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all of u who r looking for ways to make grenades ....check out my postings in the 2nd page (near the end) of A big
charge of AP in explosive peroxides. Post any questions there.
------------------
"Go out in a BLAZE OF GLORY"
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 05-27-2001 11:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KClO3 and red phosphous isn't nitrogen tri iodide, it's armstrongs mix, witch could be used here
CodeMason
Frequent Poster
Posts: 383
From: Your Nightmares
posted 05-28-2001 03:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about that idea you frequently see on KeWl BomBarZ type sites? That is, filling a tennis ball up with safety matchheads
(don't even fucking think about using strike anywheres)... It should be comparitively safe, some improvised explosives books
(IMH, PMJB, etc.) even suggest making pipe bombs from them, but I'd still only carry it around in a plastic bag on the end of
a long stick.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 05-28-2001 04:21 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
safety matches wont go off that way they are just a potassium chlorate and they form armstrongs mix when you strike it on
the red phosphorus it ignites but it is very difficult to detonate in a tennis ball! however you can do it with a hammer
(saposedly) the strike anywhere or kitchen matches ignite without the striker beacuse the chlorate and red p is already mixed.
you should be reasonably safe with a new box of them, I have been unable to light the new kitchen matches on anything but
hard things like walls, my bots, and other hard and dry surfaces
CodeMason
Frequent Poster
Posts: 383
posted 05-28-2001 05:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety matches contain potassium chlorate and antimony trisulfide, incidentally, the same composition used for impact
firecrackers. You obviously haven't seen what a rock of powdered matchhead stuff binded with dextrin will do when thrown at a
hard surface.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 05-28-2001 10:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used to always make tennis ball grenades as adolescents. We would get some Red Birds set up an assembly line and go
to work.
we never had any problems with them...ever.
we would go out on a friday usually saturday(we had time to prep that way) and would reak havoc with Tennis Ball grenades
and KNO3/Sucrose Smoke bombs...
CodeMason
Frequent Poster
Posts: 383
posted 05-28-2001 06:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agent Blak, please elaborate on your experiences. I get get tens of thousands of matches for a few bucks (it's like 500 for
36c), and I live near a tennis court. Sounds like it could be a fun new hobbie! *evil grin*
ossassin November 27th, 2003, 09:30 PM

The military does use impact grenades, but they tend to be simple things like motolov coctails. It seems like a detonating
impact grenade would be very dangerous. You'd have to be able to arm it without starting any sort of a timed fuse, like a
40mm launched grenade. But since you'd be throwing it, not launching it, there couldn't be a time delay. What if you were
knocked over by something after you armed it?
xyz November 28th, 2003, 07:41 AM

There were some special issue impact grenades given to British special forces in WW2, this was because it is much easier to
hit a moving vehicle with an impact grenade than a timed one.
IIRC they had a weak shell (breaks on impact but protects during transport) around the outside with armstrong's mix under
that, then a primary, the metal case (pineapple scored to fragment, hole for primary to go through into HE), and then the filler
HE.
They were stored and carried in heavily padded boxes and only removed immediately prior to use.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Ice Projectile
Log in
View Full Version : Ice Projectile
subsonic June 12th, 2003, 07:36 PM

I tried to find a recent Discussion about a froze n liquid Projectile, couldn't find one, so I started this one.
W e all know the Benefits of a Projectile that will m elt a couple of seconds after its usage. I was thinking about its usability in a
c o m m on Fire arm like a silenced Pistol or Rifle. Some thoughts:
-It must be frozen right until it will be used. Ma gazin m ust be loaded quickly and then shot right away.
-A m obile Mini- or Micro-Refrigerator would be useful/required. Any ideas?
-Plain frozen W ater will be too e a s y t o b e u s e d a s a p r o jectile.
-Lead or an other Metals Dust could be m ixed with the liquid.
-An elastic substance instead of plain water could increa se its stability (ie . gum arabicum). The elastic substance would also
prevent the m etal dust to sink down while freezing the projectile.
- t h e r e m i g h t b e s o m e substances which help to "delay" the melting process for som e s e c o n d s .
-the projectile could sim ply be c a s t e d u s i n g a f o u n d r y - f o r m m a d e o f a n y m a t e r i a l .
Any suggestions? Is it possible at all? O r will the bullet break into thousa nd pieces even before it will leave the muzzle? Any
Ideas, Improvements? Links? Thanks a lot!
Mr-Eckted June 12th, 2003, 08:24 PM

I can't say for sure, b ut i belive that water would shatter before it left the gun.
W hat about using frozen meat? I don't think that meat would shatter. It would leave a residue of m eat, but who would suspect
that the m eat was the murder weapon? Any comm ents from those wiser than m e ( a n y o n e ) ?
EDIT: tricky o's and r's!

LOL:p Frozen m eat, that's gre at. I think it would be kinda hard to get m eat to fre e z e n i c e l y e n o u g h t o b e u s e d f o r a b u l l e t .
Not that I believe in movies are real but in a m ovie, there was a sniper who used frozen water for bullets. I think he shot two
people in the head with one bullet. I wish I could rem e m b e r t h e n a m e o f t h e m o v i e . I t h i n k h e h a d a s m all case that was
liguid nitrogen cooled .
Regardless, the bullet would have to have some kind of casing, so it isn't just casting the bullet. The bullet would have to be
m anufactured in some type of refrigerator. The y are m ore complicated than you think.
irish June 12th, 2003, 11:13 PM

To push frozen anything down a barrel at a decent velocity is going to m elt it due to frictio n.
Also frozen water, m eat etc has a very low density, to get a good im pact energy is going to take a hell of a velocity for the
s o m e load (w/w).
remem ber that unjacketed lead can only be pushed to about 2200 fps or so I don't think anyone has teste d frozen meat :D .
nbk2000 June 13th, 2003, 02:45 AM

This is extrem ely lam e...:rolleyes:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > switchblades - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : switchblades - Archive File

wiredfreak
New Member
Posts: 17
From: none of yuor fu**ing bissnes USA
posted 02-21-2001 01:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone know where You can buy a switch blade kit with shipping under 20 $ I found one site that did sell them but ): 20 $
knife = 68 $ shipping. I want a kit because kits are legal in the USA
[This message has been edited by wiredfreak (edited February 21, 2001).]
atropine
Frequent Poster
Posts: 129
From: wales
posted 02-21-2001 03:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHAHAHA. No. Switch blades are illegal just about everywhere except S.Africa. They are flimsey as fuck. And they will break
after you have pissed around stabbing shit with it. I made my own version ages ago. I knew a normal flick knife would break.
So mine was a sharp hardened steel spike, ejected by a car hatch opener. That i still have. Come on a kit flick knife. Like
airfix or something?
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 02-21-2001 05:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you can get gun kits in the US, so you would think...
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
posted 02-21-2001 05:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've always wondered- Why are switchblades illegal? I mean, they're knives. They're knives for lazy people that want to press a
button to open them. You can buy 12 inch daggers with no problems, but not a 6 inch switchblade. They're afraid they give
people an unfair advantage in fights or something?
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 180
From:
posted 02-21-2001 06:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they are more afraid of better made "automatic knives" not those POS made in tawian junk. I had the chance to buy a
few but passed up. I don't see any real benefit compared to some other knives. My smith and wesson special ops is pretty
fast to open. I have a legal automatic cause it is spring assist. One time my bro with his Smith and Wesson swat knife and me
with my kershaw blackout had a contest who could open faster. I had him beat by only like 1/5 a sec. I could see a use for
automatic knives if you had thick gloves on for the push button type.
Metal
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 02-21-2001 10:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't like switchblades, the reason that they're illegal is because of how fast they can open with their spring
mechanism (press a button and there it is). Now I think that it doesnt matter my Smith and Wesson SWAT knife can be
opened with a small flick on the wrist.
Instead of a switch blade you should get a Balisong (butterfly) knife. Once you learn how to manipulate it properly you can use
it for various things (fist loads, kubaton, use it to pinch you opponent, "smack" you opponent with it, and offcourse stab, and
slash). They also look fucking scary, if you start whipping it around the fear factor will make you opponent shit in his pants
and run to his mommy (trust me on this one).
You can buy them on eBay. Dont get a cheap ass 15$ one. Get a Jaguar for around 25-35$ or if you really want to go out get
a Benchmade 42 for around 120-150.
By the way I just got Jeff Imadas Balisong Manual which I will scan in and upload in around a week.
To learn more about Balisong techniques go to http://www.balisongxtreme.com
------------------
[This message has been edited by Metal (edited February 24, 2001).]
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 02-22-2001 01:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly's are fun knifes, its fun to watch it fly out of my friends hands when there trying to open it
I only know the standard (2-turn) opening method, it seems to be the fastest, this one time while trying to open the knife
really fast I failed to move my hand as fast as the knife and got the biggest bloodblister on my middle finger...
FragmentedSanity
New Member
Posts: 19
From:
posted 02-22-2001 03:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lo all
I live In Australia... and over here the laws are a little different - cant legally get even a butterfly knife... but that dont matter
- they are easy to make.
but making a decent switchblade is a bit more of a task, and one I'm yet to do well. I was always interested in one of those
kits - for the simple reason that if I saw the bits and put it together I could replilcate/improve it.
Atropine : - If youd care to give a more detailed description of the one you described I for one would be appreciative
If anyone out there has some schematics Id also be interested
And Metal - I cant wait to get a copy of the balisong manual - would be nice to know what to really do with one
later all
wiredfreak
New Member
Posts: 17
posted 02-22-2001 02:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was looking for a conversion kit sorry I did not make myself more clear I want to convert a case knife of mine
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 02-22-2001 02:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FragmentedSanity, enough of the smileys.
firebreether
Frequent Poster
Posts: 110
From:
posted 02-22-2001 03:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a 4 inch switchblade that (believe it or not) my dad gave me a while back. I just have fun playing with it. Scares the shit
out of some people
NightStalker
Frequent Poster
Posts: 116
From:
posted 02-23-2001 06:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as english is not my first language i have a simple question: switchblades are anything that you press a button and the blade
comes out?
If i understood this correctly you can buy those legally in germany from the time you are 16 years old. I have a speed-lock
and on or two others. i never suposed they were illegal in the US... weird world, guns are easy to get and there are limitations
on knives...
------------------
Death stalks silently....
wiredfreak
New Member
Posts: 17
posted 02-23-2001 09:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stupid its damn stupid
firebreether
Frequent Poster
Posts: 110
From:
posted 02-23-2001 10:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man those balisongs are awesome! I went to that site, and that guy goes crazy fast on some of those openings. It would scare
the shit out of me if someone I was about to fight started manipulating that knife. Inspiring. Now I want one.
[This message has been edited by firebreether (edited February 23, 2001).]
sealsix6
Frequent Poster
Posts: 154
From: NYC,NYC,USA
posted 02-23-2001 10:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone lives in the NYC or will be in the NYC area I can give u a exact store where to get some good high quality illeagle
weapons for cheep cross bows 60lbs brass knuckles switch blades swords nuncuucks snap batons almost anything.
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 02-24-2001 03:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hey seal I might be going to nyc can you list the addy. thanks
Also can you get firworks in chinatown, were ?
I've got a butterfly knife that I got for 10 bucks at a bunshow it's loads of fun, but scratched to shit
That site dosn't work for me anyone else ?
[This message has been edited by SofaKing (edited February 24, 2001).]
Brainmonkey
New Member
Posts: 37
From: Derry, N. Ireland
posted 02-24-2001 03:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the site isnt balisongextreme.com its balisongxtreme.com (sorry dont know how to do hyperlinks in HTML im only learning)
that is a wicked site some of the advanced stuff looks really dangerous
Ctrl_C
Frequent Poster
Posts: 225
From:
posted 02-24-2001 03:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no matter how hard i try, i cant use a butterfly. i cut my hand up so bad trying to use those fuckers. i have to admit though,
when they are in the hands of someone that knows how to use them, they're awesome.
on a similar note., my friends brother had a competition to see who could get the biggest weapon past metal detectors and
security officers into the school. The winner: 18" machette.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 02-24-2001 05:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security officers and metal detectors in SCHOOL????? What the fuck?!
Man, that could only be in America!
blackadder
Frequent Poster
Posts: 313
From: London
posted 02-24-2001 05:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, lol
I once knew a person who went to this american school where every single morning they had to get past the metal detectors,
then have their jacket searched and their bag searched, and even then, if people even heard about anything suspicious which
involved you, you spent half the day in the headmaster's office being interrogated(sp)!
[This message has been edited by blackadder (edited February 24, 2001).]
Metal
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 02-24-2001 07:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18" machete... very impressive.
Guy got lucky, if they caught him with that he would be fucked. The security guards were probably paying little attention. If I
even try to bring a sharpened key into my school they'll find it.
I have to find some kind of a weapon to bring in I just dont know what. Something that will get past the x-ray and metal
detector. Hmm... a pen can always do some damage but I need more than that. I was thinking of making "brass" knuckles
out of one of those hard plastic cutting boards.
Lucky me I'm really starting to get better with my Balisong. I should have the book scanned in and uploaded in a
week(hopefully).
------------------
Foodos
Frequent Poster
Posts: 210
From:
posted 02-24-2001 08:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ctrl_c, how you make yourself look like a pro with a butterfly knife:
use a butterfly knive with a single edge
line up the dull edge to where when you flip it around its smacking your hand (if youve used a butterfly, you know what I mean
by this..its easy to line up)
flip it around as fast as possible keep a good grip.
sealsix6
Frequent Poster
Posts: 154
From: NYC,NYC,USA
posted 02-24-2001 11:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate this I got done typing up a whole thing for this and I hit something and it all dissapered well what I was sayin is that I
can contribute more to this than ask questoins because I know alot about this topic first SofaKing I will get the address for you
I will ask my friedn for it because I know how to get there I just dont know the exact addy second thing Ctrl_C if you are
holding the knive by the handle without the latch you should be doing just fine and I dont know why the spell check doesnt
work for some reason for me
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 02-25-2001 04:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The link works fine now and thanks
Also on my knife the latch is on the side that the sharp of the blade closes on.
sealsix6
Frequent Poster
Posts: 154
From: NYC,NYC,USA
posted 02-25-2001 03:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sofa that is the way it should be the sharp side goes into the latch handle so you hold it by the side without the latch handle
Metal
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 02-25-2001 06:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all butterflys are the same. The safe handle is the one opposite of the one where the sharp side of the blade goes into.
The handle without the latch is ALMOST always the safe handle but not always.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 02-25-2001 09:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok.. some of you know that i am a knife collector.
Out of the 400+ knives i have... i have nearly two dozen that could be considered "switch blades" (those are front opening),
"stilleto's" (side opening), and newer styled "automatic knives". Also a few butterfly's.
I can tell you also why these have been banned. Idiotic beurocrats have mistaken the flash they produce in meaning they are
lethal. Granted they can be... but just because something is fast and flashy dosn't mean shit. Its a stupid law, but... shouldn't
concern anyone.. because all of the above, with the exception of a few of the newer automatics, are complete garbage. Only
your very high end ballisong and automatic knives are worth the money. Here's why:
Switch blades: These front openers are very very thin bladed, breaking easily. The steel usually used in them (especially the
ones you can get in mexico) is so damned soft.. it wont take an edge. Also the mechanisms in them are unreliable. Often
during an stabbing motion, upon much resistance.. the blade releases and falls back into the handle. Some times they dont
even lock open, but just bounce around. Also they are pretty small. I've NEVER seen a good switch type knife.
Stilleto's: While stilleto's (side openers) usually have a longer and thicker blade, most again, are too soft to take an edge.
Like i said, most. There are some very good italian models, but they are also in the 200 - 300 dollar range. Also... i have had
springs break inside the stilleto's, this permanently jambs them closed. Some of the italian models, i have seen as big as 14
inches. With very heavy, strong, quality blades. However... the heavier blades... put more wear on the springs.. making it
more likely for them to break. Murphy's law... this could happen at the worst possible time, when you need it most.
Ballisong: Butterfly knives CAN be good. Most however arn't worth two squirts of piss. 90% of the butterfly's i've seen for under
50 bucks are made so poorly, that when the handle is closed around the blade, the edge of the blade hits the inside of the
metal handle! Try and keep that kind of knife sharp! Every time you close it, especially in the traditional manner, you've just
made it as sharp as a "butter" knife. Also.. as someone pointed out... some knives are made with the latch on the wrong
side.. causeing some people, to slam the edge down across their knuckles.
Automatic Knives: Now this is the term given to the new generation of stilleto's. They have a totally different look than the
traditional ones, combined (usually) with excelent blades. The styles are more comfortabe to carry in your pocket, and more
comfortable in your hand. The only problem here, is they still use springs, and can still break.
My advice to any of you looking for a knife, is forget all these flashy ones. Why would you want to get arrested for carrying an
illegal knife, that has too many drawbacks in the firstplace. They are an unreliable weapon at best, and an innefective weapon
at worst. You'd be much better off getting a 5 - 9 inch bladed sheath knife. First of all, its not illegal; second, it is not likely to
break EVER; its easily sharpened; and if wielded correctly, just as intimidating as any other knife you could imagine.
In short.. the stilleto's, switch's, ballisong, and automatics are nice to have in a collection... but i wouldn't want to trust my life
to one.
------------------
BaDSeeD
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 02-26-2001 12:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can personally vouch for the crapness of front opening switchblades. The blade is loose and wobbles around, and my one
broke not long ago because I opened it using gravity (blade didn't lock when the button was pressed), and I swung my arm
with so much force that the blade simply shot out!
I quite like butterfly knives. The moves look impressive, and there is a faster way of opening the knife than the traditional
swinging. Grip the catch between your first finger and thumb, with the knife hanging vertically down. Prevent it from falling
open with the parm of your hand. Jerk the knife upwards and towards you, and catch the handle with your fingers so that
you're holding the knife in a vertical stabbing position. Closing it is trickier, but simple with practice.
Another problem with butterfly knifes is that the blade becomes loose after a while (on the cheap ones anyway). The handles
are usually made of a brittle alloy, I've seen them just snap when dropped.
It's a pity these are illegal in the UK, because I'd quite like to buy a decent one. I'll just have to wait 'til my next trip to
France/Germany.
BTW, this link should come in handy:
http://knives.at/knifeshop/info/siche.html
I've never ordered anything, if anyone from the UK has ordered from this (or other shops) I'd be interested to hear if the
knifes got past customs.
------------------
firebreether
Frequent Poster
Posts: 110
From:
posted 02-26-2001 02:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I've heard and seen of balisongs, just about anything you buy is shit and will break. Most of them the pins break
and you can easily replace them with a finishing nail, see BalisongXtreme on how. But it seems to always happen at the critical
point. Or like the Bear MGCs the handle will break the first time you go to fast and send it soaring.
BUT if you want to shell out around 130 for a benchmade then you have it. Supreme excellence. It wont break, bend, or
anything. SO good. The handles are titanium so they are strong and light so it is easy to whip around. Blade is Steel. Pins are
hollow titanium pressed into the socket, held in with a titanium screw. If you break your old cheapie and want high quality that
will last get the BM 42!!!!!!!
PS Butterfly knifes are cool they look like a nunchucka when you flip them fast.
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 03-01-2001 02:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the technique mentioned above http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~soo/balisong/article5.html comperable to tac
folders and fun to. Got it here http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~soo/balisong/balisong.html .
Zero
Frequent Poster
Posts: 93
From: ...
posted 03-01-2001 09:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno. Call me old fashioned, but I like regular old manual open lockback side openers. I have a cheap (but very durable)
Schrade I picked up at Home Depot for about ten bucks that's got a 50/50 serrated blade and composite handle. I used some
screws to put a belt/pocket clip on it. I can open that knife (it's not even designed to be a one hander) in an instant so I don't
really see the need for all these flimsy "novelty" knives. But that's just my twisted opinion...
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 03-01-2001 08:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bah, I use a SOG PUP I keep in my boot and a Cold Steel Medium Voyager (half serrated, tanto tip), that's in a bad
neighborhood though, generally I just carry my Pocket knife on myself LoL
IronWarlock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 97
From:
posted 03-06-2001 11:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wanna cheap balisong or switchblade? or a stilleto for that matter? just go to mexico lol, but i have to agree with a few of you
here about how switchblades and balisongs break, besides there illegal so dont get caught with them, personally id
recommend a throwing knife with a nice sharp point but thats my opinion
------------------
ASSGREMLIN
New Member
Posts: 16
From: NIL
posted 03-07-2001 02:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal: why don't you try one of those pen knives? ya know, the pen, where when you unscrew the back, theres a 2-3 inch
blade? I was gonna get one of those from SF china town, but the bastards in the store *claimed* that they were legitament
business men with nothing illegal. So i just bought a... i think it was a pilot knife or something. it was a blade attatched to a
metal sheath, and another one that doubled as a handle. And that shit opened FAST. Does anyone know what im talking
about??
Anyway the penknife: http://www.pimall.com/nais/e.knife.html
Metal
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 03-07-2001 04:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a pen knife. My problem with it is that if you try to stab "something" with it your hand will slide down and the bladde will
cut you.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 03-08-2001 04:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok guys, due to recent events, I've come to the realization of another drawback to folding knives, as well as stiletto's,
ballisong, and switch blades.
Most of the older posters on here know more about me than the newer. Anyhow, I am from Buffalo, New York. And anyone who
has ever been here knows that its a hell of a party town. Bars open till 4 a.m. (usually last call at 4:30), and a few streets
have a dozen or so bars within a two block stretch. Unfortunately, some of the best clubs are in the worst neighborhoods. They
even frisk most people for guns at the door.
Anyhow, last night some friends and I went out to have a little fun at a few of the clubs, and of course, as usual we closed the
place. After my friends and I said our goodbye's outside the door, we headed our separate ways to where we had parked. I
had chosen the parking ramp simply because it was closer than finding a spot on the street. And while walking to my car, this
black SOB walked up to me to ask for a cigarette. I couldn't exactly say no nicely by saying I didn't smoke (had one in my
mouth), so I shook one out of the pack and offered it to him. Well the bastard immediately pulled a folding knife out of his
coat pocket, and flicked it open via a thumb stud on the blade. Seeing as we were so close, and that I had to leave my Ruger
in the car to go into the club, I reacted immediately, instead of stepping back first. I slapped at the back of his knife hand
with my left, took a partial step forward, and in an uppercut type of swing, used the heel of my right hand to the bottom of his
jaw. Well anyhow, his teeth clicked together, and his head snapped back hard enough where he probably blacked out a little,
and wound up on his ass. Giving him some credit, he recovered pretty fast, and rolled to the side, and took off running. I tried
to catch the bastard, but with my size, and the fact that the fucker ran like a track star, I had no hope of catching him. On the
way back to my car, I happened across a cop walking his beat, and gave him a statement for his report, and a description.
Well they found him about an hour later (in the same area, the dumbass) and took him to the station where I identified him.
Needless to say he will be going to jail for attempted robbery and assault.
Now I got to thinking about this last night, and during work today. Here is the interesting part. When I slapped at the back of
his knife hand, guess what happened?
The knife slipped out of his hand, and skidded across the concrete! I never realized this before, but have had to do it
hundreds of times myself. When you open a folding knife with a thumb stud, open a stiletto, or switch blade. You have to
switch your grip on the knife BEFORE you can use it! With your fingers tucked under the knife to allow the blade to open, and
your thumb on top to work the stud, button, or switch, its not a very solid hold on the knife. That's why it came out of his
hand. If he had a sheath knife, I may have gotten a filleted arm for my trouble, or worse. Since when you draw a sheath
knife, you hand is already in place to use it, with a solid grip. I may have never realized this if it wasn't for this incident, so I
thought I should post it here.
Another plug for sheath knives I guess. And more proof that your pistol is useless if you don't carry it on you.
------------------
BaDSeeD
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 03-09-2001 04:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal I found a site that you might want to look at.
http://members.aol.com/knivesuk/plastic.htm
Its got articles on several "plastic knives".
------------------
BaDSeeD
Metal
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 03-09-2001 04:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, very... interesting.
------------------
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 03-09-2001 05:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to have a sheath knife and I love how fast there "combat-ready" plus a high quality one will last you forever, theres no
moving parts to break.
With that said, my butterfly is funnest knife I've ever owned.
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 03-12-2001 01:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always liked sheath knives myself. But the problem is, that they are a pain to conceal any of a decent size.
With that said however. My favorite that I own for carry, and use is my "Buck nighthawk".
I have some that I like a LOT better in looks... but I never use them for anything... just part of my collection.
Anyhow, the blade length is just about right, not too long. The steel is a little on the harder side, it makes it a bit more tough
to sharpen, but it holds its edge a little longer.
The handle is very comfortable (even when whittling), and the grip is secure even with bloody, or wet hands(I use one of them
for hunting, so don't ask about the blood). The only thing that I might have made different on it had I made it myself, would
have been to make it with a bigger blade guard. The one it has is certainly functional, but on the small side. Although... if it
was bigger, it probably wouldn't be as comfortable to use.
------------------
BaDSeeD
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 04-10-2001 02:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the flick knife kit which was described earlier isnt illegal in america..at least i saw some guy selling them at a flea market in
florida. man, he had an awesome selection of knives...
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 04-10-2001 02:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ps, there is quite a lot of good stuff including knives at http://www.spytech-uk.com/ (ppl from UK mainly should look here cos
its based in blackburn)
they have some great stuff
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-10-2001 04:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That site is great! They've got some good stuff and loads of books like Poor Man's James Bond.
Definitely one for the bookmarks!
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 04-10-2001 07:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hehe yeah, i love the ninja darts and the pistol crossbow
I'm going to order that crossbow and in the mean time, piss my pants laughing some more over the forum at weirdpier!
firebreether
Frequent Poster
Posts: 110
From:
posted 04-11-2001 08:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just bought a butterfly knife, a 30 dollar (US) jaguar. I got it from a store in the mall. I was lucky I was with my friend
because oyu need to be 16 to buy one and I'm 15. It is so much fun to flip, and I don't really care if the pins break because I
can replace them. I was with my best friend(girl) and was surprised to find out that she shoots guns, she is a REALLY good
sharpshooter and wins contests, so, I have a new source for smokeless, BP, and primers, lead balls for a mill. It is cool, she
shapes her own bullets! peace out
Pyro
Frequent Poster
Posts: 104
posted 04-11-2001 09:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn bro,you got fucken' lucky. I'd love to meet a girl like that. I bet she's some type of fat,trashy,schizophrenic though
right? A girl like that always fucks you(not literally) because you think "oh shit,she's a sharpshooter and a source of
smokeless,BP etc. etc.!" Then you find out she has a dick or something like that -Pyro
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 04-12-2001 03:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
talking from experience?
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 04-14-2001 07:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a switchblade from nato :?
i didnt know they carried them..
firebreether
Frequent Poster
Posts: 110
From:
posted 04-14-2001 02:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, actually shes pretty fuckin hot. And she is cool. Maybe she will show me her gun room where she has like 50 guns, maybe
i'll get to shoot some of her muskets or her dads sniper rifle. She hit and X from 50 Yards, which is pretty damn good if ya ask
me considering I could barely see a target that far.
mark
Frequent Poster
Posts: 195
From:
posted 05-01-2001 08:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just bought an italion stilleto, and it verry nice. Its got a 3 inch blade, and I love playing with it. Its got one of those locks
that allow you to close it with one hand.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Home made Tazers - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Home made Tazers - Archive File

ILLuSion
New Member
Posts: 6
From:
posted 03-08-2001 10:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been experimenting with making a homemade tazer. Even though mine works partially sometimes, I'm wondering if
any of you have made a tazer before? And if so could you illustrate the plans to me?
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 03-08-2001 10:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how did you make it? i've often wanted a tazer, but i think they're illegal here (aus) a home made one would do fine though,
they have the advantage of being untraceable
ILLuSion
New Member
Posts: 6
From:
posted 03-08-2001 10:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just looked at a couple designs of tazers, took a few of my friend's tasers apart and started from scratch from there.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 03-08-2001 11:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how many volts is it?
does it look like a Peice of junk?
how long idid it take you to build with your reverse engineering techniques?
------------------
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 03-09-2001 03:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you gotta watch out for homeade tazors dude. you hit the victim in the middle of the chest and you could possibly pass a
current through the heart. bad news if you only wantesd to knock them down.
------------------
...
ILLuSion
New Member
Posts: 6
From:
posted 03-10-2001 03:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is 200,000 volts I think. Yes I know Homemade Tasers are sometimes bad news. I have taken many steps on precaution
for them
ASSGREMLIN
New Member
Posts: 16
From: NIL
posted 03-12-2001 01:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a book that shows how to make a tazer, and a load of other crap (lasers, ultrasonic "pain generators," etc.) and i would
love to post the plans, but i don't have a scanner For anyone interested the book is called "Build Your Own Laser, Phaser, and
Ion Ray Gun." The author basically bought a bunch of the plans from Information Unlimited Inc. ( www.amazing1.com ) and
tested them. And although the name sounds cheesy, I've looked at the schematics, and they seem valid.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-12-2001 03:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is a bull shit site and If you buy a laser from them they will send you a blinking led I know people that have orderd from
there.
vehemt
Frequent Poster
Posts: 580
From: Canada
posted 03-12-2001 05:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing1.com isnt a bullshit site, but they do have incredibly high prices.
The author of "Build Your Own Laser, Phaser, and Ion Ray Gun", Robert Ianini(spelling), is the owner of Information Unlimited.
He wrote the book nearly 20 years ago(his company existed back then too, the book was somewhat of a plug for the company
as a source of parts for certain projects).
Its not bullshit, just really, really, really, old(proven) technology.
Im not saying you should buy anything from Information Unlimited, but what I am saying is that the book is just fine(just
borrow it from a library and make some photocopies of the pages you want the plans for). In general information Unlimited is
out to get your money though.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-12-2001 05:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just dont buy their kits and expect their descriptions to be accurate.
ASSGREMLIN
New Member
Posts: 16
From: NIL
posted 03-12-2001 10:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, their descriptions *are* acurate (in the book) and although its old, it works.
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 03-13-2001 07:34 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illusion, do you have any schematics? If not, can you describe the circuit (i/e this block does this etc)? I'm building a stun gun
(all info including schematics and current results on my site), I've found the difficult part of the circuit is the HV transformer.
I've wound my own, but from descriptions of other circuits I don't think I have a high enough step up ratio.
J
------------------
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-13-2001 02:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: The HV transformer is pretty easy, but you have to take special precautions to achieve very high voltages without flashover.
Greatest circuit efficiency is obtained with a high frequency primary oscillator driven at 20KHz or higher.
For the output transformer, start with a piece of ferrite rod to use as a core - a piece of the rod from an AM radio antenna
works fine (round) or you can use a section of the ferrite core from a TV flyback transformer (usually square). Wrap this with
Mylar and wind the coil directly on that. You don't need a "closed" transformer core - a rod-wound solenoid configuration will
provide all the coupling you need for this application.
Don't exceed about 2 inches for the coil length as the voltage differential between the ends of adjacent coil layers will be too
great. Use corona dope (TV repair supply) on each winding and cover this with .001 Mylar tape. Pay special attention to
insulating the ends of each winding layer, as this is the weakest spot electrically.
Overwind the secondary - that is, calculate a turns ratio for 300-400KV - this isn't critical. When completed, test the unit using
controlled-gap regulation. The gap distance will limit the voltage output and by slowly increasing the gap you'll quickly find the
point at which internal flashover begins. Simply fix the gap regulator distance at a point short of this flashover or insulation
breakdown point and you're all set.
Peak to peak output voltage is estimated at the rate of 75KV per inch spark gap (spherical electrodes at 760mm Hg
atmosphere and 25C temperature).
Using care in winding and the best insulation materials I've achieved 5 inch blue sparks (almost 400KV) from coils as small as
2.5"L x 1.5"D overall, from a primary circuit powered by two 9V "clip" batteries. Output was limited only by the insulation
materials - with vacuum impregnation output voltage of over 500KV could easily be realized.
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 03-13-2001 07:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My transformers have so far been limited by the size of the RM10 core kits I'm using. I can wind 1500 turns of 0.125mm ECW
on one of these before there is no room for the primary winding. I have experimented using primaries of 10 turns 1mm ECW,
and 20 turns of 0.25mm. The 20 turn primary allows the transformer to operate at a higher frequency, although the spark
length is nearly the same as the 10 turn primary. Is there a set minimum/ideal number of turns for the primary to get the
maximum efficiency?
I might go skip raiding later, there's usually a monitor or two in the university skips ;-) Thanks for the info, I always assumed
that a closed core was needed. Is there a possible substitute for the mylar? What about some insulation tape?
Is the order of windings critical? I wind the secondary first, then the primary. This way I can play around with different ratios
easilly.
------------------
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-13-2001 09:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J: Your statement about a 20 turn primary allowing higher frequency operation leads me to suspect you may be using the
primary winding of your HV transformer as part of a tuned oscillator circuit. This will work, but output is likely to be limited and
current consumption will be fairly high.
The units I've built are 2-transformer circuits utilizing a stand-alone pulse oscillator with its own closed core transformer (also
ferrite), and a secondary of between 300-600 Volts. This can be wound using a traditional "E" core, but my best results were
obtained with a ferrite toroid. The 300-600V pulse output in turn drives the primary of the ferrite rod HV transformer,
capacitively coupled (~0.5uF/600VAC) to limit input current and prevent core saturation. This system also provides a testbed
for experimenting with different HV coil designs, since these can simply be interchanged.
Output of the oscillator stage is a 22-25KHz short-duration pulse train at almost the supply voltage (about 16V in this case)
driving the toroidal transformer (call this T-1). The T-1 secondary is a (nominal) 450 Volt pulse. With the HV primary as a load
in series with the 0.5uF/ 600VAC capacitor, the T-1 output waveshape exhibits a short leading edge but a damped trailing
edge (decay curve) due to core reluctance and capacitive effect.
The HV transformer (T-2) is simply a solenoid-wound coil (as previously stated) with the primary wound outside (or adjacent
to) the secondary winding. Maximum potential (turns ratio) output can thus be varied by changing the number of primary
turns, without in any way affecting the output of T-1.
As to the question of insulation, there's really not much room for compromise when dealing with high voltage. Ordinary PVC
electrical tape definitely won't withstand the inter-layer (much less the layer-end) differentials that exist in transformers of
such compact design (a problem that doesn't exist with physically large, single-wound Tesla coils). The Mylar sheet used for
the core liner ought to be available as drafting film. For the Mylar tape try a specialty supplier such as Jolitape http://
www.jolitape.ca/transformer_motor.htm They'd probably be more than willing to supply samples for your "pre-production
prototype" or "R&D program".
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 03-14-2001 06:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not using a tuned circuit. It is a multivibrator driving a 2N3055 with the output. The primary is connected between the
collector and the positive supply rail.
I don't know why the 20 turn primary causes it to operate well at a higher frequency. The 10 turn seems to have an optimum
frequency, after which it just gets worse and eventually won't operate.
The nights skip raiding has yielded a flyback out of a colour monitor, so later on I'll be doing some experimenting. There are
also quite a few capacitors of between 400v and 600v that should come in handy. I intend to use the main PSU transformer I
removed as a mid range transformer, and the flyback in series with a capacitor as a second HV unit (as you have described).
I'll probably have to wind a custom primary onto the flyback, and I hope it hasn't burnt out. If so, I'll just remove the ferrite
core and wind my own.
Could I use potting compound as insulation in this case? I have seen it recommended in the patent for a stun gun I looked
at.
------------------
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-14-2001 02:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I envision your circuit correctly, the 3055 is simply being used as a switch to ground for the HV primary, much as the points
in an automotive distributor are used to interrupt current through the ignition coil. The HV primary acts as a load in what
essentially is a DC short when the 3055 switch is conducting, which imposes a terrific current drain equivalent to (almost)
shorting the battery when the 3055 base is driven high. The only things saving this circuit from self-destruction are the current-
limited supply and the inductive reactance of the HV primary (which without the core would present almost zero DC resistance
whether it was 10 turns or 40). What's happening is that with twice as many primary turns inductive reactance is double and
recovery times are shorter resulting in higher frequency (a tuned circuit of sorts, albeit a crude one). If I had to guess I'd say
that in either case (10 turns or 20) the battery is being loaded beyond its ability to supply current at the rated voltage. This is
consistent with your observation that frequency increased with 20 turns while HV output remained unchanged. Measure the
supply (battery) voltage under both operational conditions to confirm this theory.
The advantage of using a pulse oscillator is that the low duty cycle pulse train driving T-1 imposes a minimal current
requirement, while the high saturation rate and low reluctance of ferrite make for lower rms current/shorter recovery time thus
allowing high amplitude pulses to the T-2 primary. This is why reducing (within reason) the number of turns in the T-2 primary
to increase HV output has little effect on circuit performance.
Trying to use the secondary of a TV flyback as-is probably won't give good results. The best flybacks typically are designed to
withstand voltages only up to about 50KV - their construction just isn't suited to withstanding impulse gradients greater than
this.
In terms of insulation the principal function of potting compounds is to exclude air and moisture. However, with high voltage
the potting material itself must exhibit high insulative properties and dielectric strength. In general, the (unfilled) RTV silicone
formulations are a pretty good choice for HV work, but only when properly degassed and applied under vacuum conditions
(improperly used, some silicones can actually entrain water). The corona dopes (mentioned earlier) are a good alternative. In
conjunction with good insulation, HV performance will also be improved if the coil is wound with a small space between adjacent
turns, although this is only practical if one has access to a coil winding machine or a lathe with precision feed.
Muffscre's digits
New Member
Posts: 28
From: surrey,BC Canada
posted 03-31-2001 12:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
make sher that it is under 50mA current.
with 50mA and 30V and up it can kill.
so 9v with 159mA will not kill
and 110V and 5mA will not kill
but 110V and 70mA will kill
[This message has been edited by Muffscre's digits (edited March 31, 2001).]
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 03-31-2001 12:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you got a reference for this? I'm not disbelieving you, I was under the impression that a number of conditions were
involved (e.g. skin dryness, position of electrodes/current path, duration) in the conductivity of the human body, and there is
no exact set minimum voltage required to kill someone.
J
------------------
[This message has been edited by J (edited March 31, 2001).]

c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 03-31-2001 01:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only blanket statement that can be made on this subject is that as little as 16 mA AC directly through the heart muscle
can cause ventricular fibrillation. DC current has a clamping effect and brief shocks are therefore not as dangerous to the
heart. Similarly, large AC currents are less dangerous in this respect (but do more tissue damage). The following may be
helpful:
=============================================
Physiological Effects Of Electric Current Densities On The Human Body
1 - 5 mA = Threshold of Sensation
5 - 10 mA = Mild Sensation
10 - 20 mA Cannot Let Go/Painful
20 - 30 mA = Muscular Paralysis/Severe Shock
30 - 50 mA = Breathing Upset/Labored
50 - 75 mA = Extreme Breathing Difficulty
75 - 100 mA = Ventricular Fibrillation
100 - 200 mA = Death
200 - 1000 mA = Severe Burns/Breathing Stops
(Note that the above values are density averages. As little as 16 mA *directly* through the heart muscle is sufficient to cause
ventricular fibrillation.)
The chart shows the effect of various current densities on the human body. Voltage is not the prime consideration, although it
takes voltage to to produce the current flow. The amount of shock current depends on the body resistance between the points
of contact and the skin condition, that is, moist or dry. For example the internal resistance between the ears is only 100 ohms
(less skin resistance), while from hand to foot the internal resistance is close to 500 ohms. Skin resistance may vary from
about 1,000 ohms for wet skin to over 1/2 Megohm for dry skin, and is even lower for AC.
Shock becomes more severe as current rises. At values as low as 20 mA breathing can become labored, and as the current
approaches 100 mA, ventricular fibrillation of the heart occurs. Above 200 mA, the muscular contractions are so severe that the
heart is forcibly clamped during the shock. This clamping protects the heart from going into ventricular fibrillation and the
victim's chances for survival are good if the victim recieves immediate medical attention.
=============================================
And a website that gives some information:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/shock.html
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 04-11-2001 09:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so... any sites or what ?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-13-2001 01:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, two things:
a) putting bpoth live and neutral wires on the same metal rod will just short them.
b)You stand a good chance of killing someone with a full curent belt off the mains like that.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 04-13-2001 05:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"there are 2 things you can do with this*****
1. smack somone near a power outlet
2. stick in dirt and move up and down like your having sex with the ground, this will make worms come to the surface (good if
you have reptiles)..."
Pretty sure they use light vibrations to simulate rain to cause worms to come to the surface.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-13-2001 09:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, running head first into a brick wall is not the best way to guarantee your longevity.
There's information on the effects of electrical current on humans right in this very thread. 240v will drive a current of 240mA
through wet skin. Referring to the above chart we can see that this equals death. Mains current is also capable of blowing large
chunks of flesh out of your body.
If you don't think it will kill you then be my guest to seperate the ends of a cord and touch one to each of your niples.
-phreakyphool-
New Member
Posts: 1
From: Surrey
posted 05-01-2001 01:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a small zapper schematic I found at school, it's big!: (loads in new window)
SCHEMATIC
It has a low battery warning and a ready LED
------------------
-PhreakyPhool-
[This message has been edited by -phreakyphool- (edited May 01, 2001).]
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 05-01-2001 03:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hate to disillusion you, phreakyphool, but I think whoever designed this thing and called it a "Zapper" must have been playing
some kind of joke. The first transistor (and zener diode) forms a simple voltage regulator to reduce the 9 volt supply to about
6 volts. The second transistor causes the red LED to light when battery voltage goes below 7.2v. The 555 timer is set up as an
oscillator producing a 30KHz square wave (at about 6 volts peak to peak), which causes the green LED to light. The copper
pipe "hand-holds" carry the same 555 output that drives the LED, but with a 1K resistor in series. The only result of gripping
the copper "hand holds" *might* be (under the most favorable conditions) that you would act as a sort of current shunt and
cause the green LED to dim slightly.
I doubt you'd feel more than the mildest tingle (if that) if you were clutching this device while sitting in a bath with your hands
covered with conductive gel.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 05-06-2001 06:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marx generators are cool, but couldn't be made very portable for a taser:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/marx.htm for more info.
I made one with 30 surplus 10kV, 0.06uF capacitors, so it could make 300,000 volts. That equals 90 joules, all discharged in
less than 1uS. That means it has a peak power of OVER 90 MILLION WATTS!
If you make one like this, wear ear protection. It's very loud!
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 05-06-2001 01:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marx Generators kick ass! those things are cool! and loud as hell!
sealsix6
Frequent Poster
Posts: 154
From: NYC,NYC,USA
posted 05-07-2001 08:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
check out http://www.wpi.edu/~jccook/ph1121.html
protical sun
New Member
Posts: 27
From: shove it
posted 05-22-2001 12:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
try using the innerds of a disposable camera. it more stuns the person than anything else, just enough time to hit them with a
bobby club or something.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 05-22-2001 05:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the camera flash will not perece clothing though
Igenx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: No Fucking Way
posted 05-22-2001 05:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a flash unit off of an old camera (one of the ones that had the big detachable flash) that I bought intending to rip
apart. Thing still worked, so I just hooked up a pair of leads so I could fry electronics with it. While it does deliver a hell of a
shock (believe me on this one ) it isn't enough to put you down. I zapped myself a few times intentionally (and
unintentionally) and I never lost total control. Only caused twitching, which is bad if your target has a gun.
O yeah... Hook up a pair of wire leads to a cork with a pair of fishhooks. Since a "real" tazer needs physical contact anyways, it
shouldn't be a problem to get close enough to jab the target.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Silencer For The Irish - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Silencer For The Irish - Archive File

Agent Blak
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 766
posted 03-18-2001 01:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I heard that is is possible to make a Silencer from a Spud. Apperently all you have to do is get a large Spu d m a k e a h o l e
straight down the middle of it(a bit bigger than the projectile). Then using a knitting needle stab holes all the way through the
S p u d . Y o u m ay have to make the whole larger at the end so your sights and m uzzel will fit. Then after your are done with it
send it down the garborator.
------------------
AR-15 Man
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 180
From :
posted 03-18-2001 04:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it will work for .22s. The IRA use to pop them i n a . 2 2 p i s t o l . S h o o t s o m e o n e ' s k n e e t h e n k i d n a p t h e m . But in m y
dream last night I m ade one for a .22 rifle out of a 24 ounce Mountain Dew Bottle. Then later I m a d e o n e o u t o f a 2 l i t e r
bottle for a Tec-9. In my dream the bullet still m a d e n o ise from going supersonic but you could not hear the gun th at much.
The biggest dissapointment is that they don't last too long.
Predator
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 141
From : U nknown
posted 03-18-2001 05:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol
No offence taken, AB
All a s i l e n c e r d o e s i s t o w a s t e t h e e x p a n d i n g g a s e s e n e r g y o n s o m ething other then the im m e d i a t e e n v i r o n m e n t , h e n c e

stop ping a 'crack' from t h e g a s
You'll find a loaf of bread works m uch better then a potato though
In a dream I silenced a .22 down to th e point that I couldn't actually hea r it anym ore, it was just the sound of the ham m er
hitting the rim of the shell, zero noise from the gas itse lf!
Loafs of bread rule

You have to actually stick about 2 inches of the barrel into the loaf of bread though.
c0deblue
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 229
From :
posted 03-19-2001 01:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L O L n e v e r h e a r d t h a t o n e b e f o r e - s o u nds good though. Now all that rem ains is for som eone to write a specification for
different wea pons and calibres. Som ething along the lin e s o f
.22 LR - Club R oll
.32 - Kaiser Roll
.380 - Whole W heat loaf
.38 S&W - R y e o r P u m p e r n i c k e l
.357Mag - Sub loaf, large
.45 ACP - Italian loaf
.44 Mag - Ba g u e t t e
Etc. etc. (but all with lettuce and mustard)
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 679
From :
posted 03-19-2001 01:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N e v e r h e a r d t h e p o t a t o o n e , I o n c e d r e a m ed about using a waterm elon, it worked real well aside from the waterm e l o n g u t s
flying everywhere, I think the seeds may have slightly affected the bullets path.
L o a f o f b r e a d . . . I h a v e t o d r e a m that som e d a y .
D e m olition
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 158
From : Austra lia
posted 03-19-2001 05:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In m y dream a small plastic d rink bottle(250mls)was taped to the m uzzle of a .22 rifle.Th e result was extrem ely go o d . F r o m a
loud crack echoing off the hills to a sm all poof!The good thing about the slightly thicker plastic is that it can be used many
tim es before shattering unlike the C o k e o r F a n t a b o t t l e s .
G o o d f o r g o i n g h u n t i n g o n o t h e r p e o p l e s p r o p e rty with them eve n knowing.
D e m olition
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-19-2001 11:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s o m e o n e I k now in a law studies class in our school told m e he watched a pallidin press m ovie that showed t h e m h o w t o m a k e
a silencer, I think tha at movie m a y g o m issing...
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 03-19-2001 03:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I tried a 2 litre plastic bottle on a pipe shotgun and it did *not* work - in fact there was very little of the bottle left
Agent Blak
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 766
posted 03-19-2001 04:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pop bottle trick o nly realy works for a DUCE-DUCE.
------------------
CragHack
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 618
From :
posted 03-19-2001 05:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the "duce-Duce" as you call it os easily silenced anyway. m y step father told me about a guy who used to p oach deer with a
spotlight and a .22. he would put the rubber nipple of a baby bo ttle over the m uzzle, spot light the deer walk up to it and ca p
it in the head. not alot of noise produced by the .22 and a deer to boot.
------------------
...
Bubba
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 71
From :
posted 03-23-2001 04:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a Paladin book on Practical Firearm S u p p r e s s o r s . U s e s 2 s i z e s o f p v s p i p e a n d c o m e steel wool to m a k e a s i l e n c e r . T h a t
was 1 of about 6-10 designs. Each was for a different caliber. I could scan it into a .PDF if anyone is interested?
L o o k i n g f o r R a g n a r s b o o k o n f l a m ethrowers m y s e l f . m y e - m a i l i s : g u n s t u f f @ a i s - u s a . n e t
Agent Blak
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 766
posted 03-24-2001 12:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bubba,
s o u n d s g o o d . DO you have any others that you could also scan in(ie.R olling Thunder)?
------------------
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 03-27-2001 02:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discs of corrugated cardboard ram m e d into a pipe that screw onto the en d of the barrel works for high power pneum atic
airguns, so it will also work for firearm s, although it m a y n e e d t o b e b i g g e r .
Also, rubber discs with holes just slighlty sm aller than the bullet will elim inate the sonic boom by slowing the bullet, although
they soon wear out and decrease the accuracy greatly.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > "Fire Ant" - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : "Fire Ant" - Archive File

nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 03-22-2001 06:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an interesting little gadget I ran across while surfing.
It's called a "Fire Ant" and it uses explosively formed projectiles to defeat tanks.
The prototypes were destroyed when the EFP was fired, but the latest generation is reusable.
Looks like something that could be easily enough improvised since it uses a quad runner.
What I'm thinking is that, rather than aiming the EFP parallel to the ground, aim it vertically. Then drive a scaled down (R/C
car) FA underneath an armoured cars engine compartment and blow a big hole in the engine block. If an armoured car can't
move that eliminates their chance of fleeing thus making it much easier to break in.
It could also be used to assassinate a person by directing the EFP underneath their seat.
For these purposes you would need a highly powerful explosive, a well designed penetrator, and a non-fragmenting container
so the FA could place the charge under the target without getting destroyed when fired.
This is to prevent leaving behind a destroyed R/C that can be traced through the serial #s.
I'm thinking a EFP attached to the front of the FA using a small electromagnet that will release the EFP when the reverse is
used. And if the EFP charge has a grenade fuse attached it will explode 5 seconds after release, which is more than enough
time for the R/C to get away unscathed.
Any other ideas on what a FA would be useful for?
BTW, I found it in a PDF. You can now search PDFs on the web using the Google search engine ( www.google.com ) and at the
beginning of your search terms entering "inurl:pdf" (no quotes). For example "inurl:pdf "fire ant" explosively" will pull up the
aforementioned PDF as the very first listing.
------------------
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited March 22, 2001).]
Crux
Frequent Poster
Posts: 71
From: australia
posted 03-23-2001 08:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the thing that has been talked about in other posts.
i've seen it on a show about weapons they set it up next to a road and it has a sencer that tells when something moves infront
of it. then it blows up sending that copper plate at the target completly fucking it up.
on that show they had all sorts of r/c weapons useing quad runners and cars.
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 03-24-2001 02:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the victim was aware of the attack method, it would be simple enough to jam the signal if the vehicle was homemade (i.e,
using hobby rc gear). Not to mention interference from the kid playing with his rc car!
I've always been interested in rc attack vehicles, but I've never got round to building one.
------------------
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 03-27-2001 04:28 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahh good point J, but if it were a VIP in an armoured car that would not work, for it could jam an R/C car it could jam alot of
other civilian devices, mobile phones, construction gear, robotics, sensitive electronics, etc.. it just wouldn't be allowed on a
commercial armoured car, and hey, if they do jam the R/C car get it with something else, you would go prepared wouldn't you?
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-27-2001 02:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think PCM (pulse code modulation)recever/transmitter pairs are harder to jam
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 03-27-2001 04:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah they are, (standard RC gear is PPM [IIRC]) more expensive too.
[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited March 27, 2001).]
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 03-27-2001 10:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think a person could modify a 2GHz spread spectrum phone and base station set to be a remote.
Spread spectrum is not only very difficult to detect, but it's also nearly impossible to jam. God bless modern consumer
electronics.
Plus the more expensive ones have a line of sight range of almost a mile.
Forward 1 2 3 Left 4 5 6 Right 7 8 9 Back * 0 # ARM Detonate1, 3, 7, 9, and 0 are all unused.
The arm * must be held down while the detonate # is pressed. This is to prevent premature or accidential explosion because
of sloppy button handling due to stress.
And I'd imagine it would be feasible to make a fiber-optically guided Fire Ant where the steering commands are sent as coded
pulses of light to a phototransistor over commercially available fiber.
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 03-27-2001 11:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why run a fiber optic cable when wire will work, I'd personally get a cheap IR laser and an ir laser detector and get a beam
diffusor and a aiming scope, then your basic stamp module deodes the signal and oes what you tell it to.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 04-20-2001 07:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found a website where you can download a couple of videos of the Fire Ant in action.
http://www.sandia.gov/isrc/Capabilities/Integration_Technologies/Fire_Ant/fire_ant.html
------------------

hodehum
New Member
Posts: 21
From: New Zealand
posted 04-20-2001 09:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By chance did you find this while looking for feature recognition software and sensors for your tele-sniper file?
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 04-20-2001 10:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. I was just looking for more info on the fire ant. Needless to say, there was butt loads of info about the insect kind that I
had to dig through.
The idea of pattern recognition for remote weapons is neat, but it's out of reach for the "home" experimenter because of the
cost and highly specialized nature of the electronics.
The best available right now is motion detection (like in "The Hit" story) and (remotely possible) facial recognition. A person
would probably have to custom write their own code if they wanted anything really sophisticated.
------------------
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 04-20-2001 11:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had the equipment to program the chips it might not be that hard. But I don't so that would be a bitch. using some
video game drivers as the software(you can easily buy kits for programming your own video games at future shop), and some
servos you should be able to set it up. bestof luck to those that try.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 05-02-2001 09:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quad runners are very fast. My landlords quad can do at least 50mph over fairly rough terrain, as fast or faster than an
Abrams.
Quads are very small compared to other vehicles and would be very difficult to detect and intercept, especially lying in
ambush.
Quads can carry 200 pound loads easily. A maverick or hellfire missle can destroy an Abrams and they have only 100 pound
warheads.
Tank armour is thickest at the front. True, top attack is effective, but so is rear and side attack through the threads. Which is
where a fire ant would be attacking from.
A fire ant is much easier to improvise than an R/C plane capable of carrying a similar sized warhead. If you could build an R/C
that big, why not just make it into an attack plane that you could fly in yourself? It'd be about as hard to do it that way.
An old quad can be bought for about $2,000. Another thousand for electronics and warhead. Can you make an R/C plane that
will carry a 200 pound warhead for 3 grand? I doubt it.
As for practical reasons for making one....Waco. The government loves using tanks for murdering people because they know
they're safe from anything the people might have to resist them with.
But if a fire ant came flying out of a hidden bunker, ran up a tanks ass, and blew a hole through it, setting it and everyone
inside on fire, how eager would the next tank crew be to try it? At the very least you'll have taken some of the bastards with
you before they kill you.
And with the right equipment, you could drive a swarm of fireants into the attackers base camp and take them out and escape
during the confusion.
And what about driving one through the front doors of a "rouge" government building? Several hundred pounds of high
explosive exploding from the inside of a building would be the equivalent of a truck bomb outside. All the concrete barriers
and road blocks couldn't stop it. And you could have several of them inside of a moving van attacking several different
buildings simultaneously, a swarm attack.
------------------
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited May 07, 2001).]
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 294
From:
posted 05-03-2001 12:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chaos... absolute chaos
------------------
angelo's place
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 05-03-2001 07:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One has only to look at the actions of the government against civilians minding their own business and getting slaughtered by
tanks and fire to see a pattern emerging. A pattern of evil and suppression of "differentness".
BTW, there were abhrams tanks at Waco, M113s at Ruby Ridge, and almost every other "mind control cult, gun hording militia,
meth cooking, bomb making, child raping, kill the parents to save the children" incident in the last decade.
I see a pattern of where, every time someone says "we want to be left alone to do our own thing", the government says "we
can't let you do that for 'the childrens sake'." and comes rolling in with the tanks. After they capture you, you disappear into
the federal prison system, never to be heard from again.
Why do you think they're slowly banning guns? "They're not banning guns, they're simply taking away 'evil' assault weapons
that have no sporting purpose" I hear you say. BULLSHIT!
Eventually, the only weapon people will be allowed to have (after DNA, fingerprinting, retinal scan, 1 year 'cooling off' period,
ATF home inspection, and in home 24 hour video monitor installation) will be a single shot black powder musket. Just ask the
brits here about gun control.
Why? "For the children" they always say. "We have to get rid of guns to keep the children safe" they say. What they really
mean is "We don't want the children of today to be able to resist us when they're the adults of tomorrow.".
More people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by all the wars and criminals. That's a fact no
one can deny. And all of those killed were disarmed first! Ask the jews, poles, albanians, bosnians, and cambodians killed by
the Nazis, Communists, Khemer-Rouge (SP?), etc.
The only thing stopping that from happening here in america is an armed civilian population. Once that's gone, we're sheep
for the slaughter.
As for the EFP vs. Shaped Charge...EFP may not have as much penetration, but it can reach out much further than a SC can.
Watch the video, the FA destroys a tank at least 50 yards away. A SC is ineffective more than four or five times it's diameter
from a target. Show me a shaped charge that can penetrate a tank from 50 yards away....you can't.
Some people try to compare a Fire Ant with a military missile like a TOW or Hellfire. You can't get those missiles, I can't get
those missiles, and more likely than not, no one here can get those missiles. Also can't improvise such missiles.
But anyone (with the money) can buy a quad runner and strap a huge bomb to it, and make a remote control for it from
commercially available components available almost anywhere.
------------------
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 05-03-2001 10:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is best to have tactics that suit your equipment, skills, and ability; It makes know sense to say I will snipe them at 3000m
with my .50cal, if you don't have a .50cal and/or aren't that good of a shot. I feel that no one needs to have a "Belt Fead"
machine gun. I see the governments point there. But I think everyone should have the right to own FireArms(under most
circumstance). I was taught by my father at a very young age(about 6-7 years) how to shoot. I at that age knew how to shoot
accurately enough to down a man at 100m. it doesn't mean I did it; It means I could. I was taught respect for weapons and
safety; thats is the way I think it should be(taught to you by your old man, etc.). Every person should know how to fight or
fight back; I was taught at a young age by my father; I wasn't picked on to much. I feel thet it is necessary for a person to
know how to defend themself, family, a property with what they have commonly avaiable.
you have to ask yourself in what interest is it for a government to disarm its population?
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 05-05-2001 02:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he did notscrew your post up for his own benifit, you are bedcoming a whiner, and it is increadibly annoying, as for editing your
post to our likeing it is offical mod busnuess, we can vent our anger at you through your posts therefore helping us view the
forum with an unprejudiced view, this message was fairly edited this could have been MUCH worse. act right unless you want to
end up in the new banned for life section.
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 05-06-2001 01:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many quotes come to mind about goverment, tyranny, and armed populace, and revolution. But I can't quote them right now
because I watched TV tonight. The government of the world have been progressing towards tyranny for sometime and with out
resistance will become totalatarian. Nuff said.
About the OK city bombing McVeigh is just the fall man like oswald, the bombing was perpatrated by the government, to
progress anti-freedom laws.
Going up against a tank is a largly foolish endevor. Attacking the fuel depot would just as easily neutralize the tank, with much
less effort.
------------------
Igenx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
posted 05-07-2001 12:28 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought, candy man (warhead...)
ANY of us here are dangerous. Just knowing how to make weapons, be they explosives, guns, or radio controlled anti-tank
weapons makes every one of us here a potential threat to society.
I like most (I'd like to say all, but I know for a fact that there have been a few people that have proved me wrong) of the
people here don't want to kill with what they know. Also like me, the people here have proved that they believe they have a
right to defend themselves. Just as NBK said, the lack of a way to defend yourself kills a hell of a lot more people than does a
single (or ten thousand) loons with car bombs.
Igenx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
posted 05-07-2001 12:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my apologies for continuing an off topic subject. Still needed to be said.
~~IGENX
PcThUg2ooo
New Member
Posts: 4
From:
posted 05-07-2001 06:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, ive been reading posts on this board for about 6 months or so now but havent been bothered regestering up until this
point.
Nbk2000 you sound like a very smart person, id think you would be the first person to support freedom of speech.
Whatever is said, if it makes sence or not, if its correct or not does not deserve to have any of "his/her" posts edited. This is a
basic necessity, in my point of view anyway. Pointing out mistakes i can fully support, but flaming someone for being wrong,
on purpose on not is not fair.
I hope by posting this i didnt start of on the wrong foot, greets anyways.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 05-07-2001 12:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You just don't learn, do you? Well, you'll have plenty of time to learn somewhere else 'cause you're outta' here warhead!
------------------
PcThUg2ooo
New Member
Posts: 4
From:
posted 05-08-2001 05:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are speaking like you think i am warhead (I was referring to warhead, not you. NBK2000). This is truthfully not the case.
I know it may seem like that, but i asure you that it is not.
I will keep reading the forums tho, but prolly not post because im hear to learn, not to teach. (much like you id say, but
seems like u have too much spare time)
Viper4403
New Member
Posts: 27
From: Florida, USA
posted 05-10-2001 12:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to make a remote controlled
bomb, why not have one that will do more
than one thing?
You could have a video camera attached to,
say, an automatic weapon (assuming you could
make or acquire them) for remote firing.
How about an anti-personnel munition, where

instead of one big chunk of copper, you
had a good dozen or more designed to spread
off in a wide pattern like a shotgun blast.
You might try a system which might have 2

or 3 launch tubes for mini-missiles, with
or without explosive warheads.
It could even be used as a delivery system

for toxins or chemical agents. Wheel up to
an A/C vent, window, etc., and trigger the
device to spray its contents into a building.
The possibilities for such a vehicle would

be quite broad.
vulture June 15th, 2003, 07:01 PM

How expensive are magnetic field distortion detectors used in torpedoes? They would ensure the thing detonated as close to
the tank as possible, because judging that through a video image or from a distance might be quite hard. It would also allow
using less explosives.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > 2 part explosives by Agent Blak -
Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : 2 part explosives by Agent Blak - Archive File

nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 03-25-2001 08:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(NOTE: this was originally posted by agent blak in the "White Phosphorus" topic by me in the IW section. Since it wasn't on-
topic I've moved it to a seperate topic to save the info)
=========================================
3. Acids
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
The most highly produced industrial chemical in the U.S.A.
Synonyms: Oil of vitriol, dipping acid.

Description: Colorless or dark brown, oily liquid.
Uses: Manufacture of iron, steel, rayon, film, fertilizers and dye;
petroleum refining; etching; alkylation catalyst; electroplating
baths; laboratory reagent; nonferrous metallurgy and batteries.
Hazards: Highly toxic, extremely corrosive to body tissue; will cause
immediate and severe burns; inhalation of vapor will cause loss of
consciousness and severely damaged lung tissue; mists will damage
skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Keep cool and dry.
First aid: Inhalation - Move victim to fresh air. Give artificial
respiration of oxygen if victim has stopped breathing.
Ingestion - Give large amounts of water if victim is conscious.
Do not induce vomiting. Skin contact - Remove contaminated
clothing. Wash with large amounts of water. Eye contact - Wash
with large amounts of water. SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION!
Fire fighting: Large volumes of water.
...
Nitric acid (HNO3)
The tenth highest-volume industrial chemical produced in the United States.
Synonyms: Aquas fortis, hydrogen nitrate, azotic acid, engravers acid.

Description: Transparent, colorless or yellowish, fuming liquid.
Uses: Manufacture of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, dyes, drugs, lacquers,
cellulose nitrate, nitrate salts, rubber chemicals and urethanes; ore
flotation; metallurgy; photoengraving; etching steel; reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel.
Hazards: Highly toxic; extremely corrosive to body tissue; will cause
immediate and severe burns; will cause extensive damage to the
eyes and respiratory system. Keep dry and cool.
First aid: Inhalation - Move victim to fresh air. Give artificial
respiration of oxygen if victim has stopped breathing. If damage
to respiratory system clears up, it will, in all cases, return
in a few hours in a more serious form. Ingestion - Give large
amounts of water if victim is conscious. Do not induce vomiting.
Skin contact - Remove contaminated clothing. Wash with large
amounts of water. Eye contact - Wash with large amounts of
water. SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION! Fire fighting: Large volumes of
water.
Fire fighting: Large volumes of water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Industrial Chemicals
ACETIC ACID (C2H4O2)
Synonyms: Methane carboxylic acid, vinegar acid, ethanoic acid.

Description: Clear colorless liquid, pungent odor.
Uses: Manufacture of cellulose acetate, plastics, dyes, insecticides,
pharmaceuticals; textile printing.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; can damage skin. Do not expose to heat or flame.
Fire fighting: CO2, dry chemical, alcohol foam, foam, mist.
Will explode on contact with: H2SO4, HNO3
...
ACETIC ANHYDRIDE (C4H6O3)
Synonyms: Acetyl oxide, acetic oxide, ethanoic anhydride.

Description: Colorless liquid, strong acetic odor
Uses: Manufacture of pharmaceuticals, perfumes, dyes, vinyl acetate.
Esterfying agent for food starch.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; can damage skin. Keep cool and dry.
Fire fighting: CO2, dry chemical, alcohol foam.
...
ACETONE CYANOHYDRIN (C4H7NO)
Synonyms: Ol-hydroxy isobutyro nitrile

Description: Colorless liquid.
Uses: Insecticides; Intermediate for organic synthesis.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation. Keep cool.
Will explode on contact with: H2SO4
...
ACROLEIN (C3H4O)
Synonyms: Propenal, acrylic aldehyde, allyl aldehyde, acraldehyde.

Description: Yellow or colorless liquid, choking odor.
Uses: Manufacture of resins, pharmaceuticals and polyurethane; herbicide;
warning agent in gases.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Do not expose to
heat or flame.
...
ALLYL ALCOHOL (C3H6O)
Synonyms: Vinyl carbinol

Description: Clear liquid, pungent odor.
Uses: Manufacture of resins, plasticizers, pharmaceuticals; used as a
herbicide.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Dangerous when
exposed to heat or flame.
Fire fighting: CO2, alcohol foam, dry chemical.
...
ALLYL CHLORIDE (C3H5Cl)
Synonyms: 3-Chloropropene
Description: Colorless liquid, pungent odor.
Uses: Manufacture of varnish, plastic, adhesives, pharmaceuticals.
heat or flame; keep well ventilated.
...
ANILINE (C6H7O)
Synonyms: Aminobenzene, aniline oil, phenylamine.

Description: Colorless oily liquid. Strong odor. Brown when exposed to
light.
Uses: Manufacture of rubber, dyes, photographic chemicals, pharmaceuticals
and urethane foam; refining petroleum.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation and skin contact; keep cool.
...
ANILINE ACETATE (C8H11NO2)
Synonyms: None
Description: Colorless liquid, becomes dark with age.
Uses: Organic synthesis.
Hazards: Highly toxic, avoid inhalation. Keep cool.
...
ANILINE HYDROCHLORIDE (C6H8NCl)
Synonyms: Aniline chloride, aniline salt.

Description: White or green crystals.
Uses: Dyeing and printing.
Hazards: Highly toxic, avoid inhalation. Keep away from heat and flame.
Fire fighting: Water, CO2, water mist or spray, dry chemical.
...
BENZOYL PEROXIDE (C14H10O4)
Synonyms: Lucidol, dibenzoyl peroxide

Description: White granules, tasteless, odorless.
Uses: Bleaching agent for flour, fats, oils and waxes; drying agent for
unsaturated oils and pharmaceuticals; production of cheese.
Hazards: Toxic; avoid inhalation; will irritate skin. Do not expose to
heat, flame, sparks or strong sunlight; Do not shock.
Fire fighting: Water, foam
...
CARBON DISULFIDE (CS2)
Synonym: Carbon bisulfide

Description: Clear, colorless liquid. Odorless.
Uses: Manufacture of viscose rayon, cellophane and flotation agents.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or contact with skin. Do not expose
to heat, flame, sparks, or friction.
Fire fighting: Water, CO2, dry chemical.
...
CHLOROSULFONIC ACID (HSO3Cl)
Synonym: Sulfuric chlorohydrin.

Description: Clear or cloudy, colorless or yellow liquid. Sharp odor.
Uses: Manufacture of synthetic detergent, pharmaceuticals, dyes,
pesticides, resins and smoke-producing chemicals.
Hazards: Highly toxic; Avoid inhalation and skin contact. Keep away from
water.
Fire fighting: None required.
...
CRESOL (C7H8O)
Synonyms: Cresylic acid, cresylol, tricresol.

Description: Can be clear or yellowish or yellow-brown or pink. Liquid.
Uses: Disinfectant; resins; ore flotation; textile scouring agent;
synthetic food flavors.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; can burn skin. Keep away from heat and flame.
Fire fighting: Foam, CO2, dry chemical.
Will explode on contact with: HNO3
...
CUMENE (C9H12)
Synonyms: Isopropyl benzene, z-phenyl propane, cumol.

Uses: Production of phenol, acetone and alpha-methylstyrene; solvent.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Do not expose to flame.
...
CYANIC ACID (HOCN)
Synonym: Isocyanic acid

Description: Clear liquid. Acrid odor.
Uses: Synthesis of organic compounds.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Keep cool.
Fire fighting: CO2, dry chemical.
...
CYANIDE OF SODIUM (NaCN)
Synonym: Sodium cyanide

Description: White, crystalline powder.
Uses: Extraction of gold and silver from ores; heat treatment of metals;
cleaning metals; fumigation.
Hazards: Highly toxic. Avoid inhalation and skin contact, though the latter
is a lesser problem. Keep cool and dry.
...
CYCLOHEXANOL (C6H12O)
Synonym: Hexahydrophenol
Description: Colorless needles in viscous liquid. Camphorlike odor.
Uses: Manufacture of soap, insecticides, nylon, resins, lacquers, paint,
varnish, finishes, removers and polishers.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Do not expose to heat or flame.
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam, foam, CO2, dry chemical.
...
CYCLOHEXANONE (C6H10O)
Synonyms: Ketohexamethylene, pimelic ketone

Description: Colorless liquid with acetone-like odor.
Uses: Manufacture of woodstains, paint and varnish remover, spot remover
and polish; lube-oil additive; solvent; degreasing metals; leveling
agent in dyes; organic synthesis.
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam, foam, CO2, dry chemical.
...
DIISOBUTYLENE (C8H16)
Synonym: Trimethylpentene
Description: Colorless liquid
Uses: Manufacture of plasticizers and rubber chemicals; alkylation,
antioxidants, surfactants, lube-oil additives.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Keep strictly away from any heat source.
Fire fighting: Foam, CO2, dry chemical
...
DIMETHYL KETONE (C3H6O)
Synonyms: Ketone propane, propaneone, acetone.

Description: Colorless liquid, mint-like odor.
Uses: Manufacture of paint, varnish, cellulose acetate; testing vulcanized
rubber products; solvent.
Hazards: Moderately toxic, keep away from flame.
...
EPICHLOROHYDRIN (C3H5ClO)
Synonym: 1-chloro-2,3-epoxypropane
Description: Colorless liquid, chloroform-like odor.
Uses: Manufacture of epoxy and phenoxy resins, glycerol and high
wet-strength resins for paper; solvent for cellulose esters and
ethers.
Hazards: Highly toxic. Avoid inhalation or skin contact. Do not expose to
heat or flame.
Fire fighting: Foam, alcohol foam, CO2, dry chemical.
...
ETHYL ALCOHOL (C2H5OH)
Synonyms: Ethanol, methyl carbinol, spirit of wine, grain alcohol.

Description: Clear colorless liquid, burning taste.
Uses: Manufacture of dyes, pharmaceuticals, detergents, cleansers,
cosmetics, antifreeze, beverages and gasohol; solvents, resins,
fats and oil.
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam, CO2, dry chemical.
NOTE: Ethyl alcohol was the 50th highest-volume chemical in the U.S.A. in
1979. Due to the increasing popularity of gasohol it is rapidly
becoming more common. It is easily produced from the fermentation of
biomass. It is relatively safe to handle, even in the context under
discussion.
For more information contact:

Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI)
Document Distribution Service
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401
(303) 231-1158
...
ETHYLENE CYANOHYDRIN (C3H5NO)
Synonyms: Beta-hydroxypropionitrile, hydracyclo-nitrile, glycol

cyanohydrin.
Description: Colorless to yellow liquid.
Uses: Solvent for cellulose esters and inorganic salts; organic
intermediate for acrylates.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Do not expose to heat or flame. Keep dry.
...
ETHYLENE DIAMINE (C2H8N2)
Synonyms: 1,2-ethane diamine, 1,2-diamino ethane.

Description: Colorless liquid. Ammonia-like odor.
Uses: Manufacture of resins an textile lubricants; solvent; fungicide;
antifreeze inhibitor.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation and skin contact. Do not expose to
heat or flame.
...
ETHYLENE GLYCOL (C2H6O2)
Synonyms: 1,2-ethanediol, glycol, ethylene alcohol, glycol alcohol.

Description: Colorless liquid. Sweet taste.
Uses: Manufacture of lacquers, resins, inks, wood stains, adhesives, leather
dyes and deicing fluid; antifreeze; coolant;heat transfer agent.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; can irritate skin. Do not expose to flame.
[ Transcriber's note: In my opinion highly toxic, can cause fatal
kidney failure even in very small doses, about 100 cc is enough! ]
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam, water, foam, CO2, dry chemical.
...
ETHYLENE IMINE (C2H5N)
Synonyms: Ethylenimine, dimethylenimine.

Description: White liquid. Pungent odor.
Uses: Manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, adhesives and protective coatings;
oil and lubricant refining.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation and skin contact. Do not expose to
heat or flame.
...
HYDRAZINE (N2H4)
Synonyms: Hydrazine base, diamine, hydrazine anhydrous.

Description: Colorless fuming liquid or white crystals.
Uses: Manufacture of drugs, fibers, antioxidants; propellant, plating metal
or glass; photographic developers.
Hazards: Highly toxic. Avoid inhalation or skin contact. Keep cool and do
not jar.
...
HYDRIODIC ACID (HI)
Synonym: Hydrogen Iodine

Description: Pale yellow liquid. Colorless gas.
Uses: Manufacture of pharmaceuticals; disinfectants; preparation of iodine
salts.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; will damage skin. Keep dry.
Fire fighting: Dry chemical, CO2.
...
HYDROFLUORIC ACID (HF)
Synonyms: Hydrogen fluoride, fluorohydric acid.

Description: Clear, colorless, fuming liquid or gas.
Uses: Manufacture of aluminum, fluorocarbons, gasoline, processing
uranium; etching glass; acidizing oil wells.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Keep cool and dry.
Fire fighting: Dry chemical, CO2.
...
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE (H2O2)
Synonyms: Hydrogen dioxide, T-stuff.

Description: Colorless heavy liquid. Colorless crystals.
[ Transcriber's note: Crystals? I wouldn't say THAT! At least
not over its freezing point, -0.4 centigrades.]
Uses: Manufacture of pulp, paper and plasticizers; substitute for chlorine
in water treatment; wine distillation; refining and cleaning metals;
bleaching of textiles, wood and fur.
Hazards: Highly toxic, avoid inhalation or skin contact. Keep cool. Do not
jar or concentrate. [ Transcriber's note: Keep away from oxidizing
salts, like potassium permanganate, manganese dioxide or even
blood(!) This is because hydrogen peroxide easily decompose in the
presence of a catalyst. ]
Fire fighting: Dry chemical, CO2
...
ISOPRENE (C5H8)
Synonym: 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene
Uses: Manufacture of polyisoprene and butyl rubber.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Do not expose to heat, flame or sparks.
...
ISOPROPYL ETHER (C6H14O)
Synonyms: 2-isopropoxy propane, oiisopropyl ether

Description: Colorless liquid, ethereal odor.
Uses: Manufacture of rubber cement; solvent for oils and dyes; paint and
varnish remover.
Hazards: Low toxicity when cool. Keep away from flame or sparks. Do not
jar.
...
MANGANESE (Mn)
Synonyms: None
Description: Reddish-grey or silvery brittle metallic element.
Uses: Manufacture of steel, aluminum, and non-ferrous alloys; purifying
agent in metal production.
flame. Keep dry.
Fire fighting: Special dry chemical.
...
MESITYL OXIDE (C6H10O)
Synonyms: 4-methyl-3-penten-2-one
Description: Oily, colorless liquid. Honey-like odor.
Uses: Manufacture of methyl isobutyl ketone; solvent; ore flotation; insect
repellent; paint and varnish remover.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; avoid skin contact. Do not expose to heat or
flame.
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam, CO2, dry chemical
...
METHYL CYANIDE (C2H3N)
Synonyms: Ethanen itrile, acetonitrile.

Description: Colorless liquid. Aromatic odor.
Uses: Manufacture of pharmaceuticals, vegetable oils and hydrocarbons;
solvent.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Keep cool and dry.
...
NITROBENZENE (C6H5NO2)
Synonyms: Oil of mirbane, nitrobenzol, mononitrobenzene.

Description: Bright yellow crystals or yellow oily liquid. Almond-like
odor.
Uses: Manufacture of aniline, metal polish, shoe polish, benzidine and
quinoline; solvent for cellulose ethers.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Do not expose to heat or flame. Do not jar.
Fire fighting: Water, foam, CO2, dry chemical
...
PERCHLORIC ACID (HClO4)
Synonyms: None
Description: Colorless fuming liquid.
Uses: Manufacture of esters; electropolishing; deposition of lead.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Keep cool. Do not
jar.
Fire fighting: Water, foam.
...
PHENYL ETHYLENE (C8H8)
Synonyms: Vinyl benzene, styrene (monomer), cinnamene.

Description: Colorless oily liquid.
Uses: Manufacture of a wide variety of resins and protective coatings.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; can harm skin. Do not expose to heat or flame.
Fire fighting: Foam, CO2, dry chemical
...
PHOSPHOROUS TRICHLORIDE (PCl3)
Synonyms: Phosphorus chloride

Description: Clear colorless fuming liquid.
Uses: Manufacture of pesticides, gasoline additives, dye stuffs and
plasticizers; used as a chlorinating agent and as a textile finishing
agent.
Hazards: Highly toxic; can damage skin. Keep cool and dry.
Fire fighting: CO2, dry chemical
...
PARA-PHTALIC ACID (C8H6O4)
Synonyms: Benzene dicarboxylic acid, TPA terephtalic acid.

Description: White crystalline needles.
Uses: Manufacture of resins, fibers and films; additive to poultry feed;
reagent for alkali in wool.
Hazards: Moderately toxic; can damage skin. Do not expose to heat or flame.
...
PHTALIC ANHYDRIDE (C8H4O3)
Synonym: Phtalandione
Description: White crystalline needles. Mild odor.
Uses: Manufacture of resins, plasticizers, dyes, chlorinated products,
pharmaceuticals and insecticides.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Do not expose to flame.
...
BETA-PROPIOLACTONE (C3H4O2)
Synonyms: None
Description: Clear liquid, pungent odor.
Uses: Disinfectant, vapor sterilant and organic synthesis.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Avoid open flame.
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam.
...
PROPYLENE OXIDE (C3H6O)
Synonyms: 1,2-epoxypropane, propane oxide, methyl oxirane.

Description: Colorless liquid. Ethereal odor.
Uses: Manufacture of urethane foams; detergents, lubricants, solvents,
fumigants and surfactants.
...
PYRIDINE (C5H5N)
Synonyms: None
Description: Colorless liquid. Sharp odor. Burning taste.
Uses: Manufacture of vitamins, drugs, solvents and antifreeze;
waterproofing, denaturating alcohol and textile dyeing; fungicide.
Fire fighting: Alcohol foam.
...
SILVER PERMANGANATE (AgMnO4)
Synonyms: None
Description: Violet crystalline powder
Uses: Manufacture of gas masks. Used as an antiseptic.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Can miscolor skin. Do not expose to heat or
flame. Do not jar.
Fire fighting: Water
...
TITANIUM (Ti)
Synonyms: None
Description: Dark gray powder or white lustrous metal.
Uses: Manufacture of alloys for a variety of special applications; X-ray
tube target; electrodes in chlorine batteries.
Hazards: Non-toxic. Do not expose to heat or flame.
Fire fighting: Smother with sand, powdered talc or G-1 powder.
...
O-TOLUIDINE (C7H5N)
Synonyms: o-methylaniline, o-aminotoluene.

Description: Colorless liquid, red or brown if exposed to air.
Uses: Manufacture of textile printing dyes, vulcanization accelerator,
organic synthesis.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation or skin contact. Keep cool.
...
VINYL ACETATE (C4H6O2)
Synonyms: None
Description: Colorless liquid. Becomes solid on exposure to light.
Uses: Manufacture of latex paint, paper coatings, adhesives, textile
finishing, safety glass and resins.
Hazards: Moderately toxic. Keep away from heat or flame.
...
VINYL CYANIDE (C3H3N)
Synonyms: Acrylonitrile, propane nitrile

Description: Colorless liquid, mild odor.
Uses: Manufacture of acrylic fibers, nitrile rubber, wood pulp and
synthetic soil blocks; fubigation of grains.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation and skin contact. Keep cool.
...
VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE
Synonym: 1,1 dichloro ethylene.

Uses: Manufacture of Saran Wrap, adhesives, and synthetic fibers.
Hazards: Highly toxic; avoid inhalation. Will damage skin. Do not expose
to heat or flame.
------------------
==========================================
(NOTE: it's not mentioned here, but the acids in section 3 are mixed with section 4 chemicals to produce the reaction.
NBK2000)
------------------
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 03-26-2001 05:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK2000,
Thanx, It was posted there because that is where it was requested just so you know. thanx for moving it and giving me credit.
------------------
Machiavelli
Frequent Poster
Posts: 281
From: Germany
posted 03-26-2001 07:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it be easier to just link to "Deadly Brew" by Seymour Lecker? Even some kewl sites have it.
On the other hand, better not to do it, if you give that list a closer look you'll see that it sucks.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 03-26-2001 10:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I copied and pasted it right from the dbrw.zip file I have.
------------------
FadeToBlackened
Frequent Poster
Posts: 201
From: Hell
posted 05-01-2001 05:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read where it says "explodes on contact with", Usually H2SO4 or HNO3. They are 2 parts. You just gotta figure out how to get
them to mix quickly and thoroughly at a given instant.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From: Guess
posted 05-02-2001 10:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________ | | | +++++ ++++++++| | + + + +| | + +[]+ +| | + A +[]+ B +| | + +[]+ +| | + + + +| | +++++

++++++++| ----------------
Components A and B are placed in seperate glass bottles or (preferably) plastic bags with a large detonating charge placed
between the two inside of a larger container like a 5 gallon bucket or metal drum.

This two component explosives by Seymour Lecker is just a general description of certain chemicals that react violently with
combined.
But regarding the feasibility of these mixtures to produce the desired results in practice is not reliable. It is more likely to
produce fire than an explosion.
Field trials with hydrocarbons and nitric acid (70% pure) just results in deflagration.
A determined and professional saboteur will not result to such a lame technique if he had enough explosives the do the job
best. Placing and explosive charge to enable the chemcial combination to result in an explosion is fraught with uncertainty.He
may just disperse the components. I have seen some other combinations which some EOD experimenter throw it out in the
window and what happened is when the containers broke upon impact the components were just dispersed and create a stain
on the pavement. It only explode in rare cases. I cannot consider that explosion as a full detonation like a real HE;much more
a transition from deflagration to detonation but it happened if the quantities involved are larger. If its only in small amounts it
is a waste of chemicals.
I do not know if anybody of you here folks had tested these and what is your result from such an experiment.
It would be interesting to hear about it.
Nihilist June 19th, 2003, 01:18 AM

how about using glow sticks(the things where you bend them, until the barrier snaps, the chems inside mix then you have
light) they would be perfect for something like this. All you would have to do is remove whatever is already inside and refill the
two sides of the stick with your 2 part explosive. When you're ready to detonate it, bend until you hear a crack, throw, and
watch the destruction. This idea would only work on smaller explosions because they aren't all that big. However the sticks
could also be coated in glue or some other viscose liquid prior to throwing so that they would stick to their target.
nbk2000 June 19th, 2003, 02:41 AM

Another perfect example of an overhyped piece-o-shit Paladin Press book.
Apparently Lecker's definition of what constitutes an "explosion" is different than ours.
To us, an explosion is a high-order detonation of an energetic material via shockwave propagation.
His is the rupturing of a container from the rapid build up of gases generated by a rapid chemical reaction.
Our explosions shatter and liquify metals. His creates fires.
So, to be accurately titled, the book should have been called "2 part incendiary mixtures".
His so called "devices" are just as likely to splatter the contents about the room as to actually cause a fire, let alone any kind
of "explosion".
This book would qualify as a cookbook worthy of dissection too. Would be interesting if someone who worked at a chemical
disposal site was able to test every one of these mixtures out and see what actually happened.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > 37 mm grenade launchers - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : 37 mm grenade launchers - Archive File

A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
From: wouldn't you like to know
posted 04-19-2001 02:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know where I can buy a cheap 37mm
grenade launcher for less than 100-120$ (not the barrel mounted one for m-16's), or may be even places that sell kits to make them?
Oh, ya I want it to launch smoke and paintball grenades and that like.
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 04-19-2001 05:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.funammo.com look for the bantam it's a pitol grip 37mm for $100. There's also a stocked version for $150.
------------------
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 04-19-2001 05:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crap I checked the prices and they are only when you buy 4 boxes of ammo. The bantam is $130 normaly.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 80
From: buffalo, ny
posted 04-19-2001 08:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked at that site for the 37mm launchers. Not too bad, it shows some decent savings on the pistol version of the launcher when you buy 4 boxes of 37mm ammo,
however... they don't have a page for the ammo!!!
------------------
BaDSeeD
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 04-20-2001 12:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked at that page good but go to
www.firequest.com for ammo for it but go to
the other for the guns (all ammo at firequest) costs less.
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
SofaKing
Frequent Poster
Posts: 399
From: YEAH RIGHT !!
posted 04-22-2001 01:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forget the ammo $70 for a box of ten !!! From their ad in an old shogun news.
I really like firequest but I perfer the break-open action.
The most economical thing would be the scaled up slam-bang (old archives) and maybe some used nylon 40mm shells.
------------------
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 61
From:
posted 04-23-2001 12:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapco, advertised in "Shotgun News". has carried several models that are functional and cheap. If you know any law enforcement personnel and are on good terms with them,
"mooch" the spent 37 mm tear gas cartridges that are left on the firing range after qualification shots are made. I have gotten quite a few casings and even a few live out-of-
date rounds. These fired casings can washed, deprimed, cut down and reloaded. They are much better than the cheap plastic casings.
Azazel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 91
From: ...
posted 04-24-2001 11:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmmm those shotgun shells look pretty dodgey
do they do any damage to your barrel?
i think launching a 6" chain out of a shotgun would... you certainly wouldnt want to use this shit on your old mans Silver Pidgeon Berreta !
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 04-24-2001 11:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well forget paying for one I spend the money
on chemical from pyrotec so if anyone has plans for the action, I can make the rest.
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 137
posted 04-25-2001 12:02 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You see i've got a 40mm and a 38mm pipes so I adapted them to my 12 gauge pistols barrel,
but I need plans for a new action for it (the main spring broke) so plans would help
(not anything that need welding, because my heli-arc is screwed). So plans would help.
And does anybody know where you can buy old dummy grenades?
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
From: UK
posted 05-08-2001 05:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know where to buy dummy deactivated grenades. If you live in the UK go to this site www.milweb.net and go to the dealers section under militeria. There are various links to
sites selling various kinds of deactivated ammunition. If you live in the US try searching for militeria (not sure about the spelling because its not in the spell checker). They cost
around 15 here.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Anti personel gas mine - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Anti personel gas mine - Archive File

EP
Frequent Poster
Posts: 108
From: USA
posted 04-27-2001 10:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know a guy who was in the army and told me about something they were shown how to make. It was a 55 gallon drum filled with gas (I dont know if it was Av gas or just
regular) and the top was put on. Then C4 was spread around the top rim. This is buried just below the ground and when it goes off the gas is shot into the air on fire and
comes splashing down over a wide area. I was told a 55gal would spread to cover about 100 sq yards. This could be improvised very easily with just a larger amount of ANNM
and a 5 gal bucket to make it smaller.
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 61
From:
posted 04-28-2001 12:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EP, the device that you describe is used as an improvised defense or ambush device. The barrel also had several wraps of detonating cord wrapped around the top of the barrel
and a WP, white phosphorus, grenade attached to the cord. The det cord removed the barrel top, detonated the WP grenade and then detonated the expelling charge. The WP
assured the ignition of the gasoline(should be thickened).
Do not depend upon straight explosives to ignite the gasoline unless the explosives or modified. Enhancement with magnesium or aluminum powder will facilitate ignition, in
most cases.
EP
Frequent Poster
Posts: 108
From: USA
posted 04-28-2001 03:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I said is what I was told. He did not go into the detail you did, thanks!
sealsix6
Frequent Poster
Posts: 154
From: NYC,NYC,USA
posted 04-28-2001 01:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking this could be done on a much smaller scale. Instead of a bucket a pill bottle or jar and a blasting cap instead of the C-4. Do you think it would work as a
granade type as I explained?
DaRkDwArF
Frequent Poster
Posts: 258
From: Australia
posted 04-29-2001 06:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I'd use Gas against a tank, just personal preferance, but unless that napalm contains red phosperous it's not even going to singe the tank
Spudgunner
New Member
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
posted 04-29-2001 06:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, no, napalm may not singe the tank, but where do the men get their air? It is rather hard to breathe fire, or 800 degree air. If the flames are large, they will not really get
any oxygen. If the flames are not that big, they will get a whole lot of smoke. I think that is the point of the gas mine, not to incinerate the tank, but to deprive the operators
of air.
------------------
Give me immortality or give me death!
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 04-29-2001 07:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanks have air filters - a bit of smoke is nothing to them. Not sure about being deprived of oxygen, they might have bottled oxygen or just driving about would get enough air
to the tank?
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-29-2001 07:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, they have bottled air, I think they can even use it to run the big desil engins they have for a short while
Spudgunner
New Member
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
posted 04-29-2001 09:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, ok. Thats cool. I guess the stuff I read was outdated. Although I guess it would work on older tanks that dont have filters. Do those air tanks kick in automatically? How
long do they last? What WOULD be able to take out the tank, other than rockets or strategically placed explosives? IE, the running up and sticking explosives on turret. With
that gas mine, does it just create a FAE, or does it rain flaming gas down on the area? I am assuming it depends on how you do it.
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-29-2001 10:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think that a bomb that scattered a couple of gallons of freon or halon gas would kill most engines very quickly, tanks engines take 12 minites to start
McBacon
New Member
Posts: 1
From: Sweden
posted 04-30-2001 05:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic: Anti personel gas mine:
Its a nice trap, however, it seems a bit unneccesary, the C4 alone could take out the intruder, but i guess ou want to clear out a whole area, and then it sems effective, and
fun.
Tanks discussion:
Well, a modern tank is a dfangerous weapon, aslong as its in the right angle. But with some well placed explosives, and a good aim in the igniting area, i thing you could tip it
over, and than its pretty worthless unttil its reenforcements come along. But you would get some time there to finish it off.
Or you could dig a big hole in the ground, and cover it with sticks and leavs, and
if you fill the hole wiht water, the crew would have to leave it pritty soon...
------------------
I have not tried this myself, so consider me an unsure source.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 04-30-2001 07:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No you couldnt finish the tank off, tanks travel with groups of soldiers, and sometimes trucks with medium caliber weapons.
kingspaz
Frequent Poster
Posts: 347
From: UK
posted 05-03-2001 05:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tanks have NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection systems so they would be pretty hard to crack.
does anyone know if an explosive placed between the driving wheel and track could blast a track off or are the tracks too tough?
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 05-06-2001 02:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
didnt you see "saving private ryan"!?
the "sticky bombs" he made blew the tracks off the tank, remember!
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 05-06-2001 02:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think a thermite device melting through the belt would work, just as long as the tank is stopped or going slow. you would need it not to get crushed but cause
irreparable damage to the treads,maybee if you put it on top of them and it was fast burning
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 180
From:
posted 05-06-2001 06:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys it would take a hell of a lot to destroy a tank. There is an army manual about this subject. Here is the link http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-75/Apph.htm
Personally taking on a tank isn't my idea of fun. Even the army manual agrees that at best you are gonna disable it. Blowing the treads is the best idea. The area between the
main area and the turret is also a weak point. Soviet tanks have the diesel fuel in the front so that adds extra protection. Some tanks have reactive armor. APC's have guns in
them that allow troops inside to fire at you. Oh yea sticky bombs don't work anymore. You can also dig a tank trap to disable it. The best bet if you are taking on a tank
someone in the area probably has antitank weapons.
It might be a good idea to liberate them. The army manuals tell how to convert artillery shells and such to anti tank mines so do so. The best idea is just to avoid a tank until
you can get weapons to destroy it. If you can't remember if it is a tank why would it wanna go after one person. Just split up.
phyrelord
Frequent Poster
Posts: 135
From:
posted 05-08-2001 04:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the topic of anti-tank weapons go for a mine It's a lot easier to improvise. Most tank mines are about four foot long I think. The main goal is to destroy the tracks. Now as
far as anti-personnel goes I think it would be better to create a fine mist of gas around the soldiers then detonate it. This would form a shockwave that would seriously damage
the troops internal organs. This would be better than what Smag suggested because it could not be avoided by fire proof gear. It would make a sort of FAE
------------------
Winseln Sie fr mich
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 05-16-2001 03:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
once the track has been blown off - "sticky bombs" then the guys have to get out of the tank or it would be a death trap. then you could pick them of, or watch them run into
your pre placed anti personel charges.
Gollum
Frequent Poster
Posts: 92
From:
posted 05-16-2001 03:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern American tanks use turbine engines in them. Meaning they suck a lot of air. If you block the air passage, the turbine doesn't get cooling. Turbine engines have
combustion temperatures you can't even imagine (Some are close to 900 C). So if it overheats it's bad news for everyone inside. The back of a tank is very weak, because it's
generally not sloped like the front and sides are. And the armor is EXTREMELY weak if the hatch is in the back (That would be for a howitzer though). If you managed to get
close enough, the hatch would be on the bottom left hand side of the turret. They usually use shaped charges for disabling tanks though.

How about helping the turbines a little by forcing pure O2 gas down the air inlet? Should get pretty hot...
Ropik March 28th, 2004, 01:44 PM

I once saw one "flame fougasse" in one of my nightmares and I have not doubt that it can disable a tank, at least some smaller one. When even best protected vehicle is
covered with 55 gallons of burning napalm, passengers are going to be fried inside, motor air pumps are clogged with gel, air filter cannot ride of +- 800 C air and interior can
catch flames from overheating. Be inside this tank would NOT be nice.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Slings - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Slings - Archive File

Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 05-02-2001 07:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does any one have any books on making Sling or any info they can give me?
what about this book?
SLING FOR SPORT AND SURVIVAL

Was $ 8.95 $ 8.05
by Cliff Savage
The sling is the ultimate lightweight weapon: it 's compact, silent, easy to conceal and carry, inexpensive to make and powerful. Best of all, its ammo is free and plentiful! This
book shows how to make this ancient tool and teaches six surefire slingingtechniques as well as ways to improvise your own ammo. Includes a section on guerrilla warfare. 5
1/2 x 8 1/2, softcover, illus., 80 pp.
Publisher code: SLING

Price: $8.95
------------------
CragHack
Frequent Poster
Posts: 618
From:
posted 05-02-2001 07:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am sorry i don't have any bookz on the subject but i can tell you from experiance. The best ammo to use is not a spherical rock or marble, but a rock that is eliptical in shape.
that way it hugs the puch better and won't slip off.
------------------
"If you must, do it with intelligent people, at least they know how to talk to the cops."
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 05-03-2001 11:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a sling (like david & goliath) all you need is a leather shoe lace and a patch of leather jacket for the ammo holder bit
for a slingshot (like bart simpson) just get a Y shaped piece of Ash tree and synthetic "cat gut"
but you can buy them for like....3 from small camping shops
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 05-04-2001 02:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dreamed about making a sling, I practiced on the beach real early in the morning so my ammo wouldnt hit anyone.
You can use small diameter dowel instead of string, some velocity is lost, but its way easier to learn on.
If you split the pouch (like in the picture) you can use round ammo.
mark
Frequent Poster
Posts: 195
From:
posted 05-14-2001 11:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im intriuged. how does one use a sling?
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 05-15-2001 01:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shouldve included this in my first post here:
http://www.artrans.com/rmsg/_newsgroups/huntisl1.htm#Sling Design & Technique
Okay, I guess you have to copy and paste the url.
[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited May 15, 2001).]
SATANIC
Frequent Poster
Posts: 237
From: australia
posted 05-16-2001 03:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local disposals shop sells slingshot 'rubbers', the actual leather pouch and tapered rubber bands, that slid onto a metal frame i made in metal class. it wil fire more than 300
metres, and is pretty acurate within a hundred (head shot would mean instant death) the projectiles i use are cheap fishing sinkers, you can get many different sizes / weights,
and they are easy to find. the power was way kmore than i expected, i have broken a window at 300metres, (probably a fluke as far as accuracy is concerned).
grammarless June 15th, 2003, 02:50 AM

I have made a sling. It is quite impressive, I don't know how far it fires because I can't find any place with enough space (they won't let me on the golf driving range). My sling
is made of two 5 ft. shoe strings and 3.5 in by 3.5 in. piece of leather. I cut around 6-7 inches of shoe string of each shoe string, I then tied the short section of string to each
corner and formed two loops on opposite sides. To the loop I tied the rest of my string. On the end of one string I put a knot, and on the other I put a loop. I put the loop on
my middle finger, and I hold the knot between my thumb and forefinger.
Aristocles December 10th, 2007, 03:26 PM

Last night I made a sling and blowgun. Very simple tutorial but just trying to contribute...
So, here's the pathetically simple tutorial:
Blowgun:
Conduit 10'
Sandpaper
Empty Fiilm Container
Epoxy
Toothpick
100 MPH tape
Gun Camo Tape
First I put a blanket in my vice; and slid the conduit into the vice. I cut off 3'2". Thus leaving a 6'10" 'blowgun'.
http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/34459/2006159974034473798_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006159974034473798)
Cleaned up the end I cut, with some sandpaper... cut a small hole in bottom of film canister and forced it onto the end of the conduit. I pushed it on far enough to get a thick
roll of the 100 MPH tape around the very end of the conduit, thus preventing the film container from coming off. Next I pushed the film container to the tape and taped
(military tape) behind the cannister to prevent it from sliding down. Then I used the epoxy glue to try and gain an airtight seal with the mouthpiece. I slowly squeezed it into
the interior of the film cannister. Then took a toothpick and spread it. Next, I allowed it to dry.
Now I put the camo gun tape onto the blowgun. I put the tape on lengthwise (vertically), not horizontally, wrapping it evenly. The finished product:
and:
Now, to the sling:
Leather Boot Tongue

#18 Mason's Line
Elmer's All Purpose Glue
Exacto Knife
Scissors
Candle
Lighter
Quilting Twine
First I took the exacto knife and sliced the entire tongue out of an old Wolverine boot. Then, using the exacto knife I made two slits directly across from each other, centered,
and 1/4" from the edge of the tongue. I laid this aside. Next, I took the scissors and cut 6 pieces of Mason's Line from the roll; 3 were 29 1/4" and 3 were 33 1/4".
I then braided each set together using a flat braid. I then inserted one of them through the slit in the tongue. I pushed it through a solid inch and wrapped that around the
primary braid; then took the quilting twine and used that to bind the one inch of twisted line to the main line.
I did the same to the other slit in the tongue.
Now I took the longer (33 1/4") set of braids and made a loop on the opposite end by using my middle finger. I then ran it an inch further and use the quilting twine to bind
the excess to the main line. I then grasped the tongue and folded the sides together, allowing the lines to fully extend. I took the non looped braid and held it level with the
looped one. Then tied a knot in that braid making it exactly level with the looped one. I snipped off the little bit of extra nylon, from the knotted end. Next I lit the candle and
dripped hot wax onto each binding (3 of them). I waited a couple of minutes to allow the wax to dry. Finally, I laid the sling on a piece of paper towel and covered the bound
and waxed areas with Elmer's All Purpose Glue. Let it dry and then took this pic:
totenkov December 12th, 2007, 10:06 PM

I see tons of ideas all over the web on how to make blowguns.
This is how to make the ultimate blowgun that has far more power and accuracy than any of these stupid designs using string I have seen.
You need:
4 foot piece of 1/2 inch copper pipe or PVC.

a sheet of paper
a few tacking nails
hot glue
pencil
tape.
start by making a cone out of the paper. cut a 2x2 inch piece of paper and roll it into a small cone, it doesn't matter if there is a *small* hole in the end, but make sure you
keep it nice and tight.
Next tape it and stick it into the piece of pipe that is now your blowgun. mark it with the pencil so you know where to cut it. Cut the cone down to size, you should now have a
cone that fits quite snugly inside the pipe.
Stick the nail through the cone and drop a dab of glue behind it so the nail stays in place.
The dart is finished. stick it into the pipe and give it a short sharp blow. Blow it like you mean it :D and the dart will go 50-75 meters with extreme accuracy.
the things rip right through soup cans and will tear a pop can in half. I originally used 6 inch pieces of coat hanger wire and if you shot those into a piece of plywood you will
need a pair of pliers to pull it out. They dont have as good range as smaller tacking nails however.
Spray the gun black and see what kind of shit you can stir up at night :).
Another thing we do is leave out the nail and fill the cone with glue, now you can shoot em at each other. And sometimes we make them using wooden skewers. cut the end
off and round it off with a file. They will still go into you and hurt like ****, so it makes you a lot more serious when you play in the woods with ghille suits :)
With a little practice you can spit out over 40 darts in half an hour.
Lay all the other crap about using string on the end of the dart to rest and use this method, works way better.
klashnikov January 15th, 2008, 05:50 PM

A website that has some tutorials on making slings, as well as some information on throwing techniques:
http://slinging.org/index.php?page=advice-and-how-to-s
Thorald January 19th, 2008, 06:36 AM

I own three slingshots.
- An Italian slingshot.
- A rubbishy slingshot from a fishing shop
- A homemade slingshot, made from a Y shaped piece if wood, I cut from an Apple tree in my garden and "slingshot elastic" I bought from the same fisning shop as I
previously mentioned.
Ill post picks of the homemade one later
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/guskicks/DSCF0917.jpg
The black one is the Italian slingshot, while the blue one is the not-so-good slingshot.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > big m agnet gun - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : big magnet gun - Archive File

phyrelord
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 135
From :
posted 01-13-2001 06:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
would it be possible to make a pneumatic gun that worked like a syringe, with a plunger inside another tube and two magne tic
field s pushing on each other so as to force the barrel with the projectile back into the air cham ber. does it sound like it m igh t
be possible to do? i would have to use an electric coil around the two pvc chambers, but i think it m ight work. any ideas or
opin i o n s ?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From : England
posted 01-13-2001 09:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So something like a rail gun? I've thought about electromagentically propelled projectile weapons and cam e to the conclusion
that they are impractical unless you got a sm all, portable fusion generator to run it. The a mount of energy that com es from
burning a gram or two of smokeless powder is a lot, batteries co ntaining enough power to give as m any shots as you could
carry of regular amm o w o u l d b e i n s a n e l y b i g a n d h e a v y .
Not to m ention the possible effects of such powerful electrom agnets so close to your brain
Zero
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 93
From : ...
posted 01-14-2001 08:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically wha t you described is a m agnetic pellet gun. Airguns use the sa me piston princip le, but with a spring. If yo u're hell
bent on using electricity, I think Axsor makes an electrically operated airgun...
------------------
~Zero the Inestim a b l e
The A Files
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 02-18-2001 09:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I m a d e a s i m ple coil gun once - I ran it off 240 volts, 60 Hz m ains, and it drew quite a lot of power. It fired sm all, strong
m agnets 0.5" by 0.25", and it had 20 coils wound on the barrel (plastic tubing), e ach the sam e but spaced further and further
apart so that the bullet was always being pushed from behind and pulled from the front when a m agnetic field was present.
W hen the fie ld was at zero in the cycle, the bullet was in the coil, and as it left the coil the field built up to m ax half way
between coils, and dropped down again as it entered the next coil and so on. It fired the m agnets pretty fa st and cost next to
nothing to build, but it wouldn't work as a weapon because it's m ains operated and very long.
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 02-18-2001 09:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The coils were kinda like this:
Coils:___NvvvS______SvvvN______NvvvS..etc.
Magnet:-------->SN--->
Then when the curren t change d direction they were like this:
Coils:___SvvvN______NvvvS______SvvvN..etc.
Magnet:------------------->SN--->
W ell, hopefully you get the idea.

I don't know how well this'll com e out when I post it. ASCII art has a habit of getting fucked up.
[ T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n e d i t e d b y M r C o o l ( e d ited February 18, 2001).]
Jhonbus
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 351
From :
posted 02-18-2001 01:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did you know how far apa rt to space the coils? The way I was thinking of working it ou t would be to work out the
acce leration of the projectile a nd place the coils at 1/120 second intervals (for 60Hz), is th is what you did?
Sounds like a good idea, I m ay just have to make one
[This message has been edited by Jhonbus (edited February 18, 2001).]
Mick
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 232
From :
posted 02-19-2001 03:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guys to post Ascii type pictures and stuff, use the ]code[ com m a n d
s a m e as the im a g e c o m m a n d , only with the wo rd "code" in the brackets...
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 02-19-2001 04:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I worked it out like that and then tweake d it by trial and e rror.
Ezikiel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 66
From : New Delhi, India
posted 05-30-2001 08:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey guys !!! I have one coil gun too, works pretty good according to what I was expecting out of it. But m y question is ....how
did u switch the coils on in the r e q u i r e d s e q u e n c e c a u s e m y coil gun has only one coil.
------------------
Ezikiel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 66
From : New Delhi, India
posted 05-30-2001 08:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above question is directed to Mr. Cool.
------------------
Fenrir
New Mem ber
Posts: 5
From :
posted 05-31-2001 02:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite the answer you're looking for, but this guy has m ade a gauss (electromagnetic) "gun" using capacitors, a large
transistor, and som e thick wire. He has m a d e b o t h a s i n g l e s t a g e a n d a m ulti stage version. I believe that the single stage
version is now up to about the sam e m uzzle energy as 3x that of a high powered sniper rifle, or 8 gram s of powder, or so he
says. http://www.powerlabs.org/gaussgun.htm
SATANIC
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 237
From : austra lia
posted 06-01-2001 12:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't quite understa nd, does anyone have pics, especially cut away views?
HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 225
From :
posted 06-02-2001 03:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Anthony :
W hat phyrelord said is a electromagne tism actuated piston gun, m uch like a full-auto airsoft except they use a m otor to drive
the piston.
The coil gun others m entioned are called "Gaussian rifles", using coils and a mag net projectile, it has a ma xim um equilibrium
speed due to the countering effect of m agnet to the coil.
A rail gun uses "Lawrence force" to push the

projectile, can reach higher than 20000fps. of muzzle velocity.
Rail guns are not to be confused with "Gaussian rifles" as they a re different.
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 06-02-2001 01:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't need to tim e the coils. They were all on, all the time, but with their polarities constantly changing over. This type only
works with perm a n e n t m agnets as the projectiles though. Sm all, cylindrical NdFeB magnets are the best, but expensive.
I once tried to m ake a rail gun as well, using graphite d iscs as the projectiles, but when th e switch was activated (this could be
done once per switch, as they were welded closed by the current) there was a huge bang a nd the discs were shattered.
HMT D Factory
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 225
From :
posted 06-04-2001 03:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr C ool, do you m ean the disk breaks before it was shot out?
Predator
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 141
From : U nknown
posted 06-04-2001 06:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you meant to inject load projectiles in a rail-gun type device?
They don't just move from a static position on their own . they need a shove or to already have some kinetic energy when they
contact the rails.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > things to m ake with plastic easter eggs
- Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : things to make with plastic easter eggs - Archive File

phyrelord
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 135
From :
posted 04-22-2001 01:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay this is m y idea, if you put a high explosive charge into a m e d i u m s i z e d e a s t e r e g g a n d t h e n p u t i t i n t o a l a r g e r e a s t e r
egg with a m ore sensitive charge lining it, snap it together and voila an all ways im pact charge. You might have to tape it
together, but i don't know. You could also sepe rate two chem icals that are flam m a b l e w h e n m ixed like this (antifreeze and
chlorine), when thrown the eggs would bust and the chem icals would m ix. Any other ideas?
[This message has been edited by phyrelord (edited April 22, 2001).]
sealsix6
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 154
From : NYC ,NYC,USA
posted 04-22-2001 08:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend m entiond that to m e but he just wanted to put match heads in them with the chlorene does it have to be a liquid or
solid?
blackadder
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 313
From : L o n d o n
posted 04-22-2001 10:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, that will b e s h i t d a n g e r o u s !
Thin k about it, if you accidentaly drop it, BANG! you're d e a d .
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1096
From : G u e s s
posted 04-22-2001 10:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or im agine just a little tiny leak of antifreezer gets on the chlorine....flash fried pyro.
It could be used thou gh with the filling from fire extinguishers which is highly irritating and can m o m entarily blind. O r OC dust,
slime, sticky shit, or other "wo n't kill you if it breaks in your pocket" type shit.
------------------
FadeToBlackened
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 201
From : Hell
posted 04-22-2001 10:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W h a t d o e s ant if r e e ze /chlorine do? And it is actual chlorine gas o r hypochlorite or som e t h i n g ?
CragHack
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 618
From :
posted 04-22-2001 12:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it produces lots of sm oke and fire. that is why if it accidently gfoes off in your pocket. bad shit can happen to you. the chlorine
i believe is the powdered pool chlorine that you use to keep your pool bacteria free. easy to find. and of course you know what
anti freeze is/does.
------------------
"If you m ust, do it with intelligent people, at least they know how to talk to the cops."
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 04-22-2001 02:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hell, for the antifreeze brakefluid I'd use glass vials snd chuck a t something hard , could b e used to start another wildfire
around here
lesbianloverjon
New Mem ber
Posts: 24
From :
posted 04-22-2001 09:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the chlorine is called shock. it is basically conce ntrated granulated chlorin e.
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 679
From :
posted 04-22-2001 09:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antifreeze (o r any glycol) and Calcium Hypochlorite gets *very* hot, you can hear the m i x b u b b l i n g a n d b o i l i n g , a n d t h e
s m o ke conta ins a large amount of chlorine in it.
1 0 0 0 p p m of Chlorine is fatal, if it went off in your room ....
ANTI-SYSTEM
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 77
From : FL. USA
Registered: JUN 2001
posted 06-25-2001 11:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W hat exactly are the ingreediance reacting. I tried this today and after 1/2 hour still shit happend. the anti-freezee was glycol
based. and the shock powder was called "shock" i got it at ACE. so whats the deal. do yall mean th e liquid chlorine.
i also did the brake fluid and anti freze. the break fluid is DOT-3. it also contains glycol's. so how is glycol on glycol going to
catch fire. do you have to light it causee if you do i m ight as well use gas.
Azazel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 91
From : ...
posted 06-28-2001 10:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
watch out with this shit guys and dont take it to o lightly
c h l o r i n e i s h i g h l y d a n g e r o u s t o h u m a n s i n h i g h e n o u g h a m o u n t s . . . b e s u re not to rub eyes after use or go wafting fum e s u r e
way and ull be fine...
a l s o k e e p t h e c h l o r i n g e s t o r e d s o m ewhere that doesnt have colours near it... it has a bleaching effect... the carpet in m y
house was spoilt by it... i thou ght that just because its used in the backyard u should be able to store indoors... in some
instances yes.. in the laundry on the carpet no !
the reaction occurs rather slow although i have found over the years of m ucking a round with this kinda stuff... so this leaves us
with activities to do with it... write your nam e or sum crap on the lawn with your chlorine powder... m ake it fairly spaced out at
least 1 - 2 m eters..... then po ur the fluid on top of it and stand back so fumes wont come your way
heheheehehehe its pretty funny to watch
also a quick question.... what happens if you use the ta blet form of chlorine... any nasty explosion or anything happen ? i
never tried

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Hot oil as a weapon? - Archive FIle
Log in
View Full Version : Hot oil as a weapon? - Archive FIle

Spudgunner
New Member
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
posted 06-02-2001 10:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last weekend I got really bored. So, I was messing with different mixtures of gas and oil. Then I tried burning just oil. I put a bit in the bottom of a cut off soda can. Then I put
just a little gas on top and did not mix it. I lit it, and nothing spectacular happened. Its when the gas burned off is when the spectacular stuff happened. The aluminum heated
up and boiled the oil. Just a little bit of a sizzle, bigger, bigger, until it was shooting boiling oil about 3 inches from the can. While this is not spectacular, if you scaled it up a bit,
it sure could be. Imagine this in a riot or something. Just a can stitting by the street with a little bit of a flame, maybe 3 feet past the top of the can, just burning away. I doubt
the police would take the time to put it out if people are throwing petrols and other such stuff at the police. Then, while the police are advancing, this thing starts shooting off
hot oil. I doubt there would be a whole lot they could do for a person covered in hot oil. There is no flame, so rolling around would not put out the heat. Anybody up to trying
this with maybe a 55 gallon drum and a few gallons of oil? I doubt it mainly because this would be quite easy to spot. But, since its not explosive, you would not get in too
much trouble if you had a way of putting it out if somebody came. I imagine the lid to the can would work quite well.
Spud
------------------
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 407
From: England
posted 06-02-2001 04:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I can't comment on it really, because I haven't seen it happen, but if I was a rioter, as the police started charging up, i'd just kick it over, surely that'd spread burning fuel
better? Or find someway of throwing water at it, have you ever seen that on one of those fire videos?
Dracul
Frequent Poster
Posts: 73
From: Melbourne, Australia
posted 06-03-2001 01:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah when I was younger I used to heat up oil in a can and throw bugs and slugs and stuff in, they would instantly boil and spray oil every where which would ignite.
------------------
"By the power of Grayskull, I HAVE THE POWER!" He-man
Check this out www.stileproject.com
[This message has been edited by Dracul (edited June 03, 2001).]
Spudgunner
New Member
Posts: 33
From: MO,USA
posted 06-03-2001 01:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zaibatsu, the point of my idea really isnt to spread flaming oil on the ground. It is more to launch boiling oil through the air. If you could get the oil to be burning through the
air, thats even better. But the ground is next to useless. Oil will spread out quite a bit and not have huge flames. You dont NEED huge flames if it is attached to your clothing or
face though.
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 06-03-2001 04:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, but if there's a crowd then there are going to be people in the way of the oil and it will set their feet on fire. and people can walk over burning oil. also it's hard as hell to
knock a 55 gallon drum filled with anything over esp if it is searing hot
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 06-03-2001 08:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the idea worked wuite well in ye olde Medieval times. When a castle was under seige the occupants would heat big cauldrons of oil over fires and when it was boiling hot,
they'd just pour it over the walls onto the people trying to kick down the gates. Must ahve been quite a painful death.
Viper4403
New Member
Posts: 27
From: Florida, USA
posted 06-04-2001 08:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about heating the oil to a certain
temperature and then dropping an explosive
charge into it, thus throwing the oil, and
shrapnel all over the place?
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 06-05-2001 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I work in a seafood resteraunt with deep fryers all the time. The burns aren't that bad...you get used to it. the oil we use it around 350-360(doesn't say whether it is C or F). I
don't think it would kill you but would deffinately make me chose another way to be-seige a castle.
------------------
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 06-05-2001 11:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
viper...that wouldnt be a good idea!
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 06-05-2001 02:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but you don't cook with boiling oil and a splatter on your arm cools a lot faster than several gallons dumped on your head. I think they might have set fire to the oil as
well.
I don't see why a dispersing charge would be a bad idea.
Gollum
Frequent Poster
Posts: 92
From:
posted 06-05-2001 03:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greek fire is one hell of a weapon if you use it right. It's almost like a Napalm flamethrower except it hurts a hell of a lot more than regular burns. It's best to use crude oil
mixed with something like gasoline or other highly flammable substance to keep it going.
FYI: Back in the day (150 B.C), the Greeks created and mounted a new weapon on their ships. It's first use was in an ambush (The first naval ambush in recorded history).
When the enemy came sailing in after the bait, WHAM. Needless to say the Greeks won.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2306
From: England
posted 06-05-2001 03:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greek Fire contained KNO3, it's a fuel oxidiser mixture rather than napalm
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 679
From:
posted 06-05-2001 10:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water's boiling temperature is much lower than oil's, if water were poured into the hot oil, the water would boil, causing the oil to fly everywhere.
I once dropped an ice cube into a pot of oil when we were making enchillada's, causing a splatter, instantly the sweat on my skin started to boil, when I wiped it off with a wet
sponge alot of skin came with it.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 06-06-2001 01:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what if you had a pressure washer and you arcked it into the burning oil container so it splashed eveywhere, also what if a fire hose was attached in the bottom and you
turned the water on spraying water and burning oil everywhere?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > stun gun (500k or 625k volts) - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : stun gun (500k or 625k volts) - Archive File

art vandalee
New Member
Posts: 2
From:
posted 06-19-2001 10:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: stun gun (500,000 or 625,000 volts)
I'm looking for schematics,complete parts list (with all values,cat. nos.,etc.), building disciption, measurments, and possibly some ideas on where I might acquire a decent
looking housing for the circuit once built.(all parts to be store bought. no makeshift or homemade parts please. (ie./ winding my own transformer or using some part out of
some misc. device.)
If anyone out there could be so kind please email me.
THNX!
ART VANDALEE (Canada)
PS. if you know any good websites for this info pls. email
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 766
From: Sk. Canada
posted 06-19-2001 11:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art try J(the mod)'s site. it has some info on stun guns as well as some other useful things.
Canada? where abouts?
E-Mail me at
agent_blak@yahoo.com
------------------
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 240
From: HELL
posted 06-20-2001 05:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500kV is too high for stunt gun because the amperage will be too low . 10kV direct curent with pins for electrodes work best.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 991
posted 06-20-2001 10:08 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's easy if you just do a little bit of searching.
Have a 555 oscillator circuit, a Darlington amplifier arrangement (two transistors), a transformer with a high turns ratio and then a Cockroft-Walton voltage multiplier (the kind
with the diodes and capacitors).
Although you'll struggle to get 500kV with a small device, due to insulation breakdown and corona disharge.
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
posted 06-20-2001 11:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, first of all I doubt you'll find the high voltage transformers neccesary at a standard electronics supplier (I haven't). Winding your own really isn't that difficultn anyway, I will
have more details on my site soon.
Simply Red, stun guns don't rely on a high current, they rely on high voltage primarily. The object of the device isn't to cause pain, but to induce fast contractions and
relaxations in the muscles, using up a lot of energy and tiring them out. Obviously some current is needed, but not a lot. The human body doesn't produce much current in
order to stimulate the muscles remember.
The voltage multiplier will produce DC pulses. This is painful, but will not have the required stunning effect. In addition, the voltage is severely limited due to the maximum
ratings of components small enough to fit into a portable unit. This is the method that I use in the design on my site, which will soon be undergoing a major update. I now
have an alternative circuit (many thanks to c0deblue for this) that is capable of producing very high AC voltages, and the whole thing will fit in a torch. Stay tuned :-)
------------------
Download the forum archive from my yahoo briefcase
PGP key available here (ID = 0x5B66A792)
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1465
posted 06-20-2001 06:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, ac or dc dosent really matter when it is pulsed via a chopper, commercial stun guns use a 2 transistor simple oscilator circuit and makes ac that goes through a voltage
multiplyer, a circuit that uses a 555 ic will work but will be more compeley and may be destroyed by accidental shocks.

art vandalee
New Member
Posts: 2
From:
posted 06-29-2001 02:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hi guys,
i'm still looking!
any ideas on where in the internet (hell, if you've been looking as long as i have) that i might look for a 500k or 625k stun gun schematic and instructions, any thoughts
whatsoever.
thnx again.
art vandalee (canada)
ps/ agent blak...vancouver, british columbia
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
posted 06-29-2001 03:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, theres s stungun schematic on j's site
http://www.connect.to/juice but i dont know how powerful it is.
btw, i live in vancouver.
------------------
How much power will you lose if you do not know what they already know?
yt2095 June 18th, 2003, 06:18 PM

for portable usage i`ve used an OBIT as the finals with a simple TTL oscilator through a transistor to an audio transformer, the oout put goes through a single HT diode to a
220/uf at 400V cap then to the mercry spark gap to the OBIT. that simple :))
Naaah i`m only joking with ya, but that`s really all there is to it!
anybody ever seen a gas cooker with an electric igniter? the sort ya put a D cell into at the bottom where ya store yer pots`n`pans?
well that`s the sort you need, some work on mains elec, but thats ok too, same principal, it`s the FINAL stage output transformer that you need.
they usualy triger at about 300 volts and about .25 amp max
you`ll see they have about 6 connection on the top ( not all, only the cookers with multi rings do) the real OBITs (Oil Burner Ignition Transformers) only have the 2 conections.
for those with the 6 outputs you`l need to make a zig-zag connection arangement, i`ll TRY this in ascii, but don`t shoot me if i can`t do it, i`ll post a pic to you if ya send me
your email addy
,,,
,,,
on the top row you connect , 1 with bottom , 2

next , 2 on top row connect to bottom , 3
solder a wire (3 amp will be fine) to terminals 3 on top row and 1 on bottom row.
1 bottom and 3 top are now the combined power of all 3 seperate outputs
now you`ll need a dry day and some expoxy resin (non metalic) and some masking tape
around the transformer body wrap your masking tape around as if you want to make a WELL around your new conections, keeping your 2 soldered wires free.
you need to be able to fill this well with your epoxy resin so that it doesn`t leak out and you can cover your connections and let is set. be sure that it`s all grease air and damp
free when doing this.
leave it set over night, and you`ve made your finals, remove the tape if you want to, but it makes no difference.
your OBIT will have a rather perculiar looking glass device with 2 metal end caps on it ( a mercury vapor spark gap) a bit like
-----{=}------
the = is the glass part
the ----- are the solid wires at each end
{ and } are the metal end caps
you should now have a perfectly sealed step up transformer. with 4 wires coming out, the two you soldered on yourself and the two that go into the body of the OBIT.
attatch one of the wires that goes into the body of the OBIT to one of the wires on the spark gap (it doesn`t matter which one, its not polarity sensitive yet)
across the other wire on the spark gap and the remaining lead from your finals attatch your HT capacitor (the 400volt phuker)
so now you should have 2 wires to a cap, from that cap on 2 wire is a spark gap, and from the other end of that spark gap it`s connected to the wie that goes into the body of
the OBIT. the OTHER wire from that cap just goes to the other wire that goes into the OBIT
NOW it gets polarity sensitive! one end of the cap will be marked neg (-)and by default the other will be poss, to the poss side attatch a diode the white line on the black diode
closest to the cap
-----===|=------
---- is the wires

=== is the black body of the diode (should come with the OBIT circuit)
| is the white line
now you`ll need a step down audio transformer, like the sort you find in kids electronic kits, they`re only small, but wired backwards can give quite a high voltage!
you`ll see 3 "input wires" and 2 "output" wires... well forget that, we`ll be feeding into the 2 outputs and using the 2 of the 3 inputs to fire our stun gun finals :)
the middle of the 3 "inputs" you may cut off and isolate it`s redundant.
the 2 remaining wires on the same side you can now attatch to your diode and cap leads.
if you`ve got this far, pat on back, your more than more than half way done!
that should leave only the remaining 2 "output" wires LOL, output my ass!, this is where the fun starts because they are NOW the INPUT wires :)
here`s where you`re going to have to look on the net for a 555 oscilator circuit, sorry and all that but put that in text would defy not only credibility but my typing skills (or
lack of)
no it`s NOT a "cop out"
you need a 555 oscilator circuit to drive a transistor under load, the load being your 2 NOW "input" wires to yer audio transformer.
put it all in a PLASTIC case and fill it with wax, a PP3 9V battery should be more than enough for about 20 mins sparking using a fresh alkaline batt
i`m sure you`ll find the rest is quite shocking! (piss poor joke i know)
any questions mail me, i`ll be more than happy to supply url`s and or Pics
hey so ma spelling sux, sue me! :)
bobert October 13th, 2003, 09:37 AM

If your looking for an enclosure for you new stun gun circuit then look no further, try using the plastic shell of a tire pump (the hand held ones for pedal bikes). There strong,
lightweight, easyly available and look quite harmless sitting in your glove compartment.... they also come in a range of fancy colours to suit all your stunning needs.
---------------
Helpful hint: There's not need to sign your posts - we know who you are by your username which appears at the left-hand side of every post you make. Also, stick your
location in your profile.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Q uick and e a s y e x plosive packets...
Log in
View Full Version : Quick and easy explosive packets...
EventHorizon June 20th, 2003, 12:45 AM

First of all...WO W!! It's been a long while since I've bee n here and I've got to say the Forum is looking VERY nice.
I had a brain fart and just had to post it. While playing with m y new kitch en toy....erm...appliance ;) I had an idea. It's a
vacuum sealer and while playing with it I got the idea that you could m ix a batch of ANNM and vacuum seal it in the plastic
bag. Since all air is removed there sho u l d b e n o p r o b l e m with long term s t o r a g e o f t h e p r e - m a d e p a c k e t s . I f o n e s o d e s i r e d ,
one could m a k e s e v e ral packets up, afix some heavy duty cloth carpet type doub l e s i d e d t a p e t o t h e m a n d m a k e u p s o m e
sim ilar BC's with the double sided tape afixed as well. W hen one wished to deploy the packets all one would have to do would
be to peel off the tap e, slap it to whatever needed dem olition, peel a BC and stick it to the packet and run like the wind.
This vacuum sealer could also b e u s e d t o p r e s e r v e o t h e r d e l i q u e s a n t ( s p ) c h e m icals. If a person desired (or lived in a high
h u m idity clim ate), they could prepare fair size quanities of say amm onium nitrate by soaking in alcohol, then delicately
cooking off any remaining alcohol/water, then grind to a powder, place in a b a g a n d v a c u u m s e a l i t . W hen you wanted to use
it, just cut a sm all corner, insert a sma ll funnel and dum p in the nitrom e t h a n e , w o r k i t a r o u n d a n d i n s t a n t B O O M . T h e o n e I
have has a small "accessory port" which allows the use of a "mason jar" sealer. My guess is that suitable ja rs could be found in
which you could vacuum seal jars or jugs of deliquesant type chemicals. The more I think about it the m o r e i d e a s I k e e p
coming up with.
I did a quick search and didn't find anything that struck me as a sim i l a r t o p i c s o I h o p e I ' v e s p a r k e d a f e w n e u r o n s a n d p e o p l e
come up with m ore id eas. My particular vacuum sealer runs about $250 but cheaper m odels for less frequent use run as little
a s $ 150.
Mr-Eckted June 20th, 2003, 01:19 AM

S e e m s like it would be extrem e l y u s e f u l l i f y o u n e e d e d t o t a k e a d e v i c e a n y w h e r e . N o h a s s l e , n o m e s s , l e s s e v i d e n c e . I d o n ' t
see any flaws in the idea. W o u l d s o m eone like to try it and expirem ent in different conditions (read: Do it under water!
P l e a se!). It seems like it would m ake it very easy to tra n s p o r t a n d s e t u p e x p l o s i v e s .
yt2095 June 20th, 2003, 08:19 AM

Ewwww!
sound like tons of fun :)
i wonder wether or it would work well for storing TATP? or would it even be possible to insert an electrical bla sting cap and seal
the bag with the 2 wires leading out?
would be ideal for underwater work or fishing trips, or just wet or muddy days.
possibly even use different sh a p e d b a g s t o m a ke sim ilar to shaped charges, long narrow bags filled with APAN that m a y b e
idea l for fitting along a crack in a tree, no need to ever really plastisize your materials now.
you`ve got m e wanting one now :)
Al Nobel June 20th, 2003, 11:38 AM

"i wonder wether or it would work well for storing TATP?"
Its not a go od idea to store AP under permanent pressure in an enclosed container.Apart of that I dont think that the vacuum
will stop the sublim ation-recristalisation process.Just store your AP under water.
The idea with the vacuum s e a l e r s e e m s to be very interesting fo r secoundary exp losives,but its a bit expe nsive.
yt2095 June 20th, 2003, 12:03 PM

Al Nobel,
on thinking about it, re: TATP i would sumise that the vacum e m a y e v e n s p e e d t h i s p r o c e s s u p , a s v a c u m e distilation will
create sublim a t i o n a l s o a n d s o t h e b a g g i e m ay do sim ilar over time, i se e your point, thnx :)
just out of purely scie ntific curiosity though, i wonder what the largest single crystal of TATP that can exist could be? i really
hope i`m not putting ideas into som e kewls head. but it would certainly be interesting to find out (i lack the resources and land
m ass yes dare i admit it, the intestinal fortitude to find out, but i`de sure like to see that sucker pop! :)
tho i`ve no doubt tha t NBK would probably eat it for breakfast instead of salt on his boiled som ething or other :)
EventHorizon June 20th, 2003, 12:27 PM

:eek:
Vacuum packing TATP would be very risky. Over the weekend I'll try to get som e pictures of little a bag of flour vacuum packed
to see the before and after effects of ~24" vacuum (what this machine will do). It packs things rather tightly.
As far as expensive, only if you purchase the vacuum sealer solely for E&W research. I got it to pack/seal meats, coffee, etc.
and found yet another use for it. :D
I f y o u w i s h e d t o m a k e s o m e " e m e r g e n c y s t a s h es", you could also fill a plastic bottle with AN and a nother bottle with NM, then
seal them together in a bag.

I suppose that if it's vacuum sealed th e plastic is wrapped around your ingredient very tightly.
Sublim a t i o n s h o u l d o n l y b e a p r o b l e m if you have a vacuum with room t o e x p a n d in. Now there is still som e k i n d o f p r e s s u r e o n
the system walls by the solid.
It's hard to explain what I'm getting at but I hope you get the point.
yt2095 June 20th, 2003, 12:53 PM

i understand, a bit lik e the glo-sticks, crack the vial and s h a k e
sure ly you could put the NM in a sealed test tube score a line around the m iddle of the tube with a sharpen i n g s t o n e a n d k e e p
the AN as just a powd e r , l e s s g l a s s , a 1 s t e p a c t i o n a n d n o n e e d to break the 2 bottles with rock or anything, . just snap the
tube shake and boom (only an idea)
yeah i realised after Al Nobel said about the TATP that it would just m ake it m ore unstable given tim e, how about the det cap
with wires out the bag idea, does it seem workable at all?

T h i s m ight be useful to obtain high density secondary charges, to achieve the hig hest VoD practica l. I doub t it would be
suitable for anything AN based though.
nbk2000 June 20th, 2003, 10:00 PM

You wouldn't want to put the glass tube directly into the bag, since the glass would likely cut the bag when you activated it.
R a t h e r , p l a c e t h e t u b e i n s i d e a n a l u m inium cigar tube, to prevent glass shards from cutting the ba g when crushed. Holes would
have to be drilled into the tube, of cou rse, so the NM co uld mix with the AN.
Adding a dye to the NM would let you know whe n the product is ready to use.
It m ight be possible to insert a length of rigid plastic tubing into the package through the tube used for connecting the
vacuum. This would a llow you to insert a detonator into the center of the package without having to cut it.
W ith the vaccum having removed all the air, plus the co mpression, I'd im agine the AN powder would be at about m a x i m u m
density. This is good if it's ANNM, not so good if it's ANFO . As long as the vacuum within the bag isn't so high as to boil the NM,
then the liquid would migrate through the AN ju st fine.
W ith finely powered AP, assum ing the com pression didn't detonate the package, then it too would benefit from the
compression. Also, being sealed in vacuum, the AP wouldn't volatilize away, because it would form a saturated atm o s p h e r e .
I f y o u ' v e g o t t h e b a g s y o u d o n ' t n e e d t h e f a n c y m a c h i n e . A h a n d p u m p e d vaccum , like that used for bleeding brakes, would
work perfectly fine and costs less than $40. :)
Thomas[NL] July 1st, 2003, 08:40 AM

It sounds like a nice way of storing BP and other fuel/oxidizer m i x e s b e c a u s e t h e y n e e d t o k e e p d r y , r i g h t ?
So I was won dering, how large c a n t h e b a g s b e ? ( a s s u m i n g y o u u s e s o m e k i n d o f b a g s . ) a r e t h e y r e s e a l a b l e ?
what kind of sucktion-power (how do you spell that???) are we talking about? because I have m y d oubts where it com e s t o
storing pressure sensitive substances this way :p
Also, could there be any alternative use for this thing? Like making a new or better kind of detonator some how.
And would it be possible to create ready to use explosive packs this way? W ith their detonators already in them so that they
would only need lighting. They could be stored indefinately this way.
T h o m as.
yt2095 July 1st, 2003, 02:04 PM

Sukshun :)
(just kidding) "Suction" i think
not having seen said device, i was curious if perhaps an adaptor could be m ade for vacum e distilation also?
i should im agine it has quite a bit of power behind it, but would it stand up to long term use, as in constantly ON?

S u p p o s e s o , a s l o n g a s y o u k e e p t h e e n g i n e ( m oter, m otor or e ngine one of the three, not sure) from burning out. You dont
s u p p o s e t h i s t h i n g m i g h t b e a bit too strong for your pu r p o s e ?
Most vacuum distillation collums ive seen used water su ction pum ps. And this sounds like a hell of a lot m ore power...
kalashnikov July 21st, 2003, 03:46 PM

Don't know if this would also work for storing AP :confused: , but how about a container filled with CO2? Shouldn't be too
difficult to modify a C O2 cylinder to be able to fill something like a small plastic bottle. Th e C O 2 s h o u l d p r e v e n t c o m b u s t i o n
right?
The only problems I foresee is evacuating the air that is already in the container and sealing the container again without
allowing the pressurised CO 2 t o e s c a p e . C O 2 is heavier than air so it will stay in but slight pressure would b e g o o d . S o m e k i n d
of one way valve would be good.
Let m e know if you think of anything e lse.
Dunkelmann July 21st, 2003, 05:42 PM

As the Bag usually is seald by heat, at least with the vacuum sealers i know,
be careful when sealing in sensitive m aterial, it m ight be ignited if there are trace s
at the sealing spot.
If th e m aterial that is sealed in does not destroy the bag, it is surely a good way to store your
stuff.
0EZ0 July 21st, 2003, 11:54 PM
C O 2 will not inhibit explosive decompo sition of any explosive or fuel/oxidiser m ix that either conta ins oxygen in it's m olecular
structure or that has a chem i c a l o x i d i s e r p r e s e n t . E x p l o s i v e s d o n ' t n e e d a t m o s p h e r i c o x y g e n t o d e t o n a t e !
Does heat sealing a very sensitive organic peroxide in a vacuum pack so und like a wise thing to do?! Quite obviously the
answer should be no.
Prim ary explosives would NOT suitable for storing in vacuum packets. On ly the main charge of secondary explosive could be
vaccum sealed, ready for use. You should also never seal your dets in with the main charge. If tha t det goes off while stored
with the main charge, what do you thin k will happen:rolleyes:? If there is no det stored with the m ain charge, then what is th e
probability of it deton ating on it's own?
Vacuum packing separate pyrotechnic com p o n e n t s w o u l d b e g o o d if you were trying to prevent contact with m oisture or
o x i d ation/decom position. Think of metallic fuels or or similiar. Maybe if you had an excess of milled BP you could store it away
s a f e ly for a rainy day. There are many possibilities.
kalashnikov July 23rd, 20 03, 10:0 6 AM

Y o u p r e s e n t s o m e valid points. If the explosive were to spontaneously decom pose, the CO2 would not stop it. (sm ack m y
head for not thinking)
I think the point here is: there is no real safe way to store explosives for long periods of tim e . M a k e t h e m , then use them .
rp3o8 July 24th, 20 03, 06:2 9 PM

I f o u n d a c h e a p v a c u u m h a n d pum p here (http ://www.pum p - n - s e a l . c o m /) for $15 that claims to work with ordinary zipper-
locking bags.
If I can find one locally I might try it out with AN/MNN/Al or a sim ilar cap-sensitive AN mix.
charger January 3rd, 2004, 06:05 PM

W hat if you used a plastic bag instead of a test tube to hold the NM of an ANNM mixture? There wouldn't be any thing sharp to
puncture the bag and it is easily popped. Som ething along the lines of an instant cold pack.
Archangel76 January 5th, 2004, 07:22 PM

instead of a vaccum sealer wo uldnt it be a lot cheaper to use the sealers they sell in store s like wa l g r e e n s u s e d t o s e a l u p
b a g s o f c h e a ps? just a thought

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Hopping Mine - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Hopping Mine - Archive File
megalomania June 21st, 2003, 01:05 PM

nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
From: Satans asshole!
posted 06-05-2001 11:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More to come....
------------------
EP
Frequent Poster
Posts: 119
From: USA
posted 06-06-2001 12:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ive seen these before, made because unlike most robots, they can get over objects higher than themselves. Some ideas I
have heard of for their use are minefields that "heal" themselves when mines are detonated, and for surface exploration of
other plantes. Sorry if I ruined your surprise
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 06-06-2001 01:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was an article on these in "New Scientist" magazine which occaisionally has interesting things in. If one gets blown up,
they use radio or something to detect the gap, and the nearest one hops around until it lands in it. That would look neat!
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 06-06-2001 03:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not to mention what if someone jammed the signal, hundreds, possibly thousands hoping and banging around!
SafetyLast
Frequent Poster
Posts: 235
posted 06-06-2001 05:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I read an article in Popular Science magazine about those hopping robots, dont know why they would be used as land
mines though. It would make more sense to build them half that size and use them like hand grenades. I've been gone for 5
months I've got a lot of catching up to do.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 06-06-2001 07:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice to see other people keep up on things.
But what I'm getting at is a simple way to make a bounding mine that will pop up out of the ground.
A barrel made of a short section of pipe is integrated into the mine body, and a cut down shotgun shell with just enough
powder to lift the mine about a yard into the air (determined by prior experiment) is inserted.
A piston made of wood, attached to a wood plate at least as large as the mine, is inserted into the barrel. A rubber gasket
seal the barrel and piston.
When initiated (by whatever means) the powder in the shell pushes against the piston, launching the mine out of the ground.
Since the initiator would probably be an electric circuit of some kind, timing the launch and explosion is simply a matter of
adjusting the timing of a 555 IC with two relay outputs. For example, after an input from the trigger, 1 second later the mine
launches and 200 milliseconds later explodes.
The military is developing hopping mines in response to the Ottowa (SP?) Convention banning anti-personnel mines. Typically,
anti-tank mines are guarded by AP mines to prevent breaching. But without AP mines, the enemy could send in soldiers to
breach the field.
Hopping mines though would detect a brech and rearrange themselves to fill the gap, thus and enemy would have to keep
repeating the breaching operation until either there weren't enough mines left to fill the gap, or was destroyed by overwatching
fire.
Since the mines have a hop range of 5 KM, I think they'd be good for dropping deep inside the enemies cities, where they'd
arm and then hop around at random till they ran out of fuel. They'd explode when anything worthy gets near. Sort of a
terrorist mine.
You'd never know where one is, the sight of one hopping would send people fleeing in terror, and the sound of
"pop......pop.....popBOOM!" would echo through the deserted streets.
Almost like that movie "Screamers" where autonomous weapons moved underground, surfacing only to tear you to shreds.
By the way, a Real Media video of the hopping mines in action can be found at my video link below.
------------------
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited June 06, 2001).]
CodeMason
Frequent Poster
Posts: 457
posted 06-06-2001 07:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nbk, sorry for getting off topic, but whenever I try to download your PDF it just gives me a "Members 404" error.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-06-2001 08:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What powers these things? It'd take a lot of energy to hop along for 5km!
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 782
From: Canada
posted 06-06-2001 08:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must use the url http://members.nbci.com/angelo_444/NBK2000.pdf.txt
Because the html on his site is wrong and it has the "PDF" extension of the name capitolized. I emailed him and he
responded saying that he'd change it but i suppose he never did.
------------------
technology is a wonderful servant, but a bitch of a master.
Explosives Archive
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 772
From: Sk. Canada
posted 06-06-2001 08:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how do you propose to get it to hope repeatedly? You could use a set up with a 12g CO2, it would presurise a small resivoir
and would then release it by pushing out an coming back and closing the valve again. This would allow it to do several jumps.
say it will do 7 jumps; after each jump it closes a switch; when all switches have been closed it activates a .375 of a Ssecond
deley. this will allow it to go off in mid-air where it will do the most damage. Do you follow?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-06-2001 09:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 12gm CO2 is a good idea but you wouldn't be able to fit enough high pressure gas in the unit shown to make it hop for 5km
which is why I'm wondering what on earth powers it!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 06-06-2001 10:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blak, my version is only intended to hop up once and explode. The pusher plate stays on the ground
The military version uses a 20 gram tank of hydrocarbon fuel (undisclosed type) and the "hopper" is basically a one cylinder
engine that burns the fuel.
There's 2 types of hopper, one is for distance, the other for height. The distance on goes up 3 feet and out 6 feet for 4,000
times. The height one goes up to 30 feet up (assuing 60 out) but can only do it 100 times.
Have you seen the video yet? It shows the differnt types.
------------------
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 298
From:
posted 06-06-2001 11:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
relax ALENGOSVIG1
I've been having problems with my new computer.
I have already changed it but i have not uploaded it yet.
I watched that video, the sound those mines make could get terrifying.
Imagine, in the dead of the night your in a city and your about to go and watch a movie and you walk down an alley, you turn
around and see one of these things chasing you, making that noise and no matter were you run you keep on hearing that
noise.
What a fucking nightmare
------------------
you can't catch me because I'm the gingerbread man
angelo's place have a good link? add it here
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 06-06-2001 11:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison, here;s a few illustrations of a conventional bounding mine.
------------------
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 298
From:
posted 06-07-2001 12:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see, so the conventional ones don't actually have any electronics in them, they are set off at a certain height by the use of a
pull cord. Its set off by the use of a trip wire.
If it is improvised with the use of an electronic detonation, it could be easily hooked up to a number of triggering devices, like
motion sensors, trip cord, weight sensors, light sensors.
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 298
From:
posted 06-07-2001 12:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and I just updated my site
------------------
if our society had shown me a path other than violence, I would hve taken it.
angelo's place have a good link? add it here| go to the OZ Forum
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 772
From: Sk. Canada
posted 06-07-2001 01:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBK2000 with the 12gram Idea you good get it to hop several times(I was thinking aboiut 7). They are a wepon of terroryou
want more than one hop. The hop/noise is to terify them; the charge is want keeps them affraid. you could make some that
would work on 3 hops some on 7 some on 5. this would make them hard to predict and make them even more terrifing. A
PETN/NC castable explosive with marbles and 3/8" Ball Bearings is just what the doctor ordered for this one. Have them radio
activated; they are all despersed; then send a high power signal to activate some and then another to activate the rest.
------------------
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 06-07-2001 03:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
damn! after watching that I really want one! even if it had no explosive charge! what I want to know is what makes them hop
in the right direction and how they keep turning in the right direction and how they always land the right side up that would be
awsome to have a remote controlled version so you could hop it around. any links to web sites about this?
CodeMason
Frequent Poster
Posts: 457
posted 06-07-2001 03:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks ALENGOSVIG1.
DarkAngel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 610
From: ?
posted 06-07-2001 07:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PYRO500: Maybe the inside of the mine can move and always turns down to earth.
If someone that ever saw these things killing his friends/family and survived it,he pissed himself every time he hear a
dropping/whistling sound,
"They'd explode when anything worthy gets near"
NBK how works the detonation system of the mines,they hit the ground every time but don't explode but when anything worthy
gets near they explode how is that possible?
------------------
DarkAngel
For explosives and stuff go to Section1 http://www.section1.f2s.com And http://run.to/section1

sendtosection1@hotmail.com
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 06-07-2001 08:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously a mine that can hop around on it's own will also have sophisticated sensors. Acoustic, seismic, IR, magnetic, radio,
etc. A mine this expensive would be intended to attack tanks, AFV, buses, trains, and other high value targets.
But it would also be capable of chasing a person down! Assuming the piston could fire the instant it hit the ground again,
rather that the 5 seconds it currently takes.
Imagine walking down an alley when you hear a PING! sound. Turn around and see this olive drab can coming at you
PING..PING..PING...faster than you can run, and it's closing in on you.
Wouldn't take too many times of that happening to convince people to stay indoors. Especially if the mine didn't just blow up,
but rather was an automous mobile sniper!
A small gun was built in and would fire a shot at anything human that passed within range, and then hopped AWAY to another
location, thus making detection and nuetralization more difficult. Beauty of this would be multiple people could be killed or
wounded by one mine, and it can sill attack a tank or whatnot if one is detected.
This is, of course, an exercise in mental masturbation since the US would "never" make such a weapon (until someone else
does it first) but it sure would be cool to have one.
Back to the original intent of the topic though. If the mine was above ground, hidden in bushes or such, than a mousetrap with
a tripwire could be used to set it off. A striker is set on the part of the trap that whips around, the tripwire attached to the
trigger. When activated, the striker hits the shell primer, launching the mine into the air.
For a strictly pyrotechnic fuse mech, a small hole is drilled at the bottom of the barrel (closest to the ground) and a section of
flash fuse catches the flash of flame as the piston passes the hole, passing the flame to the detonator.
There's no realistic way to get multiple hops from an improvised version. Too difficult, and not needed. Just need one.za
===========================================
Sandia National Laboratories is currently developing an Intelligent Mobile Land Mine (IMLM) System to meet the needs of
DARPA's Self-Healing Minefield Program. The goal of the IMLM system is to add intelligence and mobility to anti-tank (AT)
landmines. This will enable the AT mine system to autonomously detect that a breach has occurred, determine which mines
need to move to heal the breach, and deploy the mobility system to make the required moves. Sandia is currently developing
the technologies required to meet this objective which includes the mobility system, behavior algorithms, communication
systems, and ranging sensors.
Each IMLM unit will contain a radio, ranging sensor and control electronics. The radio will provide communication between each
IMLM unit. Communication algorithms will establish a network between units after they are deployed. The ranging sensor will
provide the distance between each IMLM unit which will be used to calculate the relative location of all units in the minefield. An
acoustic ranging system is currently being developed for this purpose. The control electronics will contain the microprocessor for
algorithm computations and system control.
After the IMLM minefield is initially deployed and locations established, the presence of known neighbors and verification of
their known distances will establish that the minefield is distributed properly. Disappearance of one to several IMLM units will
indicate that a possible breach has occurred. On board algorithms will analyze the last known location of missing neighbors
and the current location of present neighbors to formulate moves to heal the breach. The mobility system will be deployed to
make the required moves.
The mobility system will be based on a hopping mechanism that is actuated by a single-cylinder combustion process. Each
IMLM unit will carry an on-board fuel tank and spark initiation system. For each required hop, the fuel will be metered into the
cylinder and ignited. The combustion drives a piston assembly that connects to a foot at the bottom of the IMLM unit. The foot
makes contact with the ground and propels the IMLM unit. The IMLM unit will also contain a righting system to properly orient
itself after landing, and a steering system that provides directional control for each hop.
One resides within a grapefruit-size plastic shell, which lets it roll around to right itself after each jump. A pre-programmed
microprocessor reads an internal compass and a gimbal mechanism then moves weights inside the machine appropriately.
There's also a remote controlled version in the works for the police.
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN10-20-00/hop_story.html
------------------
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 06-09-2001 04:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how they manage to fit all that gadgetry inside, and still have a useful amount of HE to take out a tank!
NBK: Your idea reminds me of those little fireworks you can buy. Actually, you probably can't buy them here in the UK anymore
. I can't remember what they're called, but you stick them in the ground and light the fuse at the bottom. A few seconds later,
a loud explosion shoots it into the air, and it explodes at about 10 feet up. They're really fun things, and the bigger ones can
be very loud.
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 06-09-2001 06:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
air bombs!
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 06-10-2001 09:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that's it. I think I might have to make some if can't buy them anymore.
Maybe a lift charge of 10 grams or so of lift BP, and then have a cord attached to the ground that sets off a party-popper
exploder embedded in HMTD, to set off a few grams of TNP or something. The ultimate air-bomb!
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 06-12-2001 02:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sure you can still buy them, we had some last november, and for the new years! about 3-5 pound a packet of 3 (or 5)...cant
remember...not bad though
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 06-12-2001 03:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodgood.
There's a fireworks factory outlet in Nottingham, I think I'll go and buy some this weekend
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 06-12-2001 05:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow, an outlet! nice, they will probably cost 3-5 for 100 probably hehe
i got mine from a joke shop in town so they were over priced by far
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
posted 06-13-2001 06:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a pretty weapon NBK(the hopping mine).I was wondering what type of explosive are they using if its the commonly
used composition B(RDX/TNT) or a special insensitive high explosive(IHE) of the PBX series.think about if it can bound
continously,any ordinary filler would presumably detonate prematurely due to continous vibration and shock.If we have to
improvise it using PETN/NC castable mix can this explosive sustain the shock?
[This message has been edited by cutefix (edited June 13, 2001).]
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 06-13-2001 12:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it'd survive it. TNT/RDX certainly would, although PETN is more sensitive. But if it can't shake around inside I think it'd
do fine.
deezs
Frequent Poster
Posts: 113
From: Hungary
posted 07-05-2001 04:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please HELP!!!
I have downloaded the video about these hopping mines, but I could't play it. Please you drop me a link, from where I could
download a player for files with .ram extension.
(Go to http://scopes.real.com/real/player/player.html?src=downloadr,010613rpchoice_c1&dc=767574 NBK2000)
Thanx
By the way of hopping mines. I have seen in an action film - yes I used to watch TV, but now I don't waste my time - a small
hopping grenade. This grenade was thrown into a house, where the hero and his girlfriend were. After the explosion the walls
of the kitchen was full with long metal fragments. Unfortunately the superhero jumped into the refrigerator, and survived the
explosion. I don't remember the tile of this film, but there were a few rifles in it, which shot aluminium rounds almost with the
speed of light... So it was a real shit.
These hopping mines are good to demoralize the enemy, but if you fight against a well equipped army, they will find a way to
clear the fields on a technical way. If your enemy is a group of guerillas, they will hide from these robots, perhaps in the
mountines. (that is a perfect place for guerillas)
These mines are good for aimless destroy, but they will never win the battle for you, and can not be used where your soldiers
are present. If you built in a friend identifier system, that will be an other week point of this toy.
[This message has been edited by nbk2000 (edited July 05, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-05-2001 06:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RealPlayer will run it: http://www.real.com
I vaugely remember that film I think it was an Arnie film and the nails from the jumping grenade pinned his hand to the
fridge.
Demolition
Frequent Poster
Posts: 158
From: Australia
posted 07-06-2001 09:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The name of that film is 'ERASER'.They use some pretty sweet weapons in that movie.
Demolition
Mick
Frequent Poster
Posts: 240
From:
posted 07-06-2001 10:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah...love that movie
altho, i hate action movies
ever since i was about 13-14 i just knew when something was just so unbelivably bullshit...which kinda spoiled it
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 07-06-2001 03:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you mean, the explosions are always done with a can of petrol and some det cord, and anyone with half a brain
knows instantly how unrealistic it is. But I suppose it's cheaper and gives a prettier effect than using real explosives.
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 706
From:
posted 07-07-2001 05:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about a pnuematic design?
http://www.geocities.com/berjoni (sketch of a theoretical pnuematic hopper)
I imagine the force of hitting the ground would fire the schrader valve.
The only thing I cant think of is a way to safely Arm and disarm the device.
[This message has been edited by BoB- (edited July 08, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-08-2001 08:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.use-the.net/robots/8ball/index.htm
Maybe the guy will actually get round to building it one day...
Skean Dhu July 8th, 2003, 01:04 AM

yea, the movie was "ERASER" and the grenade was similar to a "bouncing-betty" landmine used by the VC during vietnam.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Does anyone have plans for a cannon? - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Does anyone have plans for a cannon? - Archive File

Teck
Frequent Poster
Posts: 146
From:
posted 06-17-2001 03:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to make a 1 or a 2 gauge cannon all cast metal with really thick w alls and I w ant it to have a half choke. Does anyone have plans for anything simular or know where I
can get some plans. If anyone have any info on w hat bore bit should be used or anything like that I would appreciate also Im planning on using a metal lathe for this project.
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 772
From: Sk. Canada
posted 06-17-2001 02:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boy w ent and spent some time working up in a place called Flin-Flon. there was this man up there that built a cannon with 3-3 1/2" cast iron w ith an end cap on the one
end. He didn't say how long(1m). this guy fired cannon balls out into the lake but, the neatest thing he said was this guy oaded 2o feet of chain in to this cannon w ith some
wading and fires it in to the bush and it cut down a bunch of trees about 2-3" D like a sithe through grass. this cannon used 1 lbs BP per shot.
------------------
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 63
From:
posted 06-19-2001 11:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you intend to fabricate a cannon, try to obtain a short length of oilfield "tool joint". The heavy walls of 4140 can be turned dow n to w hatever diameter you desire, leaving an
approximate bore of 2 inches. The assembly cannot be burst by black pow der.
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 81
From: buffalo, ny
posted 06-20-2001 04:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone w ant to donate a scanner? lol
Check for a post that i had written on the cannon i made.
I have machinist blueprints for it... but no scanner.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Knowledge is the true power, ignorance w ill bring your demise.
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 81
From: buffalo, ny
posted 06-20-2001 04:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok i did a search on my ow n and can't find the posts.
Any of the moderators. Do you know what happened to the improvised weapons archives from before January?
Thats where all the posts w ere.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-20-2001 05:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't a mod back then so I'm not sure. If it was before september then it should be in the archieved thread J has put up for dow nload.
Mexican Pizza
New Member
Posts: 23
From:
posted 06-20-2001 06:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I've also always wanted to make a cannon, not a spud gun, but an actual cannon that uses BP for a propellant. I have thought about plans but it all boils down to this: a
combustion chamber strong enough to withstand the pressure...
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 145
posted 06-20-2001 07:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me and my relative made many a cannon a many a years back, most just blew apart, but the ones that worked are still in the shed with our explosive for blow ing out stumps.
We use a 1 inch thick walled gas pipe and a 3 inch thick steel plate and just w elded the two together and drilled a hole in the side of the pipe. Our largest w as 7 inch bore
diamitar it used a pound and a half of BP and shot cement balls and propane cans full of course we made tomato paste cans full of AP and taped them to the valve and when
they landed, booooom!!!! I bet there are still craters in old man rugges hay field, he he eh he he he eh.
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-20-2001 08:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They made cannons Scrapheap Challenge, one team used a length of gas pipe and the other used a lenght of hydraulic tube. Hydraulic tube would probably be good since it's
designed to w ithsatnd silly pressures.
I dunno how you people can afford to use a pound of BP per shot!
ANTI-SYSTEM
Frequent Poster
Posts: 77
From: FL. USA
posted 06-21-2001 01:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it was on "Junk Yard Wars".
maybe its something you save up for. like a penney jar, once every month (BOOM).
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 145
posted 06-21-2001 01:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, my greatgrandfather bought a few kegs of blasting powder in 1892 and didn't use all of them, w ell w e w ere cleaning out our explosives shed and found 3 kegs of it,but one
of them hadn't been w ater proofed right(they were covered in tar but this on was coverd all the way), but the others w ere good, so when we couldn't find a use for it, or a
place for it,(w e had just got 2 55gal drums full of AN) we thought why not lets use it up in a cannon. We got about 50 shots out of just the half empty one.(and the half empty
one had about 75 pounds of powder in it) he ehe ehe eh ehe he eh he he !!
!!BOOM!!
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
[This message has been edited by A-BOMB (edited June 21, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-21-2001 04:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150lb kegs of century old black powder??? Not something you usually find in your shed You could just drill a hole in the remaining keg, insert a fuse, light and run like the wind
The keg that got w et, it should be once dried out shouldn't it?
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 145
posted 06-22-2001 11:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it wasn't a century old only about 81 years old because we did this a few years back. And they weren't 150 pound kegs, maybe 90.
We don't have any more of the powder, w e used up the rest in a giant prairy dog removal, we pored the the dud keg and a 1/4 of the last good one down the holes in the
mound and fuse it with 5 feet of safety fuse and ran like hell then, BOOM we turn around and all of the grass behind us is on fire and burning prairy dogs are comeing out of the
mound on fire and burning!!!!!!! too bad we didn't bring our 8mm camera we had then to record it.
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
SawedOff8gaugeman
Frequent Poster
Posts: 56
From: Finland
posted 06-22-2001 01:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by A-BOMB:
Well, it wasn't a century old only about 81 years old because we did this a few years back. And they weren't 150 pound kegs, maybe 90.
We don't have any more of the powder, w e used up the rest in a giant prairy dog removal, we pored the the dud keg and a 1/4 of the last good one down the holes in the
mound and fuse it with 5 feet of safety fuse and ran like hell then, BOOM we turn around and all of the grass behind us is on fire and burning prairy dogs are comeing out of the
mound on fire and burning!!!!!!! too bad we didn't bring our 8mm camera we had then to record it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A crooked way having fun ?
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-22-2001 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like fun I figured they were 150lb kegs as you said the half empty one contained 75lbs of BP, but anway.
A-BOMB
Frequent Poster
Posts: 145
posted 06-23-2001 12:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it was mean, nasty, satanistic, but it was sure fun, the only bad part was it smelled to high heaven! Charred prairy dog, smoke,and burning grass aren't that good for your
nose.
------------------
live by the bomb
die by the bomb
Teck
Frequent Poster
Posts: 146
From:
posted 06-23-2001 12:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BaDSeeD: Can you go to the library, friends house etc. and make a scan of your plans cus I really want to make one.
I know the idea behind a simple cannon, but if you just take a steel plate and a thick walled pipe weld the two, drill a hole and use that its only good for casnnon balls and
some other shit but I w ant to have a choke on mine so I can shoot shot out of it. Like on the shot guns the openning is narrower than the back, so when you shoot it you have
a good pattern and the shot doesnt go in all the directions like a fountain.
SMAG 12B/E5: whats oilfield or tool joint?

Also I can get goex and elephant blackpowder for around $20-$30 a pound which is spendy but is cool.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 06-23-2001 02:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holy shit! that is expensive for black powder, you can get a one pound jar of pyrodex for 10-15 bucks! and you should be able to go to a blackpow der shooting store and get it
for 5-7 bucks a pound!
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 81
From: buffalo, ny
posted 06-26-2001 06:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teck ... this wasn't for anything like what you are describing. You just want an oversized shotgun. First off... i can tell you, that it wont work. If you have a large bore on your
cannon... the weight of all that lead is going to squash the hell out of everything under it when shot. In a few of my shells i had used buckshot, with plastic media as a buffer to
stop some of the deformation... but it didnt w ork until i brought the velocity down to where it was no longer effective.
My cannon.. by the w ay, used smokeless pow der, was a breech loader, and used shells that were reloadable. Basiacally like oversized shotgun shells (w ith no crimp). I took me
months to build at work, and used a hell of a lot more than a lathe. A lot of it was mill w ork, and some of it i programmed into a CNC because it w ould have taken me too long
to do myself. Unless you have an entire machineshop at your disposal... this wouldnt be something for you.
My advice is forget the giant shotgun method, and go with a single projectile. Something that you can easily get plenty of ammo. I recently made a small cannon (less than an
arms length), just to shoot golf balls. And i plan on making one that w ill shoot beer cans full of sand, cement, whatever. Although i'd like that one to have a rifled barrel
------------------
BaDSeeD
SMAG 12B/E5
Frequent Poster
Posts: 63
From:
posted 07-13-2001 10:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you plan to build breech loader, and 3 inches doesn't seem unreasonable, obtain some fired 40 mm Befores shell casings. The primers can be removed, the primer hole can be
reamed and threaded and replaced w ith an adapter drilled and reamed for 50 caliber primers (or any primer that you desire).
Try to obtain the brass cases. These are more malable and can be reused more times. These cases can be cut down to whatever length/volumn desired.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > FNP90 - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : FNP90 - Archive File

deezs
Frequent Poster
Posts: 113
From: Hungary
posted 06-21-2001 05:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know the FNP90 submachinegun?
Stupid question... Of course you know the biggest rival of HK PDW. You can see in every article, that the mags are not reliable. I have two simple methods to make them
better. If you are interested in it, you can download the letter which I have sent to FN.
http://y42.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/ddeezs
a remark:
As in the past,(when the HK made the G11, and the russians made the AN-94, and reached the same result) the russians found a better way, they have developed their own
Personal Defense Weapon. It eats: 9X18 Makarov Standart, 9X18 Makarov High Impulse, 9x19 Para, 9X19 RG057 Armor Piercig (AP), 9X21 RG052, RG 054 HIAP, 9X30 "Grom"
HIAP and others - more than 15 different rounds simultaneosly.
See:
http://www.guns.convey.ru/blade/gepard.html
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 192
From:
posted 06-21-2001 06:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FN won't be popular on the market because of high price and expensive ammo. Why buy the FN P90 when you can get 4 M-4's for that price. It costs 4000 dollars for a
SOT dealer to buy if he can get one. And ammo is awfully expensive. Plus with the problems of ammo dropping out when the clips hits the ground or takes a good hit. If you
say M-4 has to much muzzle blast get one with a can (suppresser).
As for the Gepard it is a very well made weapon. It has great potential. When Most Western countries learn to stop giving a shit what weapons our enemies have used and look
at the potential maybe they will adopt such fine weapons. Hopefully vice versa.
ThIoDeN
New Member
Posts: 17
From:
posted 07-28-2001 11:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, I'm from Belgium,so i'm kinda proud 'bout this, kay? We make the P90, and the new version, the p2000, this is a real improvement , it is even being used by the
Belgian Special Forces. Don't have time, now, but I'll see if I can upload a picture soon.
------------------
crime doesn't pay unless you do it right
ThIoDeN
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 192
From:
posted 07-28-2001 12:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FN2000 is a different monster. If you go to www.securityarms.com you can find a pic of one. It uses 5.56x45mm and is very modular. It also uses M-16 mags. Maybe this
won't be the overpriced flop the P90 was. Looks like it has some promise. Hey I have respect for Belgium weapons. Fals, HiPowers are all great Belgium made weapons.
stickfigure June 22nd, 2003, 08:53 AM

My only gripe with the P90 is that it's feeding system is not compatible with the if you had interchangable mags that would work in both the P90 and the Five seveN you would
have a very function and adaptable weapons system that gives the user more options and reliblity. It's seems the P90 was made and the Five seveN as an after thought. The
P90 I'm sure could be reenginered so that it excepted Five seveN standard mags and extended 50 rounders that could be used in the P90. That way your whole system is
interchangable not just with ammo but mags as well. Otherwise you Belgians really know how to make some bad ass weapons! I'm useing an FN M-4 upper for my carbine
haven't got home yet to check it all out but my Dad says it's a beauty.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Pineapple - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Pineapple - Archive File

ANTI-SYSTEM
Frequent Poster
Posts: 77
From: FL. USA
posted 06-24-2001 09:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have one of those WW2 pineapples (unarmed), but I was planning to (rearm) it.
Iv got plans in mind but i wanted to run it by some people here 1st. i was thinking along the lines of AP put in on the site with a lengthy fuse so i can run and take some cover.
i might attach it to an old telephone pole (the 10 in. ones). you thing it would at least blow out 1/2 of that. and there will surly be pics if not videos of the whole ordeal.
Please throw out some suggestions!
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 06-25-2001 02:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure wouldn't attempt to pack one of those things with something as friction sensitive as AP, whether at the site or not. The inside of the casting has a fairly rough surface and
I wouldn't want to be holding a device specifically designed for anti-personnel use when it went off.
The interior volume of a pineapple grenade is 70 cc not including the fuse train and threaded bottom opening (I just measured one), so it will hold about 85 grams of AP
confined - more than enough to turn a good bit of you into chopped meat. I think a good general rule is that AP and shrapnel-producing casings just don't mix unless you have
remote filling equipment or a death wish.
The quasi-ellipsoidal shape probably isn't the best choice either if the objective is to sever a 10" pole - most of the blast will be directed away from it unless it's heavily backed
up.
Tony Montana
Frequent Poster
Posts: 145
From: Australia
posted 06-25-2001 06:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a perfect world you would go and acquire some (CH3)2NC6H5 and some HNO3 and produce C7H5N5O8.
But its not a perfect world and dimethylaniline is very hard to get(to say the least). But my first choice for a bursting charge would be tetryl, second RDX.
P.S.\Confuscus says "Man who go to sleep with itchy bottom; Wake up with smelly finger."
\Confuscus also says "Man who fill grenade with AP; Is man with balls of steel."
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 06-25-2001 08:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or a head full of steel...
Agent Blak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 772
From: Sk. Canada
posted 06-25-2001 06:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has already been discused. the is actually a article on how to re-Arm them.
------------------
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 412
From: England
posted 06-25-2001 08:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a PDF file that I created for someone, foxtrot
ANTI-SYSTEM
Frequent Poster
Posts: 77
From: FL. USA
posted 06-26-2001 11:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it has V*C* (*=.)carved in it. what is that, the squade or company the guy was in.
c0deblue
Frequent Poster
Posts: 229
From:
posted 06-27-2001 01:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best site around for identifying grenades is http://pacificcoast.net/~dlynn/
Since the initials "V.C." don't appear in the markings listed at
http://pacificcoast.net/~dlynn/Markings.htm#American Manufacturers , they could be anything - maybe the soldier's initials.
Cricket
Frequent Poster
Posts: 172
From: USA
posted 07-15-2001 01:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to be pushy, but DO IT!!! It is worth it. I just detonated one just yesterday. I did have a detonator and all lined out, but it didn't work so I just wired the visco
through the top plug and tied a knot in it. Me and 2 friends walked through about 2 miles of very heavily wooded forest and arrived at the blast site. They are impressed when
firecrackers explode underwater. I didn't tell them what I filled it with (AP), I said "Maybe halfway full of BP . I packed the AP in as tight as I could get it (I know, I know...
btw, this was 2-3 days in advance). Then I stuck it halfway in the mud by a pond/lake/shit smelling swamp place. It was about a foot from the water line. I lit the fuze and
hauled ass behind a giant piece of rock with my buddies about 20 yards away and acted calm and said "I hope I put in enough BP for it to plow up ." The visco (4") must have
went out and re-lit, it seamed like soooo long. My friend (A) next to me looks around the corner to see what's taking so long. Right then, with a sudden, scarry jolt of
adrenaline, I achieved a spiritual sense of orgazmical happiness so intense I get goose bumps and an adrenaline rush just thinking about it. It rained mud for about 30 seconds
I guess. My friend (A) almost got smacked with a rock from the sky about the size of a baseball. The crater was about 2.5-3+ feet in dia. by 8+ in. deep. I saw an old tire in
the mud in the distance, so I got it and the crater swallowed it whole. We looked for shrapnel or places where it would have hit (rock we were hiding behind, trees,
everything), we found nothing but quarter sized patches of mud everywhere. I had used a chuckey cheese coin super glued to the bottom for a plug. The crater was extremely
large seeing as how I had only stuck the pineapple in the rocky mud halfway. I was expecting it to be approx. <1' by 4-6". But my AP seems to be mysteriously stable. I had
also set off 3 very small pipe bombs, 1 the day before, and 2 the day after. They seamed like novelty items compared to the grenade, but were very fun. Well I'm tired of
talking, your turn.
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
posted 07-15-2001 06:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best improvised filler will be blasting gelatine-dinamite(NC-NG). About 25% nitroglycerine 72%NC and 3%KNO3 for greater stability. It is very powerful and brisant, adding
more NG would increase power but I doubt it will be safer to make and handle than AP(maybe it will be less sensitive to flame). It would be better to store if very good purified
and stabilized with diphenylamine. I'm gonna try to make tomorrow some blasting gelatine with 50% NG. 35-50 grmas AP makes really effective granade(shrapnel device) tha
AP is brisant and the scrapnels fly with enough velocity to kill everything in good radius. I won't say that ammonits are good filler of granades since they are not brisant, but
some ANNM with lots of NM could be used(ammonites have been widely used to fill granades during the world wars), urea nitrate is something i won't recomend 4 this, but it is
not bad...
RDX and better explosives will be just wasted if you fill simple scrapnel device with them...

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Car exaust flames - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Car exaust flames - Archive File

gotrun
New Member
Posts: 3
From:
posted 06-27-2001 06:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
I have a problem. My neighbor and I have a bet on car exaust flames. He says that all they are are movie effects. I beg to differ that it can be done with any vehicle. Could
you please tell me how to rig a contraption up. Does a spark plug in the exaust pipe work?
Gotrun
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-27-2001 07:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That spark plug in the exhaust shit from the Anarchist Crapbook is pure BS and fundamentally flawed on several acounts. If you have a copy of the crapbook, delete it now, it's
a complete waste of electrons. If you're fortunate enough to have a printed copy you've just saved yourself buying toilet paper this week.
There is no combustible fuel in the exhaust of an engine running properly, it's very obvious that there isn't.
Depends what you saw in the movies, if it was a 20ft long 10 second jet of flames then yeah it was an effect. Small flames can be emitted from the exhaust during a back fire,
which can be done by turning off the engine and coasting in gear (so the engine is turning over) then turnign the ignition back on. Because the egine was turning over it was
injecting fuel into the cylinders as normal, but because the ignition was not on, the fuel was not ignited and so passed unburnt into the exhaust. When you turn the ignition on
the hot exhaust gas ignites the unburnt fuel in the exhaust and an explosion results. Although I know of someone that blew his exhaust off doing this when the explosion w ave
hit the muffler.
On TV you often see flames emitted from an exhaust when the engine fires up, this is the same thing as the back fire, but you'd have to crank the engine over for quite a while
to get enough fuel into the exhaust for it to back fire. Although if you're using a Merlin engine it'd probably dump a gallon of fuel into the exhaust faster than you can say "mpg"
Why have I w ritten so much for a lame thread? If I wasn't so bored I probably would have closed this thread, it's you're lucky day.
ogi
New Member
Posts: 12
From:
posted 06-28-2001 01:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to make an easy Jame's bond smoke screen with your exhaust fill the w indow w asher bottle with oil, run the hose from the pump to your carby
spose you could also put some kind of irritant also
hey all
------------------
you dont need a long neck to be a goose
richl261
Frequent Poster
Posts: 134
From: uk
posted 06-28-2001 07:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i recall that one out of the "anarchists cookerybook"( ) too
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-28-2001 05:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean run the hose from the oil filled washer bottle to the exhaust manifold... Oil in the carb may muck it up and the engine won't run properly! Chemical irritants might be
broken dow n into harmless chemicals if injected into the cylinders and explosed to the combustion cycle!
YTS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 62
From:
posted 06-28-2001 06:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony what are you a mechanic or something
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 06-28-2001 06:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOD NO! do nto inject anything into your engine, carb other than fuel (gasoline, diesel, methanol, w hatever) oxyagen or n2o
I dont recomend you inject anything deeep into your muffler either, it could gum up in there and screw things up. in some stunt airplanes they make smoke trails by having a
screen in their exaust pipe witch gets heated in by the exaust gasses and then a sprayer sprays castor oil through it. if you ere to do this on your car I w ould recommend
making sure the screen isnt restricting the exause too much I also think you shouldn't run a rubber, plastic or metal tube directly to your exaust and a check valve is nessasary if
you have too big a hole in your tail pipe (you shouldnt). I would have a ceramic link to the exaust and I wouldn't put oil in my w indow w iper tank.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-28-2001 06:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, closest thing I've ever done to being a mechanic was servicing cars at a garage for school w ork experience.
gotrun
New Member
Posts: 3
From:
posted 06-28-2001 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony thanks. Jorge my neighbor said the spark plug thing. I found jolly roger and all his shit to be shit. If I cant trick this 87 Mazda to do that is there another way.In gone in
60 seconds they start the car up and it has flames no back fire. Propane settling w hat is it. Help I lose a 100 big ones.
gotrun
New Member
Posts: 3
From:
posted 06-28-2001 10:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a Merlin engine?????
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 06-28-2001 11:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing from Gone in 60 seconds (sounds like someone with premature ejaculation) might be an affect, asking someone who runs a big V8 or similar could probably tell you.
I've seen flames coming from the exhaust manifold (no exhaust system fitted) of 3l V6 but I think it was quite running rich.
I dunno, I think when the engine started it would push the unburnt fuel out of the exhaust (where it apparently burns at the tail pipe), but there's enough oxygen in the exhuast
for it to combust inside, so no flames would exit. If there wasn't enough oxygen then the fuel vapour would be ejected unignited because if you put your hand over the tail
pipe, especially w hen the engine has just started it's no w here near hot enough to ignite any fuel pushed through the exhaust.
Any Mustang owners that can answ er yes/no rather than my benal ramblings?
BTW The Rolls Royce Merlin engine powered the WWII Spitfire fighter plane and after the war someone built a car around one of these engines. It's still going today although in
it's 3rd incarnation because it keeps catching on fire
I only managed to find these links:
http://ww w.ditto.mcmail.com/Weird/Weird066.htm
http://ww w.ditto.mcmail.com/Weird/weird072.htm
I think there must have been several different cars, there were certainly many version of the Merlin engine. The biggest one here is 27l and 1000bhp
http://ww w.britishairborne.org/spitfire.html
Info about the spitfire, one version had a 1700bhp Merlin. Although it seems the last version of the Spitfire used a 2000bhp Rolls Royce Griffon engine which gave a top speed of
440mph and a ceiling of 40 000ft and use them to shoot down the V1 Buzz bombs
Interesting some of the stuff Google turn up.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 06-28-2001 11:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you could spray gasoline or propane in to the very end of the tailpipe and have it ignited by a spark genorator, I would not recomend rigging up something to your spark plug
power supply for your safety and the well bein of your car. if you are going to use propane you could probably use a N2O solenoid valve or a high pressure line purging solenoid
valve if you have the time. a good ignitor for one would be a cheap stun gun and a 12 volt dc to 9 volt dc power converter for cars and wire it to the battery connector for the
stun gun and run long wires through aquarium air tubing for fairly ok insulation (just keep the wires away from eachother.) and when the w ires get near the exaust attach one
end of the wires to the top of the spark plug and the other underneath the spark plug grounded area pinched between the tailpipe and thegrounded area of the sparkplug.
Ctrl_C
Frequent Poster
Posts: 253
From:
posted 07-03-2001 02:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there are several kits to add fuel injection or propane to your tailpipe.
very rich mixtures can also lead to raw fuel in the exhaust which can ignite.
also, sometimes if you take out the cat, it will get you some flames.
Rhadon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 95
From: Germany
posted 07-07-2001 06:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've got an old car it'll exhaust some carbon monoxide that will be able to burn. Though I don't know if its concentration is high enough (12.5% will be sufficient).
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-08-2001 08:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO burns??!!
fenris
Frequent Poster
Posts: 123
From:
posted 07-10-2001 08:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The easiest is get yourself an old Mazda 626 (at least 12 years old) w ith stickshift gear and let it run downhill (engine on).
I had one of these and all the car drivers in my rear w ere constantly frightened of the flames it produced when backfiring which it did quite a lot.
At night it was just real fun while riding the car you could see these huge flashes lighting all what's behind your car, hehe...
I've sold that car a year ago. Consumed faaaar too much fuel.
Did I sell it or did I just leave it in a parking lot at a small railw ay station after damaging the engine beyound repair, destroying its interior w ith a flash bomb and taking the
licence plates with me? Hmm... can't recall...
vulture June 21st, 2003, 01:35 PM

Sure CO burns:
2CO + O2 --> 2CO2
And w ith a very hot flame too.
Anthony June 21st, 2003, 02:21 PM

I just read what I posted about CO burning and thought "damn, someone's going to say something about that..." :)
vulture June 21st, 2003, 02:37 PM

Oh damn. And it's me again isn't it? Remember that thermite thingy? :o
Won't do it again....
Seems like you've got a past haunting you...:D

Poor chap
stickfigure June 22nd, 2003, 08:35 AM

There are a few Flame Throw er kits on the w eb for converting exhaust into flames. Some require you add a extra fuel line going into your tail pipe and some don't. It also
depends on how lean or rich your fuel mixture is. My friends Nissan Skyline GTR throws out blueish orange flames at high speeds or if he's drifting it and running at high RPM's.
A lot of the earlier threads mentioned special effects and some mentioned that exhaust fumes aren't flammable. This all depends on how much extra fuel is not being burnt. It is
very possible to get a large flame out of your tailpipe running a rich fuel mixture. And to those w ho say you can't drift a GTR you can if you have the front wheel drive
disconnected.

It's no big deal Vulture. It'd be pretty arrogant of me if I didn't admit that I was a new bie who new little at one point! :)
stickfigure, that does make sense with a tuned engine like that of a skyline. The skyline is turbocharged unless I am mistaken. In order to boost engine power by more than
~10% with a turbo, you need to inject extra fuel that can continue to burn after it has left the cylinder. The purpose being to raise EGT and exhaust velocity to provide more
power to the turbo. This purposeful combustion in the exhaust system would explain what your friend's car does, rather than simply a rich mixture. Since the fuel/air mixture
would be ECU monitored and adjusted.
What sort of exhaust system has he got? An exhaust without baffles (i.e just expansion boxes) w ould also help the flames.

Sorry Anthony, didn't mean to ignore your post for so long. My laptop shit the bed and I'm moving back to America in a month so I just canceled my service and use the public
computers. I talked to my friend and he says he's pretty much running straight pipes, now he has a muffler but it's pretty much for show and looks like it should be doing
something but isn't. His car is heavily modified and he actually has a seperate fuel control computer that allows him to adjust it how ever he feels. He mentioned that at high
speeds if he's running it rich, flames will come out constantly, but they appear to look like jet afterburner just on a smaller scale. In the Fast and the Furious those were flamer
kits that dumped a lot of fuel into the tailpipe and ignited it for show. As it looks like something akin to a can of WD40 and a match, type flames. He is a lot more
knowledgeable about how all this, his car runs about 600hp. and sucks down a tank of gas in a night, if he's running hard.
yt2095 July 10th, 2003, 12:40 PM

forgive my TOTAL ignorance on this topic but i can`t think of a better to place to ask something that`s been bugging me since the 70`s.
i`ve seen hot-rod and dragster type cars w ith huge flames coming out of the back end, i know some of these cars w ere "Nitro mix" fueled (what ever specificaly that means?)
so were those massive flames just showmanship then?
probably a lame question and dead obvious for someone "in the know " but cars aren`t my mojo :)
Efraim_barkbit July 10th, 2003, 07:50 PM

The flames that comes out is fuel that has not had time to burn completely in the cylinder, so it is still burning when it goes out through the exhaust port.
Normally, the flame goes out before it passes throug the exhaust system, but the dragster type cars have very short and wide exhaust pipes, no muffler(correct word ?), and
are very high pow ered, with high RPM (limiting time for the fuel to burn even more) and so on.
if one were to take of the exhaust system of their car, they w ill probably see some flames coming out too. especially on older, and/or tuned cars.
"nitro fueled" means that they run on a mix of nitro methane and methanol. some cars have N2O system (injecting N2O gas for better combustion --> more power. this is
sometimes done in ordinary cars too, giving a LOT more power under a limited time)
hope I got it right, its much more difficult to explain in english than swedish. :D
DaRkDwArF July 12th, 2003, 09:47 PM

If your lucky enough to have an aftermarket ECU in your car, set your duty to 100% at 7,000rpm, get your engine as war as possibly then start thrashing it so your turbo or
charger gets very hot, then everytime to hit 7k your engine w ill start dumping excessive fuel through your red hot dump pipe :D
works for me everytime, just remember to w arm your engine up first and only do it a few times, don't want your car catching alight

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > glock 17 - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : glock 17 - Archive File

atropine
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 129
From : wales
posted 07-01-2001 05:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello, back a t l a s t . I h a d a n i d e a a n d i n e e d t h e a s s i s t a n c e a n d v a s t a c u m ulated knowlage of this forum to help m e follow it
through.
I d e a : d e a c g lock 17, new barrel and new firing pin. W ill this work. I think the only thing actualy done to deac is to bugger the
barrel up and rem ove the firin g pin. I know there there is a sim milar topic below but i need more specifice. All i need to know is
if this will work, and if not then how cacn i m a k e i t d o s o .
regards, Chris.
------------------
all wize m en have unwize fantasies <
^
>
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From : England
posted 07-01-2001 07:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you already have the gun or would you buy it for the purpose? If you already have it then it'd b e a lot easier to tell what
would need doing and whether it is viable. I think they keep changing de ac requirements (m ore stuff) so an older o ne m ight
be easier. At the tim e of the handgun ban I think the standard was to cu t a slot along the whole length of the barre l and weld
a bar in, rem ove the firing pin , grind the bolt face off (that'd be a bastard to repair!) and a few other things. I suppose on like
an SMG with a sim ple bolt you could m ake a replacement but with an automatic h andgun I'd guess it'd be a lot harder -
thinking that the face is m achined as one with the slide, or is it removeable? I'm sure an handgun owner that's stripped their
g u n w o u l d b e a l o t m o r e h e l p h e r e t h a n m e.
W elcome back BTW
Pyro
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 104
From : Danbury,CT,U .S.A
posted 07-01-2001 07:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let m e welco me you back, atropine..I haven't heard from you since that attempted 55 gallon ANFO incident...I don't think you
ever shared the details about the end result with us on that, and if you d idn't, would you mind?
-Pyro
Aggy
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 44
From : U K
posted 07-01-2001 07:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be better off using a pre O ct 95 deact (if your based in uk). The deact requirm e n t s a r e l e s s h a r s h , a s m g would b e
easier to reactivate especially one with an open bolt ie uzi, skorpion, mac 10/11 etc. Most guns of this period only have the pin
removed and bored and a blocked barrel. A revolver will chambe r rounds but the barrel wo uld still be block this might be easier
to convert. Also there aren't m any old spec deact glocks about.
Aggy
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 44
From : U K
posted 07-01-2001 07:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forg ot to add that you can buy deactivated glock 17s from http://www.worldwidearms.com
atropine
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 129
From : wales
posted 07-02-2001 01:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i just saw the prices o f the glock and "fuckit " springs to m ind. Dam n. I really nee d help trying to find a hand gun where i stand
a chance of reactivating it. Dam n you lucky americans. I cant even rem e m ber why we were robbed of our personnal protectio n.
Plea se help.
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 07-02-2001 03:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite as good as a converted deac., but:
I'm thinking of making a non-auto with .223 bullets from TAL, and 6m m nitro bla nks from Blackpool Guns, using an air pistol
for the basics. The barrel will be reinforced or replaced and m achined to fit a blank in, a weaker spring put in, the compression
c h a m b e r v e n ted with som e ho les, a new piston head will be m ade with a firing pin on it, and the gas port will be drilled out so
that the firing pin will fit through.
Cocking the break-barrel action allows a bullet and blan k to be put in, and it sets the trigger m e c h a n i s m . C lose the action and
it's ready to fire!
Like I said, it's not as nice as a reactivated gun, but it'll work. I'll also m a k e u p a s i l e n c e r , t o a v o i d b e i n g h eard too m uch.
I'm just a bit worried that I m ight need to strengthen th e m echa nism that holds the barrel in place , I'll test it rem otely.
The pistol I'm thinkin g of is a cheap (don't want to m ess with a good one) Gam m o break-barrel .2 2, mainly plastic in
construction (that's why I'm a bit worried...). It's only a tenner second hand so I might as well, right?!
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From : England
posted 07-02-2001 04:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doing a Donutty and getting a blank firing Glock from g u n s 2 u . c o m m i g h t b e c h e a per and require less work but not being as
high quality as the real thing it might be a bit risky.
atropine
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 129
From : wales
posted 07-03-2001 01:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n o n o n o n o , I m going to by all the parts like a n ew barrel and firing pin etc.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From : England
posted 07-03-2001 03:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the US? Will they ship to the U K?
Aggy
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 44
From : U K
posted 07-03-2001 11:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y o u ' v e g o t n o c h a n c e ! Y o u m ight as well ship a live gun into the uk because barrels, extractors, bolt assem bly etc a re
considered firearms in them selves. Research the law a bit before you do anything you might regret. However there is a legal
loop hole regarding shotguns in the uk. You can buy pre tty m uch all of the parts to a shotgun without a license its ju st illegal to
put them together without a license (I kid you not!).
You may be hard pressed to find a uk dealer to supply you with parts but you could enquire in other countries eg Belgium.
atropine
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 129
From : wales
posted 07-04-2001 01:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H a h a h a h a . T hat was in response to Ag gys post. How ironic that some one posting in a pra cticay illegal forum s h o u l d b e
interested not tryng to break the law. But i have found some one who m a y b e a b l e t o s u p p l y m e with a barrel at $35 second
h a n d . I a l s o h a v e s t a rted m achining a firing pin from hardened steel. All i wanted to know is if it would work. Im not really
bothered about the legalities in shipping barrels they are relatively easy to disguise. May be by blocking it up with chem ical
m etal so if it does ge t caught by custom s they would hopefully think it as a deac barrel. Be as critical as you like a hand gun is
s o m ething i have always wanted to try my hand at and eventualy ill get one working. Oh and good luck to all other ppl trying to
reactivate or rebuild any gun.
Aggy
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 44
From : U K
posted 07-04-2001 03:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not trying to break the law and not getting caught are two different things. Also you say you are not bothered by the legalities
then why don't you just ship in a disguised live gun then?
atropine
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 129
From : wales
posted 07-04-2001 04:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well it would be quite hard to disguise a whole gun and i do actually want it. I do have som e concern with getting caught that is
why im not buying anything th at would be registered to m e i e f r o m g u n s 2 u o r a n y o t h e r g u n s h o p . W h a t i m e a n t i n m y p r i o r
c o m m ent is that i wasnt conce rned with breakin g the law but obviously co ncerned with bieng reprom a n d e d i n g a o l .
Azazel
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 91
From : ...
posted 07-05-2001 04:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
m y advice to anyone wishing to illegaly purchase a handgun would to associate yourself with the type of ppl who deal with
illegal things... for ex a m p l e
not hinting like ive done this before, but drug dealers and the likes are everywhere in the world. im not talking drug lord either
i just mean your standard dealer who attem pts to m a k e s o m e m o n e y o n the side by dealing in drugs. anyways these kind o f
people are constantly surrounded by individuals who can obtain such thin gs which you require. I kn ow m a n y p e o p l e l i k e t h i s
and the array of firearm s i have seen is quite a nice site...
p u r c h a s i n g a h a n d g u n f r o m t h e s e p e o p l e i s n o t a h a r d t h i n g e i t h e r . O f f e r t h e m e n o u g h m oney and they will sell. be cautious

of whom you talk to though. Make sure a respectable person obtains it for you. if you do not know the people they m ay not
resp ect you m uch and may just rob you blind for your m oney with the gun you though u were going to buy...
anyways thats m y two cents on the situation. If you do live in the UK it should be relatively easy to obtain such things. My
cousin from Londan recently cam e down to AUstralia and we had a little chat. He was telling m e t h a t s o m e a r e a s o f U K are very
dangerous with a m urder occuring every 11 hours in one suburb alone... i dunno bout u guys but where i live these things dont
h a p p e n . W ith this in m ind it should be easier to com e accross som e underground activity.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Disposable Paper Shotgun - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Disposable Paper Shotgun - Archive File

nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 07-04-2001 09:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found this on the 'net. Seems feasible. I'd use manufactured cardboard tubes instead of rolling up magazines though.
============================================
For instance, if you required an untraceable shotgun, be it for personal defense or a covert mission, you don't want to jog over
to your neighborhood gun shop and pick up a Mossy, duly reported to the FBI. And if you wish to be truly circumspect, even
buying from the back of an old Buick might not be a good idea. Such an informal dealer is at a disadvantage in dealing with
the police - if his customers can find him, so can the uniforms; and they hold the leverage of being able to arrest and
prosecute him if he fails to cooperate. (Fences have the same weakness, of course.)
So a purchase may be a bad idea. In such cases, you should consider making your own shotgun. One process that requires no
particular skills, save the ability to use glue without permanently embedding yourself in your project and a drill without inflicting
lethal perforations, is as follows:
Single-shot, Disposable Shotgun

Materials Needed:
Shotshell
Paper strip, approx. 2" wide, several feet long (or multiple strips)
Paper strip, approx. 3-4" wide, 2-3' long: Alternate - wooden dowel, diameter equal to shotshell
Elastic band (rubber band or inner tube rubber)
Nail (16P is fine)
3 to 5 magazines (yes, the kind you read)
glue, tape, twine
1. Obtain a shotshell of charge and load suitable to your application. (This device will be rather less than a full length long
arm, but a bit more than a pistol; 12 gauge may be more than you wish to deal with here, although I have seen it done.)
Start by taking a long strip of paper, and gluing one end to the length of the shotshell. The edge of the paper should be flush
with the rim at the base of the shell. Now you should roll the paper tightly around the shell. The intent is to increase the
diameter of the shell case to equal the rim diameter. Whether or not the paper also extends beyond the crimp of the shell is
immaterial. When you have finished rolling, glue the paper end in place so that it will not unroll.
2. For the second part of your tool-of-defense-to-be, you have some options. One is to take a 16 penny nail and wrap paper
around it (as with the shell above), but leaving the nail loose within the roll so that it can freely slide through the center of the
roll. The roll should equal the diameter of the rolled shell assembly, and be a quarter to a half inch shorter than your nail.
Before making the final few revolutions around the nail, stretch a strong rubber band (or possibly a length of rubber from a
tire inner tube) across one end of the thick-walled tube which you are forming. Glue each end in place, and continue with the
last few wraps of paper.
Alternatively, instead of forming a tube of paper, you may wish to use a wooden dowel with a diameter matching the shotshell
assembly. In this case, you will need to drill a hole the entire length of the dowel. The hole should be just wide enough to
allow the nail to slide freely. Again, you will need to stretch an elastic band across the hole at one end.
The nail is going to be the firing pin for our improvised shotgun. While not absolutely required, it is best to file the point down
until it is slightly rounded rather than sharp. Slide the nail into your tube/dowel so that the point extends beyond the end of
the tube and the nail head is covered by the elastic band. This is your firing assembly.
3. Now place the firing assembly end to end with the shotshell assembly so that the nail point contacts the shotshell primer.
Gently press the firing assembly flush against the shotshell base and tape the two sections together. Note that at this point
you can now fire the shotshell by pulling the nail back against the tension of the elastic band and releasing it. The safety
challenged among us should also note that this device has no safety; be careful.
4. Next, take the magazines and sanitize them. By this, I mean to be sure you haven't left an address label with your name
and address on them. It would be a terrible shame to go to all this trouble to construct an untraceable weapon only to leave
the police your calling card.
Once that is done, roll a magazine very tightly around the shell and firing assembly. The firing assembly should be flush with
the edge of the magazine, with the firing pin/nail extending beyond it. By now, this rolling process should quite familiar to you.
Tape or glue the magazine in place so that it will not unroll. Repeat this process with at least two more magazines. Do not roll
so many magazines that you cannot get a firm grip on your new weapon. After the final magazine, wrap the roll with tape or
twine.
You have constructed a shotgun. Compared to a steel-barreled gun, this one is very short range; say, mugger-range. (And
won't that mugger be surprised when the supposedly helpless bookworm takes him out with an armful of reading material!) As
stated before, it is also a single-use device; once fired, you merely dispose of the incriminating evidence by tossing it into a
convenient dumpster, or even by incinerating it.
When firing, particularly with a larger gauge shell, be prepared for significant recoil. Grip the weapon firmly. Bracing it against a
hip may well be advised. Point it at the offending aggressor, pull back your firing pin, and release. In addition to the recoil and
muzzle blast to which you may already be accustomed, you can also expect a shower of confetti. Think of it as a celebration of
the elimination of a goblin. But also remember to carefully brush any off of yourself.
Perhaps it has occurred to you to wonder if this process can be applied to other cartridges than only shotshells. It most
certainly can. I believe that you might find such a gadget scaled down to .45ACP (or even .38 Special) to be quite manageable
and concealable. With a little imagination, you can probably think of several occasions when a disposable zip gun which the
usual metal detector will overlook could be handy in the extreme. Trips through federal buildings and airports spring to mind.
Be creative.
------------------
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 706
From:
posted 07-05-2001 05:21 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it exploded the only shrapnel would come from the cartridge case, thats good.
Sgt_Starr
Frequent Poster
Posts: 120
From: Petersburg
posted 07-05-2001 11:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey guys,
Talking about getting them through metal detectors, Couldnt you use The type of Titanium that they use to put pins and
braces in during operations.(depending on price) To manufacture a professionally crafted Glock( or some pistol to that degree)
Im just asking because that kind of Ti isnt detectable by metal dectectors so youd have a premium weapon and be able to
pass it through any kind of customs.
------------------
"it"
deezs
Frequent Poster
Posts: 113
From: Hungary
posted 07-05-2001 02:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper shotgun. Hey man! A nice dream! Things like this works only in the magic hands of Macguyver.
I don't know how it goes in other countries, but in Hungary (Eastern-Europe) metal detectors can notice even that small rivets
on your jeans (I think they are made from copper not steel). I was in the Parliament last year. I was felt fuckin hung-over, so
I don't remember anything, just that the metal detector beeped by everybody. We were wearing mostly jeans, and it took half
an hour to get into the building. Perhaps in airports the detectors are set not to be so sensitive, but a big nail is surely
detected!
I think not the detection is the greatest problem. If you want to kill someone on an airplane - I don't think, that anybody on
this Forum wants to do something like this... - you can have a better weapon if you make a knife from plexi glass.
Paper shotgun for self defence? It's firs problem is it's unreliablity. I know what I say. When I have seen first time the zip-
guns on the net I wanted to have one. Next week I went to a lathe operator. I have asked him to make a special spare part
for my vacuum-pump. He doesn't know, even today, that he has made the barell of my first gun.:-)
The wall of the barell was 3 mm thick. It is too strong for a .22 cartridge, but I was always careful. That is why I have never,
any kind of accident in my lab. So the barell was nice, and I had a suitable firing-pin, I needed just a strong spring. I haven't
found any. Up to now. I have tested a few dozens, but none of them were reliable enough. Back to the shotgun. The primer of
a shotshell is much thicker than a .22 cartridge. In a rifle, there is so fuckin strong spring. How the hell could you improvise
that????
But if you can, please post the plans!!! I would like to build a small self-defence weapon. That would be something like a wey
short shotgun, with a 10 cm long steel barell. It would work with shotshells, but without lead. I would rather use some kind of
colorful piro mixture. That would be better than a gas-spray...
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-05-2001 06:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds good in theory. Thick walled paper tubes can take a lot of pressure, it's just the joints that are weak. I think the gun
might blow apart at the breach, afterall there is only a few wraps of tape holding it on.
The elastic band powered firing pin might give you trouble in it not hitting the primer hard enough. An alternative might be to
attach a small piece of wood/plastic to the head of the nail and hit it with the heel of your hard to fire.
An interesting way to get through metal detectors though, the gun could even be constructed once past security.
The_Coyote
New Member
Posts: 18
From:
posted 07-05-2001 11:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
deezs, For a simple self defence weapon look at the post for the "12ga Dart Gun".You could probably use full shot shells. It
looks very promising....as long as you don't need to go through metal detectors of course. It would take a very minute
amount of welding and possibly a small amount of maching depending on your design.
------------------
[This message has been edited by The_Coyote (edited July 05, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by The_Coyote (edited July 05, 2001).]
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 07-06-2001 05:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything metallic can be replaced with non-metallic. Shotgun cartridges were originally all paper. Primers can be replaced with
pressed pellets of impact or friction sensitive material. Lead shot with glass fragments.
And what about roman candles? Same principle. As long as the barrel is sturdy and unobstructed the force will take the path of
least resistance, out, not through.
Besides, you're not going to be engaging in a firefight with it, just a sneak attack or last resort type thing.
------------------
Mick
Frequent Poster
Posts: 240
From:
posted 07-06-2001 10:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmm...interesting idea
altho i would just make it out of gal pipe (the old style gal pipe, the thick shit)
i used to have a shotty made from gal pipe once...but had to ditch it off a cliff running from the cops once...never found it
again
i was a similar idea to the paper, only using pipe for a barrel, and a spring loaded firing pin
(unscrew the barrel, load the shell, pull the pin back to the catch, screw the barrel back in, release the catch...pretty simple)
i should make another one (altho it would be pointless as i nolonger have access to shotty shells)
also, one problem with the paper barrek is its almost going to be blown to shit at the breech which means there going to be
tiny little bits of paper going everywhere (all over your clothes)...nothing like forensics to match microscopic pieces of paper on
your jacket to pieces from the barrel...
[This message has been edited by Mick (edited July 06, 2001).]
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 81
From: buffalo, ny
posted 07-06-2001 01:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually NBK shotgun shells were originally brass across the entire length, with a paper cap on the front. They were later turned
into mostly paper, but still had a brass "coin" on the back end to hold the primer, and engage the extractor.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 07-06-2001 03:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about a barrel made of fibreglass and resin? That could take a great deal of pressure.
If you want a spring for the firing pin then use a spring designed for an air rifle or a spring powered air pistol. The air rifle ones
are much stronger than the spring in the only gun I've ever used.
Be careful when cleaning a rifle: The ones we used to use in the CCF at school were L98-A1's. The first time we cleaned them I
took it apart and the spring launched the breech block into my face! It didn't hurt much, but it was a bit of a surprise!
Oh, and most airport metal detectors I've seen are shit. I walked through with a pocket full of coins several times and nothing
happened! Perhaps they're just a deterant, like only about 25% of speed cameras in this country are real, but you never know
which ones...
Anyway, I think fibreglass barrels are the best way to go if you don't want to make a metal one.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-06-2001 07:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've just given me another project to add to my list of things to do - a plastic gun
I found a pocket of change doesn't set off any of the metal detectors I've been through at air ports. The threshhold level
must be set pretty high, mind you most guns have a hell of a lot of metal in them. A single pistol cartridge and a steel firing
pin shoudldn't set it off. These parts could be carried seperately to avoid drawing attention to the gun if the metal detector did
go off.
Where would be the best place to hide the gun on your body? (no witty anal cavity answers please...)
I remember reading in the UK they did a test on airport security and a guy stuck a handgun into the back of his jeans (where
TV action heros keep them) walked through the metal detector, it went off, they frisked him or waved the metal detector wand
at him and let him through.
Anyone else seen those signs at hand luggage x-ray points? The ones that say "no jokes beyond this point" "All comments
regarding high-jacking of the plane will be taken seriously" = rubber glove room!
Predator
Frequent Poster
Posts: 144
From: Unknown
posted 07-06-2001 10:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's whether the amount of coins you have on you or not that is the issue with those metal detectors, rather the
TYPE of metal.
Coins aren't ferrous (magnetic), whereas gun steel usually is. Ferrous metals like the type used to make firearms and
weaponry probably produce a different "pattern" in the waves emitted from the metal detector then say the disturbances a
bunch of coins would make and the metal detector could be set to only detect ferrous metals.
However, I suspect that they have a switch that could simply be flipped to detect ALL metals and not just the ferrous type.
Of course it could be a combination of both: certain metal types and quantity before alarm goes off.
Victim
New Member
Posts: 11
From: Nottinghamshire
posted 07-06-2001 10:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony - I have the newspaper clippings your talking about I will upload it and post the link here, I thought when reading this
some of your post sounded familiar.
Sako
New Member
Posts: 40
From:
posted 07-06-2001 11:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr cool - I was thinking the same thing, But doesn't fiberglass shatter when its hit hard? So I don't think that's a good idea.
but Kevlar and resin might work. I have some Kevlar roving and I might be able to get so resin. If i can get the stuff, I'll make
a test barrel but I don't have any bullet. so I'll find some other way to test it i.e. hit it with an ax
[This message has been edited by Sako (edited July 06, 2001).]
Heavy Recoil
Frequent Poster
Posts: 55
From: nope, try again
posted 07-06-2001 11:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An idea on concealing bullets, you could make them look like batteries. plaster of paris, some silver paint, and the wrapper off
another battery, maybe have a wire thru the side and mettle contacts so current can pass thru it, so if the turn it on it will work.
firing pins could be stored in the antenna of a cell phone.
------------------
"I'm not an assassin. killing is more of a hobby with me."' Robert A. Heinlein
BoB-
Frequent Poster
Posts: 706
From:
posted 07-07-2001 04:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A slam-bang design would probably be better, you could cast the firing pin in the larger tube with epoxy or bondo, this
presents a risk of the firing pin becoming shrapnel though.
If an entirely non-metallic design is wanted the firing pin could be made from PVC rod, or any other hard plastic.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 07-07-2001 11:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fibreglass won't shatter, but the resin might. I e-mailed the place where I get my resin from to see if there were any additives
that would make the resin more flexible (to prevent cracking in AN composites), but got no reply. If there was one, it could be
used to prevent shattering in the barrel.
Victim
New Member
Posts: 11
From: Nottinghamshire
posted 07-07-2001 01:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well here is the newspaper clipping Anthony was talking about.
http://innercircle.topcities.com/gun.jpg
- Thanks to NBK
[This message has been edited by Victim (edited July 08, 2001).]
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-08-2001 08:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victim, that link leads to topcities' homepage.
Kevlar set in epoxy reson would make a barrel many times stronger than the equivilent weight in steel (or any metal IIRC).
Someone did mention that they hid two .22LR's inside a rabbot foot keyring and simply put it (on his keys) in the basket
before going though the metal detector and collected it on the other side.
I also remember reading years ago about a very small gun that was sliping through air port security. IIRC is was a little gun
on a keyring, held two .177 rounds and you pulled the keyring to fire and lethal all the way out to 10yds Apparently they
slipped through because they looked like a keyring (duh) apparently available in europe for about 15 - I want one, they
sound nifty
Predator
Frequent Poster
Posts: 144
From: Unknown
posted 07-08-2001 08:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topcities don't let you link to files on their computer directly, so just let it open up that topcities main page, then paste "http:/
/innercircle.topcities.com/gun.jpg" into that address bar. It should open up ok
frostfire
Frequent Poster
Posts: 267
From:
posted 07-09-2001 09:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always wonder how it turned out to put gun parts in instruments with resenblance; eg:barrel in the steel tube of a extended
push/pull bag carrier or even baby cart perhaps.....or put chemicals tied to the body since I've been to most of intl. airports
and notice there's no sniffing detector for passenger (maybe I didn;t notice hard enough?) and also a guy get caught with
"chemical" because he acts strange....eg:just try to pull that Mr. Bean joke at an airport and see what happen
anyway, there's this silly experience while I was a child in Sydney airport long ago:
I like collecting matches, so I took from casino, hotels, lounge room,...everywhere.
By the time I pass through the detector, I got about 15 packs of matches, then BEEEP!
first I play stupid, and think it might be my electronic organizer so I took it out and went back.. BEEEP, by this time the huge
officer started feeling my pockets and of course, I got to emty them, 16 matches packs and the guy smirks; I believe he told
something about max 4 or 2 match only permitted, so I check again and BEEEP, this time I'm gettin nervous, I took off the
jacket and silly me, there's a flashlight in my under side jacket pouch. DARN, should have succeeded with a nice collection of
matches packs
J
Moderator
Posts: 635
posted 07-14-2001 10:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The firing pin could be made out of wooden dowel tipped with a hard piece of rock like Quartz or Marble. I've read about a gun
like this before, being made in prison. There was a roll of paper, with match heads as a propellent and a ball bearing as the
bullet (it didn't mention exactly how the inmate was meant to get a bb though). It was wrapped with twine for strength.
J
------------------
Download the forum archive from my yahoo briefcase
PGP key available here (ID = 0x5B66A792)
zaibatsu
Frequent Poster
Posts: 412
From: England
posted 07-14-2001 08:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could use those small balls inside the small ink cartridges used for fountain pens. I think they are glass, but if you are
only using match heads as a propellant, a load of these should do some damage at a close range.
BaDSeeD
Frequent Poster
Posts: 81
From: buffalo, ny
posted 07-15-2001 05:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predator just because American coins are non-ferrous, dosn't mean that applies to other countries coins.
Stick a magnet to Canadian quarters, nickels, and dimes.
------------------
BaDSeeD
Predator
Frequent Poster
Posts: 144
From: Unknown
posted 07-15-2001 05:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My oversight, sorry.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
posted 07-15-2001 06:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have found out in some airorts they can adjust the sensitivity of the scanner to pick up small objects or relitively large ones.
they may also be able to adjust it to get set off with ferrous or non ferous metals, I guess it depends on the priority of the
flight and what level of security their under, once I went on a trip and I kept setting off their detector, I finally forund out it was
a spint I have between two teeth on my bottom row of teeth spanning a whole 4 teeth wide and it is just like a little wire!
another at the same airport I did not set off the detector
Heavy Recoil
Frequent Poster
Posts: 55
posted 07-17-2001 03:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about a small caliber bullet in a paper barrel tube of 2cm dia. using a pullstring igniter from a party popper. a
nonmetalic projectial a sleeve of cardboard with a cotton ball. have the string come out the bottom of the tube the cardboard
and cotton sleeve on the top. put in a tampax wraper. a nice small gun that will not create much suspicion in any ladies
handbag. using it as what it would look like would probably have more risk than toxic shock syndrome though
do I really have to tell you what it is?
silverleaf March 8th, 2004, 05:38 PM

I believe that a small caliber bullet would work, but are you sure that it'd be safe for the user to use s shotgun shell?, i mean
that is a lot of expansive force, to be trying to contain with paper, and not something a little stronger.
U.S.M.C-Man March 9th, 2004, 10:23 AM

The metal detectors use magnetisum to detect metal, so I would imagine that you could use aluminum or other metal the
cunduct magnetisum, to be sure you could make a key out of it that you convenitly leave in your pocket as you go though the
metal detector and see if it sets it off, if it does they will just forgot a key that was in your pocket and will not be suspicous, if
it does'nt you know it can be used. If it does pan out maybe one could be made out of kevlar. Just a thought.
- U.S.M.C-Man

U.S.M.C-Man,
metal detectors don't give a damn about magnetism. Otherwise stainless steel, aluminium, copper, etc. wouldn't be detected.
Metal detectors go off subtle changes to the magnetic field caused by the conductivity of the metal. Ferrous metals obviously
have a much greater effect, so have a lower detection threshold, and metals like gold and bismuth actually distort the fields
the "wrong" way. A well set-up detector will catch aluminium or whatever, except in very small amounts.
Try using non-metals for the projectile. Confetti could work well for you.
U.S.M.C-Man March 10th, 2004, 02:06 AM

Try using non-metals for the projectile. Confetti could work well for you.[/QUOTE]
You could form heated clay or some quickcrete (the kind without rocks/stones in it) to bullets.
- U.S.M.C-Man
Dave the Rave March 10th, 2004, 11:23 AM

No, U.S.M.C, chocolat confetti for you. After all, youve signed your posts, even when its clearly writen that its against the
rules.
NBKs Idea of use broken glass is much more effective than "cooked" clay or concrete, as its not very hard, and probably will
broke as soon as it hits the target, with no penetration. Windshield glass, the kind with polycarbonate film inside of an
sandwich of glass can be the best choice, as it break on small square chips, that are hard and sharpen.
An small pellet of lead, maybe an .41 calliber ball, can, with luck, dont disturb the machine.
Instead of use an factory made cartridge, why not use an cardboard tube, lets say 12 inches long, with an plug the back and
then wrapped with paper and glue to make the guns barrel, then load it with powder and the projectile of choice and use
some kind of pyrotecnics to set it of ? The Kewls choice, the party popper can be used ?

Airport detectors will pick up just about anything metallic. I've been held up for a US dime, a gum wrapper, and a finger ring.
On separate occasions. I'll stick with pure non-metallic hardware for my body, and totally innocuous gear for my carry-on. The
battery trick is almost workable...but not quite. Will show up on X-ray. Pattern matching software in the scanner will pick it out.
Just mail the ammo to yourself, or buy it locally.
Dave the Rave March 11th, 2004, 02:42 PM

Bigfoot, In mather of fact you can mail the whole gun to yourself and save the time of mask and hide the ammo and gun
parts, but isnt the point.
We are trying to find how make an workable gun, out of nonmetalic parts, as on some cases you cant go back at your PO
box, assemble your gun and then come back and finish the job, as youll have to pass "the machine" again.
So far, the best ideas are the glass shots, the papertube and the kevlar/resin barrels.
I was thinking that we can make the gun like the selfdefense rubberball guns, one singleshot, singleaction 12ga like this
Rubberball gun. (http://www.guns2u.com/products/defense_pistol/sapl_self.htm) On my idea we can use polyhard and resin to
make the receiver, trigger and hammer, and also the flatspring, and use kevlar and resin to make the barrel. About the
ammo its another mather, I think that we can make caseless ammo, but the projectile must be found.
Hard resin maybe ?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > De Lisle Carbine - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : De Lisle Carbine - Archive File

cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
posted 07-05-2001 03:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys, Is there any information about the availabity of De Lisle Carbine?This weapon is used by the British commandos during World War ll.I think this silenced weapon is
impressive,simple in construction,bolt action, using cal.45ACP ammunition. It has an effective range of 250 meters. Comparable to silenced rifles!Indeed a very neat weapon!
If not available, is there any blueprint or suitable diagram available so as to guide improvisation?
[This message has been edited by cutefix (edited July 05, 2001).]
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 192
From:
posted 07-05-2001 12:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yea it uses 1911 magazines. It is currently avaible for civilian sell in the United State if you pay the 200 dollar tax and register it with the NFA registry. The price is 1700 dollars.
They are one of the best silenced rifles made. Because it was designed to be silenced and .45 ACP is already supsonic.
angelo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 298
From:
posted 07-05-2001 08:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here is what it looks like:
pretty plain looking
------------------
if our society had shown me a path other than violence, I would have taken it.
angelo's place | have a good link? add it here | go to the OZ Forum
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
posted 07-05-2001 08:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You very much for your help guys,I will try to procure that weapon here in U.S.
AR-15 Man
Frequent Poster
Posts: 192
From:
posted 07-05-2001 09:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You realize it is a regulated NFA item. It takes a ATF background check. Also you have to be 21, get a chief law enforcement officer sign off on it, get fingerprinted and photo
taken. Then when the ATF gets done playing with themselves in about 5 months you can have you weapon.
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
posted 07-05-2001 10:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people just don't realize the difficulty of dealing with the system. It isn't like you can p8ick up a silenced weapon at your local gunstore and walk out with it.
The governement doesn't like the idea of people having shit like this, but the constitution says we can, so they make it as difficult as possible to discourage people from trying.
And what would you do with it anyways?
------------------
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
posted 07-06-2001 05:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think there is some way to get,whatever it takes,I have a special use for it,but not for evil intent to be sure.It is also a good collectors item anyway.If a lot of people
collect artwork ,others have desire for collecting weapons and other military paraphernalia..
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 07-06-2001 03:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I know fuck-all about guns, but if I was a collector I'd collect something better looking than that!
Although if the British used it it must have been good!
Well, good luck on getting one.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
posted 07-06-2001 07:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I duuno if this extends to firearms but I hear that in the US you can have silence air rifles if the silencer is built in as part of the gun (i.e and internal silenver) Maybe if there is
a rifle produced with a barrel shroud kinda silencer as standard then maybe you could get one of those?
Heavy Recoil
Frequent Poster
Posts: 55
posted 07-07-2001 12:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It probibly would not be that hard to make, colt 1911 barrels can be ordered, all but the recever can be ordered without a licence in the states (I think). One of the best sites
on silencers is www.wetworx.com or go.to/nemeses I dont know the exact address. A saying that my real dad said to me on building things was if it was made before 1945, it
can be made at home with rudimental equipment. (nuclear bombs are easy, getting the uranium is hard)
------------------
"I'm not an assassin. killing is more of a hobby with me."' Robert A. Heinlein
[This message has been edited by Heavy Recoil (edited July 07, 2001).]
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
posted 07-07-2001 12:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I like about the de Lisle was it was claimed to be one of the quitest silenced firearm. After the war, a lot of this guns were destroyed by the British themselves
because they fear that this efficient weapon will fall into the bad guys.I think only a few was left,maybe as museum pieces.It was claimed by its users during the war that the
victim cannot hear a report from the gun even at 50 meters!However, because it was bolt operated,that is more noticeable sound heard only.Its simplicity is an inspiration for
such a well crafted weapon for clandestine operation.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
posted 07-07-2001 11:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did any other UK people see the program about a year ago on spies? They demonstrated a few of the weapons like umbrella guns etc., and one thing they had was a silenced
full-auto rifle. The only noise came from the firing pin, a slight "click-click-click-click!"
I was really quite impressed. It might even have been the De Lisle, I don't know.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Low-Tec solution to SU-4. - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Low-Tec solution to SU-4. - Archive File

Ragnar
New Mem ber
Posts: 15
From : C a n a d a
Registered: JUL 2001
posted 07-31-2001 12:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bent barrel m uzzle attachm ent with periscope similar to the Krum merla uf(germ an for curved barrel) accessory for the Stg-44/
45 may be used.
K a l i s h n i k o v ( d e s i g n e r o f t h e A K - 4 7 ) , d e s i g n e d a m a c h i n e gun for firing from tank hatches. The barrel itself on this weapon wa s
bent 90degrees.
T h e s t g - 4 4 m odels were m a d e i n 3 0 a n d 9 0 d e grees. the convex side had a few vent holes to reduce pressure(and
unfavourably ,reduce range).
I wonder if one designed for an AK would be operable? I'm guessing it would need to be employed with locked breech operated
firearm s only do to overpressure? If anyone is in-the-know about firearm ballistics please inform m e on the plausibility/
dangers of this arrangem ent.
I can't rem e m ber a source for this but I believe that bent-barrel attachments were used on stenguns in Korea for firing in the
d e a d - z o n e a r o u n d a r m oured vehicles from with in.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Mortar tubes - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Mortar tubes - Archive File

Digital-Dem o n
A new voice
Posts: 38
From :
posted March 16, 2001 04:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I we nt to the local plum b e r s u p p l y s h o p a n d b o u g h t 1 p i e c e o f 3 0 " l o n g 2 " p i p e and o n e e n d c a p . N o w h e r e s t h e p r o b l e m it
h a s a s m all bum p in the tube all the way down on the inside, ho w do I get rid of it?
Acid wont work because it will also eat the rest of the tube.
Any other ideas?
Thanx
ALENGOSVIG1
Moderator
Posts: 766
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want a REAL mortar i recom m e n d y o u b u y R g n a r B e n s o n s H o m e m a d e w e a p o n s b o o k O r r e a d t h e O C R'd version in nbk's
file.
BoB-
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 657
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its called a seam, its form e d b e c a u s e a m achine rolls the metal into a tube, buy seam l e s s .
SMAG 12B/E5
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 61
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoB is correct. Buy seam less tubing. It is called m echan ical or hydraulic tubing. The inside can be pollished, if needed, with a
power drill, drill exten sion and t u b e p o i l i s h e r ( l o o k e s l i k e a s a n d paper "flapper cylinder"). A cylinder hone will also polish the
tube. An imp rovised one can be fabricated easily. I have a set o f plans for a 60m m mortar but no way to efficently post
pictures (still learning ). Be sure to proof test your barrel before using. Live rounds m u s t b e b o r e s a f e .

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > C osh - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : Cosh - Archive File

Sako
A new voice
Posts: 36
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wa s r e a d i n g a s p y b o o k a n d t h e y t a l k e d a b o u t cosh s, A n d I t h o u g h t i t w o u l d b e a b e t t e r w e a p o n t h e n a Billy club , b e c a u s e
billy clubs are hard to hide. Well any way
This is how I made one:
1st I p u t s o m e dirt in a f l o w e r p o t a n d s p r a y e d W D- 4 0 o n t h e d i r t . T h e n I m ade two trenche s in the dirt, both about by 2
a n d s p r a y e d it with W D - 4 0 . N e x t I t o o k a i r o n p i p e e n d cap (I m s u r e you guys hav e a lot o f t h o s e l a y i n g a r o u n d ) a n d
m elted lead in it, and pored it in to the to trenches
2ND then cut two pieces of lawn m ower springs. Lawn m ower springs are in the top, where the rope is. Cut them about 8 inches
3rd take the two springs and wrap part of it with duct tape. Tape the two-cast lead weights to the top. wrap the whole thing
with duct tap e a n d a d d a loop o f heav y string t o t h e h a n d l e s o you won t lose it when you u s e i t .
Here is a picture:
http://stenm k 2 . h o m estead.com/files/cosh.gif
By the way I let a friend hit my with it to see how bad it hurt. At power it hurt like a bitch.
Has any one here ever used one, or m ade one?
[ T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n e d i t e d b y S a k o ( e d i t e d March 24, 2001).]
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1478
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I h a v e s e e n s o m ething similar, the person called it a slap jack, it was an object about sim i l a r s i z e a n d s h a p e b u t t h e h a n d l e
was leather and the tip had a weight covered with leather
FadeToBlackened
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 201
From : Hell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that thing looks pretty cool bu t what is a lawnm ower spring?
Sako
A new voice
Posts: 36
From :
posted March 25, 2001 12:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawn mower spring is just a flat spring. its about 3/8 b y 1/16? and it's pretty lon g.
it's located in the top of the engine, I think it's wraped around the starter. the rope you pull to start the engine is also warped
around it
http://stenm k 2 . h o m estead.com/files/lawn.gif
if yo u cant steal a spring from an old mower yo u can bu y them for like $7 U.S.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > shot gun shell grenades - Archive File
Log in
View Full Version : shot gun shell grenades - Archive File

skunkdude
A new voice
Posts: 30
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to make some impact grenades using shot gun shells and i'm not sure how to do it. I know that a need some kind of
nail or somthing and a wieght to m ake sure it hits the primer, but thats it. Any ideas?
Agent Blak
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 770
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are plans for them in the NBK2000.PDF as well as a few other sources.
follo w the link at the bottom o f s o m e o f t h e m ods post you could learn som ething*wink*
------------------
SofaKing
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 397
From : YEAH RIGHT !!
posted March 29, 2001 12:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I t h i n k h e m e a n t u s i n g t h e s h ells as the grenade to be hand thrown. Not shot from the sh ells like in the file you refer to.
------------------
W ith Knowledge we find Truth - With Truth we find Freedom
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2321
From : England
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hm m , h e m eans from the anarchist crapbook, where yo u tape a thumbtack to the primer and also add a weight to the prim er
end of the cartridge.
skunkdude
A new voice
Posts: 30
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
y e a s o m thing like that except not written by a dick like the jolly roger, you know, som thing that wo n't kill m e.
Maddoc
Moderator
Posts: 537
From : D i z n e l a n d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nutbusters" are not Anarchist Cookbook crap.
Originally in the PMJB Volume one as a derivative of the Vietnam e s e " T o e P o p p e r " m ine im provise d from a shell an d nail.
Baisicly, you drill a hole right through a cork and glue that to the base of a shotshell with the hole centered over the prim er.
Insert a nail through the hole in the cork (loose but snug fit), until it rest against the prim er. Attach some tassles to the front
of the shell so when thrown it lands prim er end first.
Great for crowd control...
-----
G O T VIOLENCE?
skunkdude
A new voice
Posts: 30
From :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cheers m8, i'll have to try that one.
Cricket
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 160
From : U SA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night I read Predators site and sa w his "SWAT stop s " . T h e y s o u n d r e a l l y f u n , a n d y o u h a v e a n a w e s o m e p a g e P r e d a t o r ! I t
would seem if you throw one off an overpass or roof or in the air, the shot would weigh the nail end down and explode it. I
think he (in the illustration) m akes his own SWAT stop from scratch, but it looks like you can use a shotgun shell. If you are
using this to kill/injure people, I would recom m e n d m aybe cutting a vertical slice in the shell to help it throw the shot
everywhere, not just up. And it m ight be better if you don't just put shot on the top, but around the whole inside of it.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > gass assist
Log in
View Full Version : gass assist
spelunker July 4th, 200 3, 04:14 AM

sorry if i sound stupid or if this is alrea dy covered somewhere else on the forum. m y friend is working on a project, and he was
tryin g to see if he could construct a gas assisted design for a gun. in principle a p ressurized gas fo rces the bolt and firing pin
foward and b ack, with m a y b e s o m e spring assist som ewhere in there. the gas source would be a co2 canister in this case. he
was wondering if anyone has any knowledge with this or could direct him s o m ewhere where he could get the blueprints of an
already existing design, ora person that would have some knowledge on this topic. so far my friend has vary lim i t e d k n o w l e d g e
on this topic, but has constructed a thing that can fire 5 blans in sucession in a fe w sec. yes, quite a far step, but this is what
t h i s p l a c e i s f o r , g a i n k n o w l e d g e . t h e r e w a s s u p p o s e d l y o n e g u n o f g e r m a n d e s i g n t h a t h a d a s i m ilar system , or at least that's
what we understood. thatnks everybody in advance
irish July 4th, 200 3, 05:32 AM

M o s t ( a l l ? ) g a s o p e r a t e d g u n s u s e t h e p r o p e l l a n t g a s t a p p e d a t s o m e point in th e barrel.
If you used a gas canister you would find it would run out at a very bad time or run low on pressure and not unlock/lockup the
action.
I'm sorry to be negative on your idea but I think you would find it better to work on a blowback or a norm al gas action.
FragmentedSanity July 4th, 200 3, 06:30 AM

Lo there.
Just a suggestion - but it m ight be a g ood idea if you edited your post to tell us m ore about this "thing" that rapid fires
blan ks. Pictures - details - drawings... som ething more than "thing" You m ight also look athttp://roguesci.org/thefo rum /
showthread.php?s=&threadid=2774
I have to wonder why you want to make a gun like this tho - it seem s ovrely com p l e x .
If you want to use com pressed CO2 why not de sign an air pistol - or if you just want a gun m a k e a blowback Sem i - or Luty's
s u b 9 o r s o m ething..
later
FS
Arthis July 4th, 200 3, 07:06 AM

If I understood well you want to m a k e a g a s o p e r a t e d s y s t e m t h a t w o u l d t r a n s f o r m your sem i. auto in a be autiful automatic
pistol that would fire really fast, by acting on the bolt ?
T h i s s e e m s m uch work, even though I don't kn ow m uch about that...
ancalagon July 4th, 200 3, 06:28 PM

in principle a pressurized gas forces the bolt and firing pin foward and ba ck
This is kind of the principle of most sem i a n d a u t o m atic guns anyway. Basically, the pin hits the back of the cartridg e, which
triggers an explosion, which form s into pressurized gas, which pushes both the bullet forward and the pin back. You don't really
n e e d a n e x t e r n a l g a s s o u r c e f o r a h a n d h e l d g u n , a l t h o u g h I c o u l d b e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g y o u o r y o ur friend's goal.
-Ancalagon
knowledgehungry July 5th, 200 3, 12:22 PM

The goal is to make a full auto gun from scratch.
zaibatsu July 5th, 200 3, 01:51 PM

I can't see how that could be Blindreeper, surely any sensible person would not use an external po wer source and just either
use blowback (as ancalagon stated) or bleed gas off from the barrel to a piston which then unlocks the main bolt. T herefore I
b e l i e v e h e m ust be talking ab o u t a n " a d d o n " s y s t e m for a regu lar rifle. However, it would only rea lly work on a sem i-automatic
firearm , and then the re are m uch sim pler ways to do this (unless we are talking about airguns?). I think we need m ore
information on the type of firearm , calibre etc before we can com m ent on this idea.

Firstly i am n ot blindreeper, secondly i know this fellow firsthand(it is neither I nor spelunk er), he has already built a rifle from
scratch. What he wants to do is m ake a gun similar to this from scratch. http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh18-e.htm
zaibatsu July 6th, 200 3, 12:20 PM

Knowledgehungry:
Firstly, apologies for the m istake in na m e , g o d k n o w s h ow that happened. But, that shotgun (or th e CAW S project) seem s
rather am bitious, and what be nefits does it have over other sem i-autom atic shotguns? Sure, it can fire high pressure shells,
but why not just use brownings design? O r use the sam e p r i n c i p l e a s a n o r m a l g a s - o p e r a t e d s h o t g u n ? Y o u r f r i e n d s h o u l d h a v e
known to include m ore information, or you should have told him to read the rules m ore carefully.
W hy don't you get your friend to post m ore details of what he actually wants to achieve, so we can help more?

First of all i am very inexpierinced with firearm s, not my current thing. Spelunkers and my friend does not have access to this
forum , not due to being banned or anything lik e that. I will try to have him get m e a write up as soon as possible, and i will
post it then. Spelunker you should have read the rules, not only that, since this is your second post you should have had m e
post this or at least d one a more thourough job describing the g oal of our m utual friend. Try to m ake your posts look a little
m ore professional next time eh?
ancalagon July 7th, 200 3, 12:59 PM

Y o u c a n m ake a fully autom atic shotgun from scratch m ore easily with a blowback type design than with a seperate gas
system . Also, looking at the b lueprints at http://www.securityarm s.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0700/782.htm I can't see where
t h e d e s i g n i n c l u d e s s o m ething like a CO2 cartridge.
-Ancalagon

W ell I talked to m y friend, and he thin ks he has it all figured ou t, if he g ets it to work ill p ost pictures and what he did exactly.
So thanks for your time.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > COB's In & Out
Log in
View Full Version : COB's In & Out
Cricket July 6th, 2003, 08:40 AM

Everyone know s the COB, a 12 gram CO2 cartridge usually filled w ith a LE. I wanted to discuss all the variations of these, w hat they can be used for, and the best or easiest
methods of construction.
How to make
First they have to be empty. If you don't have a gun to empty them in, lightly tap it with a nail and hammer while holding securly until you hear a ssss then put it outside for a
minute. I always drill out the top, the bigger the hole, the faster it will be filled. But w ith LE's, you have to worry about confinement. I know I have made the holes slightly too
large for use w ith Pryodex before, IIRC I used a 9/64" bit. It did seem to make a decent rocket though. Next, you'll need a large straw or something that w ill snugly fit over the
top. The top is just a little over 1/4" w ide. Then you'll need something to poke in the filler w ith. I usually use a bottle rocket stick. What ever is close and not metal. Then fill
your straw or funnel and poke it on down. Repeat until filled how ever much you want it to be. It's been my experience that with most LE's you'll only need to fill it about half
way or so to rupture the container. If you plan to ignite it with a fuse, I always like to put the fuse on a strip of duct tape, then put the tape around the cartridge. Then when I
want to use it I w ill pull off the tape and fuse, put the fuse in, and put the tape around the fuse and cartridge to make it waterproof (if you are using w aterproof fuse). This
makes it pocket proof for me so the fuse won't be fucked up when I need it.
How to personalise
Antipersonnel - Get a length of duct tape, 8" w ill do, and cover all but the last 1 or 2" on each side with bb's. Then snugly wrap the bb laden tape around the COB making sure it
is no more than 1 bb thick in any one spot (for even dispersion). How ever, you can apply more than one layer of the bb tape for more shrapnel. I have made only one or two
of these and they seemed considerably louder. At a 7' distance, bb's were sunk approximately 1/2" into wood, which was somew hat soft. They were filled with Pyrodex, FFFG
equivalent. HE would be much preferable for AP COB's. Needless to say, don't watch these go off, bb's fly fucking everyw here except from the ends of it.
Shotgun Compatable Antipersonnel - Someone could drill out the top of a cartridge big enough so it could take bb's. Then you could put in some bb's and glue and put it in a drill
or something to keep it spinning long enough for the glue to dry the bb's on the inside of it. Then it could be filled w ith a HE.
Antivehicular - As NBK2000 mentioned here, (http://www .roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s= &threadid=1732&perpage=50&pagenumber=2)someone might could put a
SC into a COB. Needs researching to find the stand off distance (if any), iniation, ect.
Incendiary - If you have thermite, I w ould think you could use it as the filler. I haven't made any of these, but I would think it would burst the cartridge before it melted through
it. If it does it would probably spread it around good, but I don't know if all the thermite w ould be ignited. Never used thermite so I don't know the characeteristics of it.
Smoke - You could fill with the KNO3/sucrose smoke mix or possibly KClO3 based smoke mixes if it is compatable with the cartridge (steel with the Lead seal on top I think). Be
careful though, the thin metal of the cartridge will carry heat well, may start a fire.
Nonlethal Irritant - Might be of use to someone, someday. Read this (http://ww w.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid= 2649) to get an idea as to what to use
as a filler.
Sticky COB - You could cut a 3" * 2 1/2 strip off of a sticky mouse trap. Then you could wrap it, sticky side out, around a COB w ith super glue on it. Just before use, you could
pull off the protective paper and stick or throw it at the intended target, biological or not. Could be combined with the AP COB to make a sticky AP COB.
Use
With a HE COB, you could use it as a lock pick, small FAE initater, stun grenade (bit of shrapnel though :D), or just a generaly destructive device. Ie; someone wants to leave in
their vehicle, and you don't w ant them to. Stick a sticky COB on their fuel tank. Some of these are compatable w ith NBK2000's idea of putting them in a 12 guage shotgun. The
antivehicular COB would be interesting. Complicated though, like how to detonate at the correct distance. Also, you might get some shrapnel from one of them, since it is more
or less directly ahead of you.
Hope someone else has some other ideas along these lines. Some cons ider COB's a little K3VVl, they are a little, but they do s eem to have pos sibilitys. Everyone do be careful if you
make any of this stuff, esp if it goes out of a gun. Any comments welcome.
yt2095 July 6th, 2003, 08:56 AM

COB`s also come in 145 gram bottles too, the sort used in Soda Stream chargers and gas for beer barrels.
i`ll say no more :D
EDIT: and as an afterthough, i`ll not mention empty CO2 fire extinguishers either, that w ould be just OTT :)
Arthis July 6th, 2003, 10:05 AM

I think using thermite as a filler wouldn't make a first choice incendiary w eapon. Depending on the thermite you use, I think it will result only a partial ignition, and most of the
mix w ill not burn. The mix burns quite slow ly. You may use some BP or SP to allow the whole stuff to burn.
yt2095 July 6th, 2003, 10:38 AM

thermite w ill work in a 12gm CO2 case BUT as Arthis said and as i have found out myself, the problem comes with getting it to start the burn (it`s a right royal pain in the a$$).
i`ve got around this (tho still only a 50/50 percent hit) by making my own special fuses and yes thay are lit with an ordinary match or lighter.
it involves alot of time to make tho, as each layer needs drying time, and each layer needs to contain more and more thermite concentration.
my thermite is factory made and comes with it`s own seperate ignition powder (that`s my advantage).
as for the end result it`s a watse of time also, as the thermite uses most of it`s heat in melting the cob (quarter of it`s still usualy left over).
these are my findings.
thermite in a tin with a lid makes a better incendiary, less outside metal, and more area inside with w hich to put your ignitor. i`ve used these successfully many times to start
pit BBQ`s on a beach lighting old (not alw ays dry) drift wood :)
you mentioned also about using them for rockets, i`ve tried this many times, each time *BOOM*.
what`s your secret?
Cricket July 6th, 2003, 09:41 PM

First off, I forgot to mention that you can use nitrous chargers as a COB (should I say NOB). They seem to be maybe a little louder, a little smaller, and a lot funner to empty
:D. I think they might be louder because they are shorter, so the middle of it is a little stronger. I looked for the specifications of a N2O cartridge, but didn't find anything useful.
I am confused about thermite now, I have heard it w ill burn fast enough to rupture some stuff, and others say it is slow . I bet it's both, just depends on particle size of FexOx
and Al, density, container, ect. But either w ay, I agree, there are better things for putting thermite in. It w ould be most useful if you needed a shotgun propelled incendiary, like
to set fields or buildings ablaze from a good distance. Oh yea, one last thought, maybe it could be mixed with plaster of paris to be made solid. This might help it burn and be
easier to ignite if a first fire mix w as moulded into the tip of it.
Ahh, plus-sized COB's. You COULD use a 145 gram CO2 bottle, OR you could use an 11.3 Kg CO2 tank, for dispensing pop :D. Here (http://www .luxfercylinders.com/support/
markings/) and here (http://www .luxfercylinders.com/products/beverage/specifications/us_imperial.shtml) are some of the specs (product #C020). And of course, I got mine
from dumpster diving. Someone could easily steal one though, they are sitting behind a stores and concession stands all the time. I was planning this for the 4th of July, but I
am too broke and didn't have enough time to fix it. If you look at it (http://www .luxfercylinders.com/products/beverage/) (the second tallest one), it kinda looks like a bomb
thats dropped from an aircraft. Anyway, just thought I would share this. Someday when I get something to fill it with, I w ill be sure and get it on video for everyone. BTW, AN
isn't compatable w ith Aluminium is it? Suppose I could Plasti-Dip the whole inside though.
Yt2095, I figured it out on accident and much to my annoyance, that when using Pyrodex and when the cartridge opened to 9/64", it will not rupture it. I made three or four of
these about 2 years ago and they just went sssSSSHHH. I am sure you can use all kinda of LE's. But if it burns too fast for the gas to be let out of the hole, boom. Faster the
propellant, the bigger the hole need be, so stuff like flash and high mesh high quality BP will probably not work. I have no more bits or I would try some rockets.
THErAPIST July 9th, 2003, 11:20 PM

Well... I have made both smoke grenade type impact co2 mortars, and after reading this I decided to make a co2 flash bang w hich hasn't yet been set off. I'll try to take some
pics of another smoke mortar before and after initiation sometime in the next couple days, but I have a couple pics of the flash bang for anyone who wants to look. Flash bangs
are kinda old news though. No one really cares about em anymore I don't think.
Pics of the flash bang can be found here. (http://i-was-bored.8m.com/CO2)

streety July 10th, 2003, 08:23 AM
Cricket, the burn rate of thermite can be control if you want. As you have said the particle size is a factor but you can also use different constituents. For example using
magnesium rather than aluminium will speed up the burn although magnesium is harder to get hold off.
yt2095 July 10th, 2003, 10:47 AM

the factory thermite i use is zinc/copper for bronze welds the particles are the size of course beach sand (it`s very bright and exothermic though!)
some other thermites i`ve learned are actualy borderline explosive, copper oxide/Alu and also lead oxide mixes are quite violent and w ould most certainly rupture your vessel. i
started a thread on here titled "exploding micro balls" the other people on here w ere quite helpfull as to what they may be, the general concensus is that it`s a lead based
thermite and that looking up "Dragon eggs" would be worthw hile.
thermite as a term is bit lke saying "flash" mix. there are many sorts (i`ve learned a few myself on here as well).
so sure, your 100% right, some will go boom and others w ill just melt, mine just melts (and was a total b!tch to light). particle size will slow or speed your reaction for certain,
but the greater the size the harder to light. i`ve never seen Fe/Al thermite in real time, only on TV, it seemed more ot less the same burn rate and brightness of my bronze
thermite, though i expect the temp w ould be somewhat higher.
as Streety said, the actual compounds used to make it w ould have a greater impact on burn rate/temp than particle size alone (maybe a good combo could be employed to get
the EXACT effect your after?)
all the best :)

If you do use a lead oxide based thermite though I wouldn't w ant to be downwind of it.;)
I've also heard of teflon being used in thermites although I can't remember what that was mixed with. Anyw ay the teflon is liberated and produces a poisonous gas cloud. Again
be upwind.

I love to learn new shit. I have heard of there being a teflon containing thermite too, don't know the specs or the ratios though. I didn't know you could use lead compounds in
thermite. I bet there are plenty more too. Very interesting.
Ps, I would also like to add, COB's are great for exploding slightly underwater, 2 feet or so. At my friends all the fish within a 25' radius of the COB jump up out of the water and
swim around at the top for while. Absolutely the funniesy thing I have ever seen. I hope to get a throwing net soon.
xyz July 13th, 2003, 07:37 AM

The fish w ill swim to the surface because the shock of the blast liberates all the oxygen in the w ater and the fish have to surface to be able to breathe, they can then be picked
off with a rifle/ air rifle/crossbow/longbow if you want.
I will also add that not only do COBs come in 12gram and 145 gram, there are also ones in betw een these sizes for air rifles and lifejacket inflation. There are also VERY large
ones used in sodastream machines (I'm unsure of the size, I would say 500 - 600g) and a friend of mine has an empty one. They have a valve on the top that has to be
unsrew ed with a big wrench before you can use them. My friend and I have thought several times about having a dream where we fill it with APAN but we have always decided
against it (it w ould be extremely violent, loud, and dangerous to the surrounding area and we don't have a suitable place to set it off).
Also, the COB fillings that I have had good results with (I use HEs in my COBs as I have never been able to make good LEs):
Straight AP or HMTD
25% AP / 75% AN
25% AP / 75% KNO3
zaibatsu July 13th, 2003, 01:08 PM

I think the fish would be stunned, and therefore float to the top, rather than being deprived of oxygen. Think grenade fishing :)
xyz July 13th, 2003, 10:34 PM

A single COB stunning fish 25' away? It could be a combination of the two. I read that thing about the oxygen being liberated from the w ater in the SAS survival guide section on
blast fishing.
Edit: Has anyone tried that explosive fishook thing with a COB that is on the end of a fishing line and has a pull string ignitor in it with a fishook on the end of the pull string? I
have always w anted to try that but never got around to it.

They only come out of the water w ithin the second of the explosion, all at the same time pretty much. To me, it sounds exactly like when you go to get some ravioli out of the
pan and stir it around a little. That's one reason why it's so damn funny. Some of them that I assume w ere too close to the blast stay near the top and swim around for a
minute like if they were out of air, but you could tell they were messed up in the head. I've seen fish out of air and fish knocked senseless, and they do act simular, but the
senseless one seems less balanced. Anyw ay, I will hopefully try this with a fishing net soon and post the results if anyone is interested. Also, I could get this on VHS and send it
to someone if they were able to upload it somewhere.
Oh yea, xyz, read post 5 paragraph 3 in this thread. I think w e have the same ones. Look at the pics. But HMTD and AN aren't compatable with aluminium are they? I am
thinking of throwing mine into a pond and making it rain :) . Hopefully, there would be no water left, just a bigger hole. Good times.
xyz July 14th, 2003, 10:42 PM

No cricket, I don't think I have the same one. The one that I have is taller and thinner with a rounded bottom and a smaller valve. Mine is made out of steel, not aluminium.
HMTD is not compatible w ith aluminium (and most metals for that matter) but AN should be fine if it is used the same day it is filled.

The shockw ave ruptures the fishs' swim-bladder, which they use to maintain boyancy. An equal number probably sink to the bottom. I guess it's a lot like submarines attacked
with depth charges.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R ocket Fuel C o m p o s i t i o n
Log in
View Full Version : Rocket Fuel Composition
SMA G 12B/E5 July 7th, 200 3, 03:11 AM

I have been unsuccessful at locating any exact inform ation of th e solid p ropellant m ixture u s e d i n t h e Q a s s a m - 2 P a l a s t e n i a n
s h o p m ade artillery rocket (sim m iliar to the old Soviet 122m m ro c k e t ) . T h e s e s h o p m a d e r o c k e t s a r e n o t s p i n - s t a b i l i z e d a n d a r e
crude by m o d e r n m ilitary standards. There fuel composition does interest me.
T h e c o m position is described as a m ixture of "fertilizer, sugar, o il and alcohol. I suspect it m ay be a variation of the saltpeter/
sugar propellant. It m a y p o s s i b l e b e a n a m monium nitrate based fuel but cannot find any additional inform a t i o n . D o e s a n y o n e
have any reliable data? No search engine or archive has yielded anything other than political comentary. Thank you for any
information that you m ay provide.
Cricket July 7th, 200 3, 08:10 AM

I searched for a long time but all I fou nd was this guy (page 6) who said he could provide an "analytical pa per" and a
"diagram showing the construction of the Qassam 2 rocket". http://www.hazmansol.com/TRITON%20REPOR T 2 % 2 0 M a r 0 2 . p d f
Not m uch but it m ight turn up something. Good luck.
Forg ot to me ntion, it's a PDF (though you probably saw the extension).
SMA G 12B/E5 July 8th, 200 3, 01:59 AM

Thanks Crick et. I couldn't ope n but appreciate the effort. If I acquire the information, I will post. If I obtain the m otor
dim e n s i o n s , I m a y f a bricate a short im pulse unit and post the thrust data. I doubt if the overzealouse control freaks at
" H o m eland Defense" will appreciate the data but... If I can return the favor let m e know.
Ben July 24th, 20 03, 02:5 1 PM

Originally posted by SMAG 12B/E5
[...] The com position is described as a m ixture of "fertilizer, sug ar, oil and alcohol. I suspect it ma y be a variation of the
saltpeter/sugar propellant. It m a y p o s s i b l e b e a n a m m onium nitrate based fuel but cannot find any additional inform ation.
[...].
Interesting! I`ve wondered for som e tim e if AN is a good solid propellant. But a friend told m e yoy cannot use it because it
doesn`t burn. Is this true? Or does it make a good propellant when you m ix it with e.g. sugar or aluminium -powder? Does
anyone know?
W aiting for e nlightenm ent ...;)11
Tuatara July 24th, 20 03, 06:2 2 PM

Ben, for heaven's sake m ake use of the search button before you get banned.
I'm sure you've heard of Google too?
scarletmanuka August 2nd, 2003, 02:52 AM

I have tried AN and Aluminium P o w d e r , b u t I a d d e d a s m a l l 3 % a m o u n t o f K M n O 4 as catalyst. I tired burnin g s o m e in the
o p e n , o n a t a b l e s p o o n over a bunsen. but all I got was a loud bang, and m ost of the com position didn't burn at all, it just
snuffed out. AN and Al powder straight was too hard to ignite.
yt2095 August 2nd, 2003, 06:40 AM

Hm m m .. be VERY carefull with that mix, what you`re actualy making is called AMMONAL and was used as a landm ine filler in
W W2 by the french IIRC.
it could quite easily m ake deflagration to detonation transition!
knowledgehungry August 2nd, 2003, 01:58 PM

Made by the french? I dont think you have anything to be worrried about :p.

it is amm onal but it won't detonate unless you put a shockwave through it, like from a cap. AN based fuels in modelrocketry
consist of AN/Mg/R45 type pla stic binder. The Mg is usually 600-1000mesh, it burns well, albeit a little slow and is not too hard
to ignite but it very pressure sensetive, it probably would not burn at any speed a t 1atm b ut would go around 5mm to 1cm /sec
at 1000psi which is very usable.
Mr Cool August 10th, 2003, 09:10 AM

I've used an AN based fuel, it was:
Am monium Nitrate..............70% [fertiliser grade]

Powdered Aluminum..............5% [resin additive]
Polyester Resin...................18% [cheap stuff for fibreglass work]
Am monium Bichromate..........5% [actually, potassium dichroma te was used]
Powdered Ch arcoal................2% [lum pwood barbeque charcoal, reduced to airfloat in a b all m ill]
It worked, but was no t as good as KNO 3/sugar or BP. I only tried a few tim e s , m a ybe with practice it could be improved, or
m aybe with a different motor design.
IIR C, it hardly burnt at all in the open, just the resin with a sm o k e y f l a m e . I u s e d a s m a l l n o z z l e a n d a B P i g n i t i n g c h a r g e u p
the core to try and get the pressure up.
Another AN m ix which apparently works is very sim ple: 80-90% AN, 10-20% "urethane plastic."

A n o t h e r g o o d e a s y a n d s a f e c o m posite fuel can be found on Richard Nakkas site www.nakka-rocke try.net , His RNX fuel is
b a s e d o n K N O 3/Fe2O 3/Epoxy and can give com parable im pulses to cand y m i x e s . I h a v e a l w a y s s e e n a h u g e g a p b e t w e e n t h e
type s of rock ets (Motors) in fireworks and they types in experimental rocketry. I suppose becase with fireworks the basic
s k y r o c k e t d o e s w h a t i t i s d e s i g n e d t o d o a n d i s e a s y a n d f a s t t o m a k e . B u t I a m getting off track here :)
nzrockets August 15th, 2003, 08:08 AM

AN is used but only by Amateurs. it also has to be treated to sto p it swelling and cracking with changing tem peratures. Sodiu m
Nitrate is another propellant worth thinking about 25% epoxy, 2% IO, 73% SN will work but it is m uch better with Mg added. it
sim ilar to KN but is m o r e d e n s e a n d u n l i k e K N m otors it will give a nice flam e. will soon ha ve m ore data on the prop ellant but i
waiting for m y strand burner .
m att
Kiyanoosh August 15th, 2003, 09:05 AM

HI if you want make propellant you can mix hidrazin with colorobootadian
this best propelant
sory if my english lan g u g a e i s n o t g o o d : p
Desmikes August 15th, 2003, 08:42 PM

I've heard th a t a m m onpluver (80%AN and 20%charcoal) is a decent rock et propellent, the key word here is cheap. I don't
know how you would go about igniting this comp, perhaps adding some SP or BP m ight m ake it easier...
Kiya, what's "colorobootadian"?
vulture August 16th, 2003, 06:22 AM

I think he means chlorobutadiene.
It probably works as an oxidizer for the hydrazine, but I can't really see how.
H e p r o b a b l y p u l l e d i t o u t o f s o m e b o o k t o i m press us. :rolleyes: sigh.
Blackhawk August 16th, 2003, 09:38 PM

I'd like to kn ow where he got his hydrazine from, of cou rse if he actually has som e he is probably dead by now anyway. Lots of
liquid propellants use d around the boom in space travel used exotic and somewhat suicidal chems that were fiercly hypergolic,
I just don't u nderstand what they found wrong with H2 a n d O 2 , g i v e s g o o d isp and they are both pretty safe, even though th ey
have to be cryogenic.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Aerosol weapons
Log in
View Full Version : Aerosol weapons
yt2095 July 8th, 2003, 07:24 AM

this is a trick i discovered as a kid, thought some of you may find it usefull as an improvised self defence weapon, espcialy for any Female forumites :)
1) obtain or empty an aerosol can (females could use a small purse sized body spray can)
2) spray some of the contents into the lid (a snif test will make it seems that the contents are genuine)
3) put your empty can in a bowl of boiling water and release any gas that builds up by deperessing the nozel as in normal use.
4) repeat #3 until your 100% sure than no more gas will escape, then let it cool to room temprature.
---You NOW have a can with a vacume in it! ---
5) sellect a liquid you want to fill your can with, chilli oil is a good one! or conc ammonia. (avoid acids and use common sense)
6) pull the spray nozel off the can then invert it into your liquid, depress the plunger and your can will start to fill up (let it fill) :)
7) when done wipe your can clean and get a can of Butane lighter gas.
8) select the lighter gas nozel that fits into your new aerosol nozel then proceed to fill your new can with the pressurised butane as if it were a big lighter :)
(point #8 CAN get a bit messy sometimes, so take adequate precautions)
9) replace the spray nozel, test, than clean your can, pop the lid back on and your done :)
on occasion you may need to widen the nozel hole with a pin/needle to give it greater spray distance or if your liquid is particularly viscous.
please be carefull with these devices so that you or a child doesn`t use it by mistake !!!
EDIT: between points #4 and #5 you may put the can in the freezer for an even greater vacume effect.
Enjoy :D

A few calculations for those who like that:
Considering a 250 mL spray can. Let's consider perfect gas inside the can.
PV=nRT
So if you empty the can just after boiling it (373 K), you have n=PV/(RT)
10^5*0.25/(8.314*373)=8.06 mol
So at 25C, you have a pressure of 8.06*8.314*273/0.25=73125 Pa

So you get 3/4 atm in the spray can.
This is a pretty high pressure to suck up something, isn't it ?

Why not adapting, once you have put the pression around 1 atm inside (to do that you just heat a little the can while pressing to make sure it's really empty), a vacuum pump
to the nozzle ? Like that you could put more product in a small spray can. Great to spread lots of chemicals in a crowded place.
Fucking metros....:mad: ;)
yt2095 July 8th, 2003, 11:48 AM

as an adjunct to this thread, rather than it be just a "stand alone instruction manual"
i invite discourse as what would constitute a good filler for these aerosol cans, maybe petrol with a lighter attatched as single use flame thrower?
this part i`ll leave to the imaginations of forumites.........
it`s YOUR thread now :D
Arthis; thanx for the maths it`s added considerably to my post, your a braver man than me to work all that stuff out! ;)

I was just thinking of something like this, except using an inhaler(the type that give precisely equal amounts of the solution with each use). I was thinking that since you can
use an exact amount of a gas as a knock out spray. Find the amount of HCN that knocks the victim out without killing and have that amount be let out every time you spray it
etc. I dont understand the point of using irritants in it as you can purchase Mace etc from almost any store here. But other chemicals might have some use. The hydroxides
react with aluminum IIRC so they would be out of the question, most corrosive chemicals do unfortunately.
yt2095 July 8th, 2003, 01:12 PM

forgive me if i`m wrong, but i`m fairly sure that Hydrogen Cyanide is a gas at RTP? and so how you fill your aerosol is beyond my experience unless you can obtain it liquified
somehow?
secondly, Aerosol weapons such as Mace, pepper spray and the like are unavialable here in th UK, at least to the general public anyway.
you mention the Asthma type aerosols, i`ve never tried them myself for refills, but i imagine that it may not be possible with the above method since they have a float valve
that limits the outgoing (making the vacume creation difficult) and i expect it would either restrict or make impossible the intake of a liquid/gas just as difficult or maybe
impossible? i AM only guessing here and this would be a good subject for experimentation :)
of course having said that, if it were to be entirely feasable, the sytem employed to deliver this against your assailant(sp) attacker would be subject to debate also, i personaly
beleive that arms length is TOO close!
you are indeed correct, hydroxides can be quite nasty with certain metals (some, namely LiOH will even attack glass!) hence in point #5 i stated to use common sense. conc
Ammonia seems to quite ok with many metals, with the exception of copper over time.
as a knockout agent, most in reality seem patheticly slow as compared to the crap on TV and at best in TV time done in reality will get you HIGH and give a pounding
headache about 10 mins later, i`m sure NBK would have some info as to what would be the most effective in reality.
but ethoxyethane (ether), 111 trichloroethane and chloroform are as i`ve already stated lousey to use, kills brain cells lovely tho :)

IIRC HCN BP is about i think at 25* C im not sure, i know that it isnt that hard to liquify.
nbk2000 July 8th, 2003, 07:38 PM

It's about 79&degF. I've poured HCN into the palm of my hand and watched it boil. :) BTW, I wouldn't do that again, knowing what I know now. :eek: ;)
HCN is an "all or nothing" weapon. It either kills you, or has no effect, with no middle ground. So, there's no "knocking" someone unconcious with it, unless it's a prelude to
their death.
As a general rule, anything that'll render someone unconcious quickly enough to be tactically practical, will have a high mortality rate. Witness the russian theather rescue. Using
a synthetic opiate, they knocked out everyone in the theather quickly enough that the terrs weren't able to kill anyone. But, in the process, the anesthetic killed 1 in 6
hostages.
Only when used under very controlled conditions would an anesthetic be useable.
Even then, since you're not doing it in a hospital setting with access to a respirator, oxygen, cardiac drugs, etc, you'll be taking a chance of the person dying on you anyways.
So, if you have to capture a specific person alive and undamaged, then you'll have to use something else, like a TASER or some kind of man-trap.
IF you don't care about fatalities, and the need for rendering a group of people unconcious rapidly is important, but killing everyone present isn't desireable, then I'd use
Methylene Chloride. Look for my thread in the CW section called "MCX, the triple threat agent" for more details. Though, if you use too much and there's an ignition
source...crispy critters. :(
Otherwises, use pure HCN at .3 oz/1K CFT, to exterminate all life within a few moments. :)
As for the aerosol cans...
Drill a hole in the bottom after venting all pressure out. Rinse out the container with a suitable solvent. Cool the can down to whatever temp is needed to do the next step.
Pour in about half the volume of the can with your desired chemical dissolved in a sutiable solvent and low boiling point pressurizing agent and seal the drill hole with a
gasketed self-tapping screw or rivet.
When it reaches room temp, the low BP agent will "boil" inside the can, creating an above-atmospheric pressure inside the can. :)
spelunker July 8th, 2003, 08:58 PM

ok, this is somewhat on the stupid side, but CO2 in concentration of i think over 15% will knock a person out in a breath or two, i'm not completelly sure on the duration, but i
know that the person just passes out, and i think if you just get them to fresh air in a min or so they would be ok. also, that this stuff is abondunt, cheap, and safe, is a plus.
so if they were in a room, and you just vented the CO2 next to the door, if the windows were closed, i'd give them a min
nbk2000 July 9th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Little thing called "glottal (SP?) seizure" would kill them, unfortunately. :(
Exposure to a suffocating atmosphere triggers the glottal seizure (part of the mamillian dive reflex), causing the muscles that seal off the airway to seize shut, to keep out the
CO2 (or "water" as the brain thinks of it).
Once seized up, it would require a tracheatomy and postive oxygen resicitation to release it.
And the quantity of CO2 would be very large. Also heavy, since each cylinder weighs about 15 pounds empty, plus the 20 pounds of gas, times the number of clyinders
required to gas even a smallish room.

About the flamethrower that you spoke about, yt2095 (even if a little off-topic): you can buy any spray can to use as a small flame thrower, we all have, when younger, tried
it with a deodorant spray. No need to make your own. There are normally no risks of backfire.
I've always dreamt of using jellyfishes to make a powerful product, to be used in spray cans for example. Spay it to the face, even a small quantity in the eyes could turn bad.
And it burns, depending on the jellyfish: here there are some sometimes that burn a lot. eheh

I have often though of obtaining a collection of highly venomous animals (legally, of course) for weaponry plans, and jellyfish are, as a species, perhaps the most venomous
animals in the world, with the possible exception of snakes. Many believe the box jellyfish to be the MOST venomous animal there is, and there are plenty of others that range
from no sting to "your lucky if you live" level of danger. I have no doubts that their poisons would be more effective as a spray than pepper spray or mace, but I think they
may cause more lasting harm. If your not worried about lasting damage, why not just fill an aerosal can with acid? (although you would have to do something to prevent the
acid from eating through the metal can).
-Ancalagon
Anthony July 9th, 2003, 02:05 PM

It would be hard to rely on the metal can being protected. Even a gradual reaction between the acid and the can could over-pressurise the can resulting in it exploding, or
spurting acid when you least expect it.
Does jellyfish venom work if it's not injected? Maybe into the eye tissues would be a sufficient means of entry?

It has been mentionned that acid would not be adequate, you do not make an aerosol spray from scratch but you use OTC sprays, so opening it would not be as interesting.
Maybe nitric acid, conc enough it won't attack the can (cans are made of aluminium).
You may not want to make a self-defence aerosol, but anything, and a can full of jellyfish poison, pure, would be perfect to protect the access to a door or anything. Of course
gloves will reduce your efforts to nothing, but noone takes precautions to touch the handle of a car/house door [remember the movie "the Jackal ?].
[edit]: to Anthony. Of course it works a little: when touched by a jellyfish it burns. At least Mediterranean ones. (I experienced that, more than once). The fact is it's soon
washed by the sea, etc. But with a spray, you pulverize a large quantity, and it's not washed. It will not kill a man (you would need to stay in prolongated contact), but some
weak people can collapse. It would be an expensive stuff, time eating to prepair some. In the eyes, it would surely cause much damages and life-long lesions.
nbk2000 July 9th, 2003, 03:56 PM

Jellyfish toxins are stored in tiny barbed stingers called "nemetocytes". The nemetocytes are triggered by contact, injecting the toxic protein underneath the skin.
The toxin is too large to penetrate the skin without being injected, and the nemetocytes are triggered by contact, thus your jellyfish extract would be like a fired
bullet...harmless...because the barbs aren't going to survive being aerosolized without being triggering.
This sin't to say you couldn't use a water ballon filled with box jellyfish tentacles to drop on someone. :) As long as the tentacles are intact, and haven't been dried, then they'll
trigger upon impact or when the victim goes to wipe them off. :D
But for carrying around? :confused: Impractical and needlessly complicated.
If you're going to be spraying anything, you have to RTPB "Plan for failure", and assuming that it'll drift back to you or rupture in your pocket. Do you really want to be carrying
around a can of fuming nitric next to the family jewels? :eek: Or get a mist of concentrated lye in your eyes? Not me.
Now, if it's a set up weapon, then that's different. In which case, load it up with the most vile and toxic things you can find. :)
mongo blongo July 9th, 2003, 09:36 PM
If you open up an aerosol can and look inside there is some kind of thin yellow/gold coating on the inside on the metal. It might not be on all aerosol cans but does anyone
know what the coating is and what is it for? protecting the metal? The can was a Lynx deodorant by the way.
yt2095 July 10th, 2003, 05:21 AM

my main concern about acids in the can wasn`t so much the can itself but the steel spring in the nozel plunger, i`ve found this out accidently using the plastic pump spray
bottles, they work great for a while with a plethora of diferent chems, it`s the spring that doesn`t stand up to abuse though, the same applies to water pistols unfortuanetly :(
streety July 10th, 2003, 08:15 AM

Going back to the original method, if you can't get you hands on a vacuum pump you should be able to achieve a better vacuum by adding a little ammonia, or other volatile
solvent, to the can after it has been depressurised, and then repeating the boiling process.
This way some of the ammonia will condense back when the can is cooled, further reducing the pressure.

And how will you empty the ammonia from the can if there's already underpressure ? The principle of the stuff is to use the vacuum to pump in some liquid. If there's already
ammonia in here you won't be able to take it away, and you lose some place.
yt2095 July 10th, 2003, 01:06 PM

Arthis, quite true.
Steety i can understand exactly what your getting at, and at face value it "SEEMS" to be a good idea, but the further de-pressurisation is created by then further freezing the
can (between points #4 and #5)
the addition of Ammonia would result in exactly what Arthis said unfortunately.
your principal DOES WORK in certain situations with gasses tho :)

in fact i use Lithium metal in my homemade vacume tubes to remove the oxygen and nitrogen content from an already scarce pressure to create an even greater vacume.
Note: i`m aware it sounds contradictory to "Create a vacume"
but for wants of better terminology, that`s the method i employ for gasses (or lack of)
hope this helps a little?

There would be no way to remove it, you are quite right but if you are filling the can with ammonia its not a problem. Besides the amount we are talking about should make
very little difference to the final content of the can.
When not using ammonia I suspect you could use other volatile liquids although I don't know how success they would be.
Spudkilla July 10th, 2003, 06:08 PM

Thank you, yt2095! I posted on this quite some time ago, looking for a method of getting substances back into the can. I think the best idea was tapping the bottom of the
aerosol can and putting in a bike valve. One thing that puzzles me is: How do you know if pressure is building up in the can while you are boiling it? What if you couldn't tell,
and the heated contents exploded the can? If the can exploding isn't bad enough, what about the flying boiling water? It makes me shudder to think about it.

The process would still work (in fact should work better) if the can valve is held open.
The risk would come in the possibility of the can imploding when making the vacuum rather than exploding when being heated.

See the calculations I made previously. Using a perfect gas would lead at maximum 3/4 atm. This won't make a spray implode, even if cans are made to resist internal
overpressure and not external overpressure.
It's also difficult to say what happens with ammonia, or with any stuff that is a gas at 100C and liquid at 25C, because with the pressure being different the boiling point is
different. Anyway you have a binary equilibrum with one constituant, with partial pressure, etc... This is not so easy to handle, even considering perfect gas.
Finally, in this method, be very careful that the vacuum will not be totally compensated by pumping up some liquid: it's like Hg thermometer, the vacuum is not enough to
pump enough mercury. So you will lose a lot of gas, as you need your spray to spray (!). This may happen to be a little more expensive, and a little less effective. I mean
even if it's 3/4 atm, you will not be able to pump:
-
PV=nRT=cte in the can, so 75000*V0, V0 volume of your can
if P=10^5 , you have then V=V0*3/4
-
... to pump 1/4 V of liquid. Count no more than 1/5 V. This is not much. This will strongly depend too of the density of the stuff you use in your can: mercury creates a great
depression, water not much...
yt2095 July 11th, 2003, 07:37 AM

points #3 and #4 negate the possibility of explosion.
the bicycle valve although a workable idea wouldn`t pass the scrutiny of an inspection, the idea was to keep the can as "normal" looking as possible so as not to arouse
suspiscion.
the butane gas BP -17c (iirc) will provide plenty of pressure to reactivate your can, they use Butane in a good many aerosol products as the propellant anyway. especialy since
all this CFC worries, compressed air is used in some products but far to difficult for the home kitchen lab.
in all my uses of these, i`ve never once had a failure and always been able to get the cans well over half full.
give it a shot :)
Skean Dhu July 12th, 2003, 05:07 AM

if your worried about pressure building up you can do it the way NBK suggested and drill a hole in the bottom. In preparation for this experiment i foudn an empty can. then i
found some 3" pvc left over from another project that had an end cap glued on it, so i drilled a hole and put a screw in the bottom. now when i drop an empty/near empty can
in the screw punctures the can and vents any remaining pressure and possibly launches the can out of the PVC. all i need is a gasketed screw and i'll be set
sauvin October 8th, 2003, 06:51 AM

I'm not satisfied that all pressurised aerosol cans are made of aluminum, but can't bring up counterexamples at the moment.
The goldish colour somebody earlier in this thread remarked upon is called a "gold iridite" finish, which, if I don't make mistake, is similar to black anodising: an acid bath
surface treatment of aluminum to lend the treated surface greater resistance to corrosion, and, if I'm still not making mistake, lends surface tension and a degree of hardness
to said surface.
Since I have no aerosol cans to muck with at the moment, the question occurring to me concerns the feasibility of filling the can, after having removed the nozzle cap, by
syringe through the exhaust tube.

I don't know that this particular post is strictly on topic in this particular thread, but was unable to find one that looked more suitable and am unwilling to initiate a new thread
for what may be a stunningly stupid idea.
In some Clancy-like novel that is now stupidly out of print, whose title I even more stupidly cannot recall, there was a description of a grenade-like weapon that operated first
by releasing large volumes of some highly volatile (and, of course, extremely toxic) fuel before detonating. The idea, as explained in the novel, was to effect maximum
casualty with minimum damage to surrounding structures - in this novel, the "structure" was a schoolbus full of Anapolis cadets bound for some international function at the
White House (where else?), and the defuncted cadets were replaced with lookalikes recruited from elsewhere for nefarious purposes - but the bus itself had to be more or less
preserved.
I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding how an atomised fuel so atomised in a confined volume could be ignited without basically pushing the sides and roof away from
the center of the structure. A small experiment I tried a long time ago involved an exhausted can of lighter fluid whose top had been removed, and LIGHTLY re-infused with
gasoline and then ignited. Fucker took off faster than a jackrabbit running from a wolf. If that can had been ignited SEALED, it would almost certainly rupture (I believe the
crimped-on top would have achieved low orbit).
Are there atomised fuels that can burn in a confined volume without exploding?
grandyOse October 11th, 2003, 01:15 AM

I have one of those huge cans of wasp spray in my vehicle. It shoots a solid stream for 15 feet. I don't know what a good shot of this would do to someone, but even a whiff
of this stuff makes me run for fresh air. It's also inconspicuous, "hey, I have to go into seldom occupied buildings all the time". It's a lot cheaper than pepper spray (same size/
volume spray). I like the idea of OTC sprays, it's harder to prove intent/premeditation. Are there any more affective OTC sprays? Anyone had any personal experience with
wasp spray?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > "In the Line of Fire" Resin Gun
Log in
View Full Version : "In the Line of Fire" Resin Gun

Have any of you had experience with high impact resins? I've been working on a resin model of mine and it reminded me of the gun from "In the Line of Fire". I'm sure that
this has been brought up before but I couldn't find any threads that related to this in my search. I've been stroking this idea for awhile in the back of my head and decided to
just come out and ask. I've been looking at a few modeling resins but have yet to commit to a purchase, as they are pretty expensive. Also I have no real experience in this
area and don't want to buy a bunch of junk.
So do you guys have any guidance in this area? I just bought a CD-ROM on molding techniques and I'm going to purchase a couple books on molding and car body work as
they will have some guidlines on recommended products.
The gun from that movie was to me one of the ultimate "improvised" weapons that emphasized simplicity and lethality in a very covert fashion.
This resin would have to be able to withstand the impact of a .22 cal back blast. I want to start small on this first.
Arkangel July 19th, 2003, 07:00 AM

I don't know if there's a specific resin that will be this tough, but there's one used in GRP (fibreglass) manufacturing that might be hard enough if you use it in the right way.
I'm thinking of Furane Resin, and it's used by die-makers. Basically, to build the mould for any GRP object, you first build a wood or plaster original (the "die") That finally has
a layer of fibreglass, and then many coatings of furane resin. It's a thinner, watery resin, but when it cures it's extremely hard, and can be polished to an almost glass-like
finish.
You won't be able to use just this stuff, it will have to be a composite, but you might be able to get a hard enough finish by building up layers on a normal GRP base.
Tuatara July 20th, 2003, 06:24 PM

Its not really hardness you want - its toughness. Generally hard = brittle = shrapnel. If you choose hard resin for dimensional stability it must be reinforced. Try chopped glass
fibre, carbon firbe, Kevlar, Spectron, Dyneema etc. Obviously glass is cheapest.
zaibatsu July 20th, 2003, 08:36 PM

I was doing some research into GRPs, and it seems carbon fibre just disintegrates when pressure becomes too high, such as the impact of a racing car in a crash, which limits
shrapnel but makes it seem like it can't be used in high pressure situations (beware - these are newbie grp thoughts, I am most likely wrong). Also, the book I read was saying
that you really need to use epoxy resin with carbon fibre, which is more difficult to use, and may require the use of a vacuum chamber. Perhaps glass matting may be a better
choice - you are only forming a cylinder, and so can lay it up properally.
Although I really do doubt you need to worry about a lot of this with a .22LR, aren't those crappy derringer kits made out of some plastic/pot metal?
nbk2000 July 20th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Why not try machining a block of high strength fiber reinforced plastic, rather than resin casting?
Something like Zytel or Delrin should be adequate if you use a low pressure load. I'd go with a black power cartridge too, rather than a more modern smokeless, becaue of the
lower cartridge pressures, meaning the gun is less likely to K-B in your hand.
stickfigure July 21st, 2003, 09:01 AM

I was thinking on a milling a block of plastic also, in fact as you suggest this might even be easier than molding. I guess once you get an image in your head of someone doing
something that appears to work you kind of subconsiously gravitate into that thought. Although is a movie it really appealled to the do-it yourselfer inside of me. This will be a
project that requires much more research before I actually get into testing. I figure that .22lr or even .22 short is a relatively safe cartridge to use, and is plentiful. I want
something that is deadly at close range but also easy to find when your out in the sticks. Thanks for the suggestions so far.:)
Arkangel July 21st, 2003, 10:17 AM

Tuatara
You won't be able to use just this stuff, it will have to be a composite By which I meant a composite structure, faced with a harder material - the furane.
But I think in general people underestimate the strength of fibre reinforced plastics. Carbon fibre/Kevlar structures can disintigrate, but not without an enormous amount of
force, and then only in the places where the force acts.
Tuatara July 21st, 2003, 06:32 PM

Ugh, sorry Arkangel. My brain must have been on the fritz when I read your post - no insult intended.
You're right about underestimation of material strength - it applies to many things besides resin/fibre composites. Probably due to the different failure mode - most common
metals simply bend, and stay bent. Composites seem to leap straight to catastrophic failure - e.g. some of the carbon composite yacht masts that exploded in the America's
Cup.
Yet the flywheel power backup system I was involved with once had a 10kg flywheel running at 40,000 rpm - only held together because of the outer wrap of carbon fibre.
Nothing else was strong enough.
FireBomb July 22nd, 2003, 04:48 AM

While I realize that this is my fourth post and this has already been brought up I still would like to offer my advice.
I beleve that Carbon Fiber would be your best bet. Upon doing some quick research on Google I have found several links regauding carbon fiber tanks used in Hydrogen Fuel
Cells. Several of the takes are constructed completely of carbon fiber and then coated in a fiber glass. These tanks can support pressures of up too 10,000 PSI.
OK well thats my $.02 hope it helped some.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > household improvised weapons list
Log in
View Full Version : household improvised weapons list
firemaker July 18th, 20 03, 02:5 4 PM

Hi everyone. I am very sorry if som eth ing like this has already been posted, but I couldn't find anything quite like this. In this
thread I plan to m ake a list (with other users contributing their ideas) of very com mon, ordinary, household objects.
STABBING/POKING WEAPONS:
scissors - stab/slash
b a l l p o i n t p e n - p o k e ( h a r d ) a n d a i m for things like eyes or temple
fountain pen - stabing
pocket/kitchen knife - ovbious
BLUNT WEAPO NS
p o t s a n d p a n s - u s e d for beating and the like
1 or 2 liter soda bottles(full of soda) - shake up, and hit with as much force as you can(aim for the back of the head if
possible)
hard cover books- again go for the head, or if you are really evil go for the eyes with the corners of the cover :D
m etal barbells - I think you know what to do :)
certain small brifecases - m anily used for block ing knife attacks
IRRITATION
aresol cans - spray in eyes, almost any kind works
drain cleaners - again go for the eyes (ouch)
wind ex or other spray bottles filled with nasty stuff - eyes
lye - if you can find any lye in your house it will be VER Y effective (see Fight C lub if you don't know what I mean)
Sorry for the small list but I hope it will grow from your opinions and idea s . T h a n k s i n a d v a n c e .
Efraim_barkbit July 18th, 20 03, 04:4 0 PM

where did you find all this info , I was like W HOAA, is it possible to use a com m o n p o t t o b e a t p e o p l e u p ? ? ?
addition:
pole - hit in the head for most dam age, or shove it up in ass.(no, not yo urs, the other guy)
(I actually saw this in a swedish com edy serie about wikings, a g uy was found dead in the shithouse with a big pole in his
ass:D )
Seriously, wh o actually needs this list ?
Arthis July 18th, 20 03, 05:3 7 PM

Let's say we m ust think about stuffs we would never think other tim es. It m a y h e l p u s o n c e ( t h o u g h I d o u b t y o u r e m e m ber in
c a s e o f e m ergency).
W hat about a com puter mouse for strangulation ?
Anything can be thrown, this list is a non sense, you don't want to enum erate the size of your screwers that you m a y u s e t o
stab s o m e o n e ?
You should stick yourself to posting in the wate r cooler, a little tim e, for you to se e how it work here.
firemaker July 18th, 20 03, 07:5 6 PM

where did you find all this info , I was like W HOAA, is it possible to use a com m o n p o t t o b e a t p e o p l e u p ? ? ?
If you don't have anything worth posting, then please don't post it.
But yes, now that I th ink about it i gue ss I shouldn't have posted something like this...it was just a random thought anyway.
Arkangel July 18th, 20 03, 09:3 1 PM

He was simply pointing out that this is a dipstick thread, don't be so touchy!
Arthis, on the other hand was pointing out that it is som etimes worth stating the obvious, as by doing so you m ay com e u p
with an obvious idea you'd have otherwise missed.
W atercooler m aterial though:p
nbk2000 July 19th, 20 03, 12:4 5 AM

If you don't have anything worth posting, then please don't post it.
W hat irony. :rolleyes:
But all that's moot since he's gone. :p

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Gauss Pistol
Log in
View Full Version : Gauss Pistol
zaibatsu July 22nd, 2003, 06:43 PM

Have a look at this (http://members.optushome.com.au/dbsite1/www.pskovinfo.ru/coilgun/index.htm) and tell me what you think. Power seems a little low, but it does look
very impressive, being portable.
Tuatara July 22nd, 2003, 08:30 PM

Cute!
The cap bank is charged to ~180J so if that projectile energy really is 1.5J, then the thing is extremely inefficient.
The thyristor commutation circuit is very elegant and clever. I'll remember that one.
Imperial July 23rd, 2003, 05:42 AM

Hmmm though it is inefficient, 33 m/s is the fastest muzzle velocity I have seen for a coil gun, especially one so small.
The fact that it doesn't make a noise, but can pierce tin is also very good, for that means that it would be a good silent kill weapon.
I was considering making a coil gun, but I gave up after I couldn't make it portable enough (I could make things that use electromagnets to acellerate projectiles to high speed,
but they were all so big, inefficient and ugly I don't think that I succeeded. I think that I may try again using a plan like this one, although when I finish it I will probably try to
make it fire much faster than 25 seconds apart.
I don't know how I can do this yet, so I will need some experimentation, and the site doesn't seem to say the power source.
THErAPIST July 23rd, 2003, 06:09 AM

It says what its powered by...
powered by six AA NiCd accu placed in handle
DC/DC converter charging capacitors to 800V
This seems to be a quite decent gun for its size. Did anyone see anything about the range of this gun? I didnt see anything :confused: I think a rifle would be better though.
You could store more capacitors or bigger capacitors in the rifle butt and you would be able to have a larger clip. Does anyone think it possible to have 2 triggers? Maybe one
could squeeze one trigger and then the other effectively cutting the delay between shots in half. Just a few thoughts though.
Mr Cool July 23rd, 2003, 08:44 AM

Very cute!
Add on a few more stages (so it's rifle-sized) and it'd be great.
anthracis July 24th, 2003, 05:12 AM

VERY interesting but also scary! The chances to get shot silently are increasing!...Anyway, no doubt we are whitness of the future weapons! And maybe this technology will find
some other uses, less dangerous!
How much would cost right now a gun like this ?... :D

anthracis: Isn't the dangerousness of the gun the whole point? :D
Ah yes I just noticed the batteries. That is very good for a gun of that size.
If its muzzle velocity is about 33 m/s, and it has enough force to pierce a tin plate, then I would imagine its range to be about 30+ metres. This is more than enough for a gun
of this size, and the fact that it is completely silent is an added bonus.
If a rifle model was made, the butt could hold more powerful capacitors and batteries, for a much faster projectile with more momentum (p = mv). This means it will be better
for piercing things.
I did a few tests in comparing tin plates to more real-world targets (i.e. bones) using my compressed CO2 pistol, and found that a small lead projectile which can pierce the tin
plate (VERY high pressure required) can smash beef bones, although not pierce through them. But if the subject was shot in the head with a gun like this, just the shattered
bones would be enough damage, since they did cave in a little. Unfortunately I don't have pictures because of my digital camera problem :(, but when I get it repaired I will
make sure to post some results.
Basically what I found was that the pressure needed (well in a CO2 gun) to pierce tin was enough to cause some serious damage, and aiming for the chest/back would be a
great way to kill someone silently (they can't scream with a sucking chest wound)! :D
EDIT
---------
Assuming the projectile hits no bone (i.e. passes through in between the ribs or between the shoulder blades and other bones) I think it would be quite possible to get a chest
wound from a CO2 pistol. The lead balls (not the stupid soft pellets, but the balls) can pierce skin reasonably easily from a range of about 30-50m. Did I say 300? Typo.....30
m :)
Of course, that is assuming that it doesn't hit any bone which is improbable. As far as accuracy is concerned, the CO2 pistols that I have experience with (as well as CO2 rifles)
are apparently quoted to be accurate to 80 m. I have only tried them to about 50m, though, and they worked fine at that range. I was probably wrong about the momentum
issue, though. I didn't realise that air gun projectiles traveled so much faster! I thought that only gunpowder based firearms provided speeds about 100 m/s. But when I look at
it now, 100 m/s is only about 360 km/h. Gunpowder guns have projectiles which travel at over 1000 km/h, which is about 278 m/s.
This information means that the weapon isn't really all that powerful when compared with a proper firearm. It can, though, break thin bone which means it may be good to aim
in the temple and other soft areas.
Should have done my calculations properly then.:rolleyes: My mistake.

---------
zaibatsu July 24th, 2003, 10:55 AM

33m/s and you expect it to be able to shoot to 300m?? Somehow I don't think so, air pistols with 100m/s aren't accurate to much past 25-30m, and that's from a rest. I'm sure
the iron projectiles will retain their energy at much further distances than pellets, but still would not be dangerous.
Chest wound from a CO2 pistol, right... :rolleyes: go back to believing you are some form of aristocracy.
Anthony July 24th, 2003, 03:16 PM

BB firing CO2 pistols are ~1fpe muzzle energy. You'd be lucky to kill and rat with a pointblank headshot with that.
Flake2m July 26th, 2003, 09:00 AM

That gauss gun is only pistol sized. If it was redesigned to the size of say an sub machine gun then the size to power would be improved. The gun only has one coil which is
why it has a low muzzle velocity.
If the gun was redesigned to have roughly the same dimensions of a FN-P90 which has a barrel length of 263mm and is overall about 500mm long then it would still be quite
compact and have much more power. The barrel length of the pistol is ~100mm so you could add one more coil, maybe two. The gun would still have plenty of room for
capacitors and batteries. There would be more room for sub-systems so the guns accuracy and reload rate should be improved.
Tuatura; As you probaly know, guass guns are not very efficient. The most efficient guns can may only have an projectile energy of maybe 1-2% of the total energy. If the
efficency was able to be improved to maybe 5% then that guass gun would be extremly powerful weapon.
Currently the projectile energy is 0.83% of the total energy output.
NickSG July 29th, 2003, 09:33 PM

My CO2 pistol could probably kill someone, with either a throat shot, or a shot through the eye, and with heavy lead pellets could possibly penitrate all the way to the brain.
My CO2 pistol shoots about 4 pfe, while this gun shoots about 1 pfe. I would really like to see how deep a coil powered rifle could penitrate. Maybe it could be used to take out
birds or other small game?
Third_Rail August 14th, 2003, 10:22 PM

While being an interesting proof-of-concept, this is not yet practical. I do, however, forsee something like this being made much more efficient after superconducting wire at
room temperature becomes possible (on a sidenote, I believe there was a nickel-maganese nanotube composition that could do this... saw it a while back in PopSci) When that
happens, say goodbye to solid propellant weapons.
Tuatara August 14th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Sorry to disillusion you Third_Rail, but superconductivity is not going to result in a perfect gauss pistol. The major inefficiencies result from incomplete transfer of energy from
coil to projectile, and the lack of energy recovery circuitry to recycle the unused coil energy back into the main capacitor bank.
As for an energy source, chemical propellants are very hard to beat for energy density, and convenience. This is one of the reasons the airbourne laser weapon research is
focused on oxygen-iodine lasers. And one reason why we are not all running electric vehicles.
mr. wiggles October 22nd, 2003, 11:21 PM

would it not be possible for to use a torus (ie: donut shape) shaped gauss rifle? i know that some electron excelorators use huge torus shapes to allow the electron to travel a
huge distance to gain speed.
of course the iron ball you would use as the projectile would shake the gun quite a bit if it were to go around and around. this could be compensated by with wieght added to
the gun (probably in batteries) or a more exotic design would include two guns that accelorate the balls in alternate directions attached to each other.
don't ask me how i would suggest to release the ball in a precise maner. im not even sure how one would release the ball at all. though it would be possible to make the gun
only a semi torus or even a coil. either one of those could straingten out into a barrle for a few inches to give improved precisetion.
Tuatara October 23rd, 2003, 06:03 PM

I had thought the same thing. I can see it being quite an engineering challenge. Not impossible though.
The trick with release would be to have an elongated torus, with a kicker magnet at the start of one of the straight sections to divert the projectile out of the torus.
Vibration would be nasty, and very hard to counter, except with a large gun mass

guys, um, I believe that you are all talking about a rail-gun, seeing as how it uses an electromagnetic pulse to fire the round, but a gauss rifle uses multiple magnets, and
transfer bearings, to send energy to the round which then goes on to the target. go to "scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html" to read the article on how to build a
tiny gauss rifle, with home materials, on the site they also show how to make a rail-gun, out of kitchen materials.
sorry if this reply causes trouble, but the discussion didn't seem to go with the topic title.
donniedj April 4th, 2004, 03:21 AM

I finnished a 4 Joules kinetic output coilgun pistol.
It has two coil stages. The second stage is triggered by a
mechanical contact switch, same as my high power
desktop models. Operation is simple, press the charger
button until the green LED illuminates, load projectile,
then press trigger.
188J capacitor banks:

1. 250v + 250v = 500v @ 750 uF
2. 250v + 250v = 500v @ 750 uF
Projectile: speed = 30m/s, mass = 9grams
The charger is a boost converter power by a 24v NiMH

battery pack. The pack's battery size at present is AA.
Charge time < 5 seconds and consumes 1.5 A thats about
36 Watts. I am currently using a AAA sized pack during
the design of greater power models. Images and videos of
this other other coilguns are at my site.
http://www.anothercoilgunsite.com

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Stun grenade
Log in
View Full Version : Stun grenade
THErAPIST July 23rd, 20 03, 05:5 6 AM

I was recently watchin g a show on the discovery channel and I saw the police in a prison use a stun grenade to calm down
rioting inm a t e s . T h e s t u n g r e n a d e h a d a 1 second delay, and many "soft rubber pellets" as projectiles. I saw this grenade and
thought "Hey, this wouldnt be too hard to m ake ". After a while of thinking this is what I concluded.
A 7 second's worth of safety fuse should be enough of a delay.

Making the casing by sewing the ends of 10 equally sized rubber pieces together would make the spread of pelets equal in
every direction upon detonation.
The rubber stun pelle ts would be m ade of cut up rubber test tube stoppe r and bicycle tire tread.
A good pellet size would be around half a centim eter to .75 centimeter
the best pellet shape would be spherical to get the straightest flight
A pull igniter would serve as an easy pull pin type ignition
The charge that would dispense the pellets would be 46 grams of flash inside a section of zip lock baggie that is taped tightly
into a ball with electrical tape
The outside of the grenade should be taped tightly and evenly with electrical tape.
Has anyone ever thought about m akin g one of these? I've also seen them on a show about "less lethal" weapons. I dont
r e m e m ber seeing anything here about them before, and nothing at all was turned up from a search so I figured I'd post the
idea .
Edit: Click here (www.experi-m ental.org/stunnade_safety_on.jpg) for a pic of one with the savety on.
Click here (www.experi-mental.org/stunnade_safety_off.jpg) for a picture of it with the safety off.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > the garrot
Log in
View Full Version : the garrot
ancalagon July 26th, 20 03, 06:1 7 PM

A n y o n e c a n m ake an effective garrot by putting handles on pian o wire. They are compact, light, and very lethal. Unfortunate ly,
however, it can be difficult to use on som eone whos size or strength is fa r greater than your own, or if you are fighting more
than one person. I was thinking about this while making maille the other day, and came up with an idea. Typically, one would
hold the handles of the garrot, put it o ver your adversaries head, loop it around once, and pull. However, by using a bit m ore
were and attaching one end to a small coil of galvanised steel wire (available at your local hardware store, I would recomm e n d
16 to 20 gua g e , d e p e n d i n g o n y o u r n e e d s a n d s t r e n g t h ) one can fix the inherent problem s . I n s t e a d o f l o o p i n g i t o n c e a n d
pulling tight, loop it a round once or twice with the piano wire, and then co ntinue on with that side when it hits the steel wire.
After looping this wire around a few tim es, one's adversary would not only be unable to breathe, but would also be unable to
u n d u e t h e l o o p s i n t i m e, even if you let go. Therefore, one could coil up several of these garrots, and when needed m a k e
several tight loops around the neck of your opponent and then let go, ready to face whatever else is around, while your
ooponent is effeciently strangled. If one wanted to get even fancier, one could put together several plastic bags, slip them o n
first, and the n comm ence with coiling.
-Ancalagon
yt2095 July 26th, 20 03, 07:1 3 PM

Nylon zip ties will do the sam e too :)
zeocrash July 26th, 20 03, 07:2 4 PM

i was wondering if guitar strings were strong enough to use as garrots.
i have recently broken one and i was wondering if it could be ma de into a carrot b y coting the ends in cotton/plastic to allow
better grip
Flake2m July 27th, 20 03, 02:2 6 AM

Guitar strings would b e easily strong enough. So would Piano strings. Hitler used piano strings to hang people, so they should
be effective enough. SW IM could attach a ring on each end of the string to make it m o r e e a s y u s e . SWIM wouldn't use brand
new strings either as they start @ $AU20 a string and th ats jsut for an A string.
Sparky July 27th, 20 03, 02:5 3 AM

I s e e m to rem ember some thread on rec.pyrotechnics about garrots. In it I read that they don't necessarily strangle the er..
m ark since it's pretty easy to cut a throat with them , or even tak e off the entire head. Much m essier than strangulation.
I n d e e d I i m agine it would be pretty ha rd to strangle a person with a garrot and not cut their throat. This seem s to m a k e
perfect sense to me, if a thin wire is pulled tigh t then it is pretty easy to cut soft things like flesh with it (think cheese cutting
wire). I recomm end reading the rec.pyrotechnics thread if you ca n find it, it is quite instructive.
Zeocrash, if you can m ake a guitar string into a carrot, then I will be impressed :eek: ;) .
jelly July 27th, 20 03, 04:5 6 AM

Many harm le ss things can be abused as a garrotte, e.g. fexible tree saws or cheese cutter.
But if you like to have it quite bloodily, this "chainsaw" is a MUST HAVE. :D
http://www.m e d i c a l a n t i q u e s . c o m / m edim age/swchain.jpg
-----------------------------
Short History of the Garrotte (http://www.donrearic.com /thegarrotte.html)
nbk2000 July 27th, 20 03, 06:0 5 AM

A large nylon zip-tie is about the perfe ct garrot, ready m a d e . : )
You pass the leg of the tie through the zip-lock, through a sm all grip handle from a bicycle, and you're good to go.
In use, the loop is slipped over the head, the free end pulled hard, while k e e p i n g t h e h a n dle pressed hard against the victims
neck. This allows you to get the zip-tie locked tight around the neck.
Y o u t h e n s i m ply step back and watch your victim strangle to dea th. You don't have to hang on to them as they thrash about,
and could even go on to the next one while the first one is still thrashing about.
I ' v e u s e d t h i s o n c a t s a n d d o g s b e f o r e , and it's very effective. O n e h a r d y a n k , a n d y o u d o n ' t h e a r a p e e p o u t o f t h e m a s t h e y

go bonkers trying to claw it off their ne cks, usually clawing them selves bloody in the process. All the better since you're not
hold ing on to them at the time. :D
Mr Cool July 27th, 20 03, 11:2 6 AM

It's obvious that it'd work. Was it really necessary to test it?
:(
Imperial July 27th, 20 03, 11:5 5 AM

Of course you don't n eed to try it.
The problem is, here in Australia you can't get zip ties/cable ties/whatever you call them long enough to effectively strangle
people.
T h i s c a u s e s o b v i o u s p r o b l e m s, but I think that there is a way to get arou nd it.
W hat about sim ply getting piano wire and making a slipknot out of it, so you effectively get som e s o r t o f a n o o s e ? T h e n y o u
can tie a handle to one end, slip the noose over the head and then pull and step back! The garrot can later be removed and
reused. The thing is, this is still possib le to rem ove from the head. To solve this, I would suggest a very tight slipknot, so that
a thrashing, panicking, chokin g person wouldn't be able to undo it in time, and the harder they pull, the tig hter it gets! ;)
Oh and no piggie ballistic suits protect them from garrotting!
Sparky July 27th, 20 03, 12:5 7 PM

The problem is, here in Australia you can't get zip ties/cable ties/whatever you call them long enough to effectively strangle
people.
I just wanted to point out that it's easy to hook m ore th an one zip tie together. BTW those things are very strong and go on
tight if correctly applied, I was im p r e s s e d . Y o u d e f f i n e t l y n e e d g o o d h a n d l e s b u i l t o n t h o u g h s i n c e t h e y a r e h a r d t o g r a b o n t o .
Maybe vice g r i p s c o u l d c o m e i n h a n d y a s r e u s a b l e h a n d les.
nbk2000 July 28th, 20 03, 12:4 9 AM

Ahh...but m ultiple ties tend to break, whereas a single tie is much stronger, especially tho se big enough to strangle hum a n s
with. You need to stop looking in the corner hardware stores, and start lo oking in industrial supply catalogs, that's where you'll
find the meter long zip-ties.
It's obvious that it'd work. Was it really necessary to test it? :(
Not really, but I liked doing it. :) And if you can't kill an anim al, how do you expect to kill hum a n s ? : p
True also that a ballistic vest won't protect against a garrote, but sneaking up behind a pig to use one m ay be rather
p r o b l e m atic, since swine tend to travel in group s and are a wary prey. But the zip-tie garro t e h a s t h e a d v a n t a g e t h a t y o u d o n ' t
have to hang around while your target is dying, since there's no way for them to rem ove it in tim e, so you can "zip and run". :D
ancalagon July 28th, 20 03, 01:2 0 PM

NBK's zip-tie idea is very similar to mine, in that I was suggestin g a way to use a garrot th at enabled you to let go and still
s t r a n g l e t h e o p p o n e n t, only a zip-tie is easier and more convenient. However, the reason I suggested a piano and steel wire
m ix is that often enough garrots are used to both stangle and cut, some t i m e s e v e n d e c a p i t a t e , t h e o p p o n e n t . I h a v e a f r i e n d
who served in WW I I , a n d u s e t o s n e a k i n t o f o x h o l e s t o p o p t h e h e a d s o f f t h e j a p a n e s e . S o t h e p o i n t o f p i a n o t h e n s t e e l w i r e
is th at you can cut into the neck then m ake it im possible for the opponent to to pull or cut off the garrot. The only problem I
had was what to do when I reached the end of the steel wire, so I attached a large and m ulti-pronged fishh o o k a t t h e e n d t o
sink in the neck. I'll try the zip-tie idea too (on a synthetic dum m y, of co urse), and see what pops up, or off:D
-Ancalagon

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Cards as weapons
Log in
View Full Version : Cards as weapons
Nihilist August 2nd, 2003, 05:16 AM

Yes that's right playing cards. They are the perfect weapon. With a little bit of practice, they can be thrown quite accurately,
and I have been able to throw them had enough to make a large dent in a soda can, and cut lemons off of the lemon tree in
my yard. This is after only a few days of practice. They are such perfect weapons because, they have range(I can throw 'em
about 100 ft.), they are deadly(if you can hit someone in the neck, or another sensitive area),they can be purchased
anywhere, and they arouse no suspicion whatsoever. Not to mention that they are small and lightweight, and you can buy
them in packs of 52, which you can carry around in your back pocket, whereever you go. To make them even more effective
you could poison the edges.
The techinque of throwing that I use, is to hold the card by the corner, in between my index and middle finger. Then you throw
it like a frisbee, except whip your wrist a little bit more. The key is to keep the card level, so that the pressure on the card is
equal from all sides. If you don't believe me, try it yourself, it takes a few hours of practice to get it right, but it is an
invaluable skill to have. Especially since they will go right through the metal detectors at an airport, or anywhere else!
There is actually a book written on the subject, also titled "Cards as Weapons", it is however out of print. If I can find it, I'll
upload it to the FTP. There are many other sources of info, though a simple google search will turn up lots of good info on the
subject.
EDIT: I just found this site, which gives a good tutorial on card throwing, but more importantly gives a map of critical vein and
pressure points to be targeted with the cards. This is the throwing tutorial http://www.davidslife.com/funstuff/cards/styles.htm
This is the vein/nerve map: http://www.davidslife.com/funstuff/cards/nerves.htm
grendel23 August 2nd, 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Nihilist
they are deadly
Death by paper cut, what a way to go.:eek:
Seriously though, can a playing card transfer enough energy to do real damage anywhere except maybe to the eyeball?
How about a duel, one guy with cards, another with a pile of nice sized rocks? I know how I would bet.
Anthony August 2nd, 2003, 12:10 PM

Sorry, but denting a soda can and killing someone is very different!
I can only imagine them being good as a distraction device i.e. throwing them in someone's face. Maybe you'd hurt their eye if
you caught it with a corner, but cutting a throat/major blood vessel, I don't think so.
yt2095 August 2nd, 2003, 12:21 PM

sounds a little like someone`s been watching a bit too many movies?
bullseye from "Dare Devil" for instance???
RIGGED cards CAN work, they normaly have a sheet metal layer between sides/faces and a razor edge to boot.
Though a deck of cards flirted into the air however makes a great distraction (as do keys or coins) just prior to you ripping the
fucktards balls off! :)
Nihilist August 2nd, 2003, 03:13 PM

I said it requires practice, I have only been at it for a few days. If you read one of the sites I linked to, you would have seen
this quote. "but for years was the favorite of Japan's Yakuza hit-men."
Arthis August 2nd, 2003, 03:25 PM

This remembers me Sailor Moon ! :rolleyes:
To make cards deadly weapons, you would need to have a cutting edge... Then this would be ninja stars. Nothing really new
so.
nbk2000 August 2nd, 2003, 03:27 PM

Cards...as weapons...how gay! :p
vulture August 2nd, 2003, 04:01 PM

Making a nice edge on an outdated Visa card would work better IMHO. Hard plastic that can be treated with sanding paper to
make it razor sharp. Same thing goes for compact discs.
Nihilist August 2nd, 2003, 05:50 PM

I have done some more practicing with a new grip, and I have been able to draw blood from my own foot! And I can say for
sure that it hurts like hell, and even if it isn't capable of killing(though I think, with enough practice it is) it would still be an
excellent distraction.
nbk2000 August 2nd, 2003, 07:59 PM
I suppose if you invested enough time and practice into it, you could make anything a lethal weapon, even cards, but why
spend months of practice to develop this incredibly arcane skill unless you're going to become a yak' hitter?
I remember seeing some magician completely burying cards from like 30' away into a large melon, but the time invested in
such things could make you proficient in any number of H2H killing skills, or gun-fu, or something much more likely to be of
use to you.
Though, if you're planning a trip to prison any time soon, the ability to kill with playing cards (a prison staple), which means at
a distance, no noise, and through bars, would make you incredibly dangerous inside. :D
Hmmm...I might just have to pick up a deck after all. ;)
chemwarrior August 2nd, 2003, 09:59 PM

I saw something similar NBK, on Ripleys- Believe it or Not. There was a kid who had the unusual talent of being able to throw a
card an amazing distance with terrific accuracy. He also did a demo where he took a single card and threw it through like 3
mellons. Imagine what he could do to a person....
knowledgehungry August 3rd, 2003, 12:31 AM

Hmm, seems quite interesting, just for the reason that they are cards! It reminds me of xmen and the character gambit,threw
explosive cards. It just seems like something fun to learn, something so innocent being made a lethal weapon. Very cool,
maybe even a tad KEWL, however seems like a fun idea.
Arthis August 3rd, 2003, 05:48 AM

I must have missed something... Can someone explain me how a cardboard card can go threw a melon ? We are talking
about those cards with which you play cards, right ?
knowledgehungry August 3rd, 2003, 11:11 AM

Its a matter of a high amount of force directed to a small area, you can kill someone with a drinking straw, in science class our
teacher demonstrated how you could make it go through an apple, he messed up and gouged himself with it as well, pretty
bloody.
Nihilist August 3rd, 2003, 03:20 PM

The trick is in the spin of the card. The faster you get it spinning the better your throw will be. Arthis, remember you could cut
down a tree with a sheet of paper if you got it moving fast(very very very fast) enough and at the right angle.
Agent Blak August 4th, 2003, 06:17 AM

There is a Ninjutsu DoJo I know of that Teaches with throwing cards. Throwing stars aren't legal hear.
Nihilist,
Do you use paper or Plastic cards?
yt2095 August 4th, 2003, 06:42 AM

I`m sure the laminar flow at the cards edge would preclude such velocities however :)
Nihilist August 4th, 2003, 04:08 PM

The cards that I use seem to be a heavy sort of paper coated in a thin layer of wax. I have used many different decks though,
and they all seem to work well.
knowledgehungry August 4th, 2003, 04:43 PM

Damn throwing cards is so fuckin addictive. I have been messing around with it for like the last 24 hours and today i had my
first victim! My friend got a scratch, the type that leaves a red line but no blood. I know i know not anything i couldnt do with a
pen/pencil/fork/spoon but still its fun.
Agent Blak August 4th, 2003, 06:22 PM

Here is the Url to the kid on ripleys. this is his site
http://ricksmithjr.com/media/video/
The link takes you to his videos where you can download the ripleys bit on him.
There are also a video on there of him poping a ballon with a card.
A-BOMB August 4th, 2003, 09:16 PM

If you want some real throwing cards look at these links metal throwing (star) cards.
http://www.4martialartssupplies.com/wcards.html
http://www.popularlink.com/?SUBID=50
http://www.quine.home.sonic.net/thrower.html

A-Bomb, the point of using cards as weapons is the stealth, if you wanted to use something obvious like a giant metal card,
then it would be much better to just use a throwing knife. If you use cards made of metal, that don't even look like cards,
then it defeats the purpose, IMHO anyway.

Just wanted to let some know about them if they wanted. I picked up one of these at a gunshow I weighed a damn ton it was
made of stainless steel and had a real sharp edge on it, I cut myself on it just picking it up I would not at all like to have that
thrown at me.
ancalagon August 5th, 2003, 01:14 PM

There is a Ninjutsu DoJo I know of that Teaches with throwing cards.
Martial arts and combat is my field, and I've been studying japanese arts almost my entire life. Would you mind telling me
what school you're talking about (not the name of the dojo, the name of the style of ninjitsu) and where it is? I would really
appreciate it. I don't think there is a single style of martial arts that has as many b*llsh*t teachers as ninjitsu, and I know (at
least by reputation) most of the legitimite shidoshi ranks myself. Thanks.
-Ancalagon
Arthis August 5th, 2003, 04:07 PM

Why would they be bullshit teachers ? Nihilist told that it could be great, why not teaching it ?
I should try too, but I'm not too motivated to go and collect the cards afterwards...
chemwarrior August 5th, 2003, 08:09 PM

God this is fun! Ive been playing with them for the last 2 hours and have managed to get a rough distance of 35 feet, with
reasonable accuracy:) Quite impressive for something so small and light... Ive thrown cards for a long time... but with no
where near this ammount of accuracy and distance.
Also, Ive noticed that if I hold the card between my pinkie and ring finger I can get a much faster rotation. I manage to get it
to slice through a sheet of paper... not much, but its a start!:D

Why would they be bullshit teachers ? Nihilist told that it could be great, why not teaching it ?
Because most ninjitsu teachers are. Also, throwing cards is not a part of ninjitsu. Even shurikenjitsu, the famous art of throwing
stars, is a very minor part of ninpo, played up by the 80's ninja craze. "Ninja stars" were historically simple beaten iron
designed to slow down pursuers, and were not even designed to be lethal. I am not saying that throwing cards is not effective,
it very well could be. All I am saying is that I would look with great suspicion on any ninjitsu teacher who teaches throwing
cards. Actually, I would look with great suspicion on ANY ninjitsu teacher. I have a long and bitter history with McDojos.
-Ancalagon

ancalagon,
Lets try quoting everything thats relvant.
"There is a Ninjutsu DoJo I know of that Teaches with throwing cards. Throwing stars aren't legal hear."
I will translate. Throwing stars aren't legal, so he uses Playing cards instead to teach his students. Probabley to help the
student learn Targeting and Tracking.
The Style is BuJinKan NinPo TiaJutsu. The sensi is a Shidoshi(7thDan). The Dojo in question is an afiliate of the Ninjutsu
Training Centers of Central Canada.
If you wish for the man's name contact me.

agent_blak@yahoo.com

Thanks for the clarification. I will email for the name, but I thought I should publicly post that Bujinkan Ninpo (under
Grandmaster Maasaki Hatsumi) is really the only ninjitsu school I have any faith in. I've found through my personal training in
it (under various shidoshi including stephen hayes and a few times under the Grandmaster himself) that bujinkan ninpo is a
terrific school of martial arts. As for the throwing stars, I know several teachers in both NY and MA where nunchuku (and
various other weaponry) are banned, yet they are still allowed whithin the dojos. I guess that is why I didn't pick up on the
"cards INSTEAD OF shuriken." Again, thanks.
-Ancalagon
cutefix August 8th, 2003, 12:37 AM

As I seldom handle weaponry in martial arts I feel awkward throwing a shuriken,But still I can hit a target at reasonable
distance although not at a precise location I intended to.
I can hit better with a throwing knife or a dart.
Regarding playing cards as weapons being a material not suited for throwing I still had doubts how can it incapacitate an
assailant effectively ;nor how long enough can you accumulate sufficient skill to be able to be effective in combat situation.
I will prefer small metallic spikes looking like ( 6 sided rounded spikes) used by girls in jackstones game to look more a
respectable weapon if the ends are pointed and have enough weight but small size that it can be thrown in handful at an
assailant ;and it can do positive damage than an errantly thrown playing cards.
:p
It is different in a combat situation.You maybe skilled in practice throwing cards against static target;but think about trying
that at a fast moving assailant ( from a distance )chasing at you with a wicked looking knife. Do you think you still have the
reflex to effectively throw your innocuous looking weapon?
Chances are that, f you are not used to that situation you will be streeed up that even if you throw the whole pack of cards, the
villain will laugh at you thinking you are frantically asking him for a game of poker or baccarat ,in order to save your life.:D :
Meanwhile throwing that 6 cornered spikes whatever the way you grab them (as long as you do not hurt yourself in doing
so)when hurled will surely hurt any potential assailant ( and discourage furhter attacks)even if you are already freightened in
doing it.

In the name of science and with the purpose of human evolution at heart (of course), I took the time yesterday to cut up
some razor blades and glued them between two playing cards, so that sticking out all around the cards were razor edges. The
added weight made the cards easier to throw, and the blades themselves added some obvious improvements. However, I
need to fool around with the balancing of the blades a little. Still, the implement was rather successful:)
-Ancalagon
Arthis August 8th, 2003, 01:41 PM

It's the absolut improvised weapons, right, but you lose a major interest: the metal is detected easily, and modified card don't
look just like normal; though it will be less suspicious than having a shuriken, and less risky in penal terms if arrested (no law
against razor cards yet), and way more effective.
Since "upgrading" your card with razor edge is easy, it may be interesting as a make/use/discard weapon (of course you don't
take the card back ;)) I mean a weapon you make right before use, like in a plane, if you manage to pass the blades thru the
controls; it should be ok, as you would use tiny pieces of blade.
Still, practising with standard cards may be better, as the lighter the more difficult.
and can help you against poker cheater (won't you cheat yourself now ;))
john_smith August 9th, 2003, 08:51 AM

Talking about razor blades, throwing them was a known, though not very common skill among the street punks in my area
until about ten years ago. I've never heard anybody being killed by this means, however. It was more of a distraction/pursuit
deterrance thing.

I Work in a Bar, so one day a took home some cardboard coasters(Square and other).
They work the even better.
warren August 11th, 2003, 10:40 PM

I have a old credit card that i have a razor imbeded in one side so if I ever got jumped and they say give me you credit card I
will pull it out put it in his hand pull back hard give him a cut in his hand which will give him/her shock well you free or kick the
shit out of him or if I ever got tied up reach for my handy card. I also tried throing credit cards at apples and never could get it
to stick even from 10 feet away well actually it might have stuck if I hit it, the wind always curved it up or down.
chemwarrior August 13th, 2003, 04:16 AM

Quit using runons.. its really freaking irritating...
Also.. if the card is curving downward, its not the winds fault, its your own. I can throw just about perfectly straight with a fan
blowing from the side, so dont say its the wind. Also, why dont you try a sheet of paper, and when you can slice through that,
THEN try an apple.
Also.. what the hell good is a credit card with a razor going to do ?? NONE. You pull a god damn credit card and cut someone,
especially someone who is about to rob you, your ass is gone.
And how the hell is it going to get your out of being tied up?? IT WONT.
For starters, if your tied up properly, and whoever tied you up has common sense, they are going to remove everything you
have on you. Not to mention the fact that I would LOVE to see you cut through a decent rope, zip tie, etc, with a little bitty
razor, while your hands are behind your back, and you likely in the dark. For one thing, you wont be able to get to the damn
razor if its in your wallet.
I know, Ive had friends tie me up so I could see how I could get out. Even then, freaking amatuers who've never tied anyone
up managed to tie me so I couldn't get into my pocket and get anyting out.. let alone a wallet and then a card.
I'm going to stop ranting.. Im sleep deprived... lol.
Edit- Forgot to mention that your razor will dull before you manage to get out.
++++++++++++++++
You had an even longer run on sentence then he did! :p NBK
nbk2000 August 13th, 2003, 03:29 PM

If your "credit" card was actually a titanium blade, as is available, (especially if serrated), then slicing through a rope would be
easy, as long as you could get ahold of it.
Print out a picture of a credit card, glue it to the blade, and coat it with clear laquer to give it that shiny plastic look, and you'd
be set. :)

Are you still searching for Ricky Jay's book "Cards as Weapons"?
You can find it as a single PDF file in the eDonkey network, 135 pages in ~44 MB.
Very nice book, but more suitable for card magicians than for assassins :)
Monkeychunks September 30th, 2003, 09:50 AM

It would do more damage gluing those really thin gillette shaving razor blades to the playing cards. It's hard to even handle
those things without getting cut.
I saw a Chinese guy on Ripley's throw a sewing needle through a pane of glass.
All of the throwing secrets are only taught in the Chinese arts from family to family, and anyone who teaches ninjutsu to the
public is full of crap.
Sir Dudalot September 30th, 2003, 10:02 PM

I tried throwing cards for about two weeks. It's tough. I got to where I could throw them across the room but not accurately and
I could throw them semi-accurately from five feet. I don't think I have the initial talent to be a killer with them. Though when I
tried throwing my fox kids club card (I get free ice cream with it) I was much more accurate and able to throw much longer
distances. I kept hitting some of my friends and they said that it stung. I'm still practicing, once you get the hang of it you'll
get a lot better in a short period of time. I tried throwing a card through a piece of paper...no good. I'll try with my fox kids
club card. I'm a blackbelt in freestyle taekwondoe but we never learned anything about weapons let alone cards.
I had problems using the J-grip described in the link in one of the first posts. When I did get it to fly properly it worked great
but this didn't happen very often. So I used a technique a friend told me about a while ago (that I think stemmed from one of
those books or a TV show dealing with card throwing). I hold the Northeastern corner in between the tips of my index and
middle fingers with both fingers pointed straight out. Then I just use the arm/wrist action like you do with the J-grip and it
works better for me this way.
rangegal July 29th, 2007, 11:58 PM

There was a Mythbusters episode about this. They rigged up a high-speed electric card thrower and got some cards going
pretty damn fast, but the most damage it caused on one of the guys was a tiny cut on his belly: "Busted".
Even if you were hit in the neck it would still be nothing more than a shallow paper cut.
Charles Owlen Picket July 30th, 2007, 01:33 PM

I was told by a Japanese girlfriend that the tern Ninja has often been laughed at in most of the islands as a commercialization
often found in the States and the EU. The correct term I believe is Shinobe (spelling?) which is a spy.
Her father was a big wheel in the commercial martial arts world and I really believe she was telling me the real deal. The real
spy's of this world are NOT going to sell off the very things that are their world. On the other hand if we honestly & objectivly
examine public martial arts, they are generally money makers for someone.
Those martial arts that are not money-makers often involve the possible death or serious injury of the participants......That is
NOT something the majority of people seeking martial proficiency take lightly or publicly.
In NO MANNER do I intend on insulting anyone with this statement, however I deeply believe that the "real deal" is not a
common phenomenon. Especially not from any commercial perspective. as it would involve legal liability that would be nearly
impossible to circumvent.
I saw the Myth-Busters episode also.....it was a hoot! I can't wait till they try to crawl across a ceiling dressed in black or wait in
the bottom of a primitive toilet with a spear, etc.
Keserian July 31st, 2007, 07:15 PM

Right, if I remember correctly, the conclusion from the Mythbusters episode was that the cards don't have enough mass to get
anything approaching lethality.
Remember, Ek = (1/2)m(v^2). (Please excuse the horrible parentheses) Where Ek is the kinetic energy, m = mass, v =
velocity.
A playing card doesn't have a heck of a lot of mass, so it's going to take a significant speed to actually get enough energy to
do damage to the human body. Sure you might be able to cut the skin, but I doubt any normal means could get a playing
card to the speed required to get through the subcutaneous fat or muscle.
As for the razor blade credit card, I would imagine that if used as a distraction, it could work. Surprise can be an excellent
weapon, and if the card buys you a half second to kick the guy in the groin, it's well worth it. To be honest, however, if a guy
extends his hand to have you hand him something, there are easier things to do. You could throw him or break his arm with
relatively little training.
About cutting yourself loose, it's never a bad idea to have one extra tool at your disposal to get loose. Also, credit cards are
small, and you can slip one just about anywhere. I've heard of some people taping a razor blade to the inside of their belt,
then painting over the tape to make it look the same as the leather. You get tied up with your hands behind you, just peel
away the tape and start cutting.
As for the Ninja, the actual term was Ninjitsu. It was much more than a fighting style. It was more like the training that US Navy
S.E.A.L.s receive. A combination of fighting, survival, intelligence gathering, and so forth. I'm not really knowledgeable about
the early history of Japan, most of knowledge is Black Ships and later.
doomsdavid August 14th, 2007, 12:53 PM

Technique and History
"Cards as Weapons" was a a spoof written by Magician / Fraud Exposer / Actor Ricky Jay
(He played the evil scientist side kick in the James Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies")
http://rickyjay.com/
I spent way too much time in the late seventies throwing cards ---- it IS addicting.
There was a TV show in the late seventies called "The Magician" starring Bill Bixbie. In it he played a Professional Magician
that always seemed to end up in situations that required him to be a private detective... and one of his many tools was
Throwing a "Metal" Playing card that he would use to get him out of all sorts of trouble.
Howard Thurston, the great 19th Century Stage magician, was said to be able to throw a playing card to ANY seat in a large
auditorium from the stage... (It would Stall just over the seat and float down harmlessly.)
http://www.thurstonmastermagician.com/
Recently, one of the Top professional Poker Players, Chris Ferguson has been doing some amazing card throwing tricks... High
speed, high accuracy... cutting fruit, vegetables and cigarettes etc.
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/chrisFerguson.php
A normal plastic playing card would not do much damage, (I know... I used to throw them full speed at my little brother... it
made him cry, and my Dad would worry about me hitting him in the eye.... but it would "hardly ever" leave a mark)
If you want to practice, and don't like the idea of picking up all those misses, spread a blanket on the floor, use a medium -
small box in the center... aim for the box, and all the cards that miss will land on the blanket (unless you're REALLY a bad
shot) then just fold the blanket and pour the cards into the box, where you can pull em out and start again
Here's some info from wikipedia...
Technique
There are many different ways of gripping cards, but all of them involve flicking the wrist. Once a person is comfortable with
the wrist, he or she can add some arm and body movement into the throw.
The Jay throwing technique

The Jay technique, as taught in Ricky Jay's book Cards as Weapons (1977) involves gripping the middle of the card
horizontally between the thumb and the middle finger, while the index finger rests on the corner of the card nearest the hand
and away from the body.
The wrist is cocked inward at a 90 degree angle, then flicked briskly outward, propelling the card. For distance and power, the
technique adds motion of the forearm bending at the elbow straight outwards from a 90 degree angle simultaneous to the
flicking motion of the wrist.
The Thurston grip

Howard Thurston, a performing magician, was one of the first performers to introduce card throwing in Western stage acts. In
the Thurston grip, the card to be thrown is gripped between the first and second fingers, usually of the left hand.
Other
There are other ways to throw a card, a more popular one involves putting one's pinky finger on the bottom of the card, and
ring finger and middle finger on the top of the card. The index and middle fingers go at the far end of the card horizontally,
and the thumb rests on the near side. Then, push down with the middle finger, though not to the point at which it bends up,
the middle finger should act as one end of a seesaw, with the thumb being the opposite end, and the index finger as the
center. Once in this position, flip the card with your wrist so that the opposite side is facing up. This is uncomfortable for most.
To now throw it, pull your thumb in rapidly, so it slips off the card, and at the same time, pull your index and middle fingers in
rapidly toward your palm. While doing both these things, have the hand with the card up near your head, and move it down in
a "C" shape going away from you. At the end of the C, release your thumb. The card should spin, and after practice fly rapidly
forward.
One more method involves putting one's thumb ontop of the bottom left hand corner of the card, and one's index and middle
finger on opposite sides of the top right hand corner of the card. The thrower should push his thumb down and out from the
card, and whould twirl his idex and middle fingers, spinning the card, and propellin it forward. This is one of the most powerful
techniques.
One other mildly popular technique is to grip the full deck of cards in the left hand, looping the left hand index finger around
the upper-right corner of the top card, and then propelling the top card off of the deck with the right hand. This causes the
card to gain large amounts of side spin, which propels them farther.
---------------------------------------------------------------
wow ...I have a copy of "Cards as Weapons", and I just saw that's it's worth between $250.00 and $600.00 on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0446387568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_1/105-1158043-6906052?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187106143&sr=8-1
anyway...
Kalus October 23rd, 2007, 01:19 PM

I use playing cards which are 100% plastic for throwing, because they seem to keep their form better than standard cards after
impact.
In addition, I chip about a 1/4 inch radius off two opposite corners on a few cards. As far as I can tell, it doesn't affect range or
accuracy, but has a much sharper bite than usual. Also, as far as an innocent deck of cards go, the difference between the
card is almost entirely unnoticeable, and the modified cards can be easily pulled from anywhere in the deck using a standard
deck riffle. The riffle will automatically stop when your thumb passes over the modified corners.
barbwir3 October 25th, 2007, 12:33 AM

Card throwing, another one of my useless talents. I used to have card fights at school and leave small cuts an a few cards in
ceiling tiles and once one got stuck in my friends back. Cards them selves are practically harmless but with weight adaptations
you can add a little extra bite.
Credit cards and credit card like plastic cards can be modified to be quite nice little razor affixed weapons. All you need to do is
break double edge razors in half and heat them up until they stick onto the credit cards. I normally put the razors on two
corners just sticking out enough so the cut of the edge is exposed.
I can stick the credit cards into plywood and penetrate through cross sections of water melons. I can embed normal cards into
fruit and ceiling tiles.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Improvised Concealable weapon
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised Concealable weapon
cutefix August 12th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Look at this folks.
http://datacenter.ap.org/wdc/fbiweapons.pdf
Concealable weapons that the FBI thought can be used as potential weapons for terrorists (in airplanes?) in the same line as
ordinary box cutters.
Can any of you guys make an improvised version of these items that cannot be noticed easily on inspection and can be used
to defend oneself in life saving situation supposing you do not have enough martial art skill to fend and assailant effectively
but still have the guts to fight by whatever means ?
EP August 13th, 2003, 12:11 AM

PDF doesn't work for me.:confused:
Anyway, I'm looking at buying one of these...
http://www.smartcart.com/selfdefence/cgi/display.cgi?item_num=PK1
angelo August 13th, 2003, 03:17 AM

A pen knife would come in handy. But the whole idea of the article is to let the dicks in security know whats out there.
I like the idea of a knife in a bullet. What's the point?
Many of those tools could be improvised, but to make them 'invisible' to metal detectors you need to use ceramics and
plastics, both of which are hard to mchine without the proper tools ($$$$)
zaibatsu August 13th, 2003, 08:26 AM

That's a good PDF - it gives you so many ideas. I don't understand the bullet knives though - wouldn't ammunition be illegal
to carry on board anyway? But the ones concealed in belts etc seem a good idea, especially because they will just think it's a
buckle if it sets of an alarm. There are designs for some of the items shown in one of the PMJBs.
nbk2000 August 13th, 2003, 03:30 PM

"Bullet" knives wouldn't make it onto the plane anyways, because ammo is forbidden.
What I noticed about a lot of the plastic blades is that the blade is virtually invisible on an X-ray, but the handle (being
thicker) usually stands out. Case in point: Lettuce knives. If you removed the handles, the blades would easily pass through
an X-ray since it's going to be jumbled in with all the usual traveling knick-knacks.
If a person machined a grove into something like a hairbrush handle, and had a little tube of superglue, they could simply put
the plastic blade into the hairbrush handle and superglue it in place, making a lethal knife in mid-flight. :)
Also, since you know the orientation of the X-ray machine, you would place the blades in the luggage so the knife is edge-on
towards the X-ray, making it even more invisible. :p
Or, how about this:
A reusable heating pack (the ones you snap, not the air-activated ones) is wrapped in some paper towel, activated, then a
tube of Sarin that was smuggled onto the plane in the terr's ass is poured onto the papertowel. All this is done in the
bathroom while the plane is in flight.
The terrorist has pre-dosed with PAM-2 and atropine prior to pouring out the Sarin. Not because he's trying to survive, since it
IS a suicide mission, but rather so he doesn't drop dead before he can complete assembly of the weapon.
The heating pack procedes to vaporize the Sarin which is exposed in a high surface area by the paper toweling. A well
*cough*stretched*cough* terr should be able to get at least 6 ounces of GB up his ass and onto the plane, which would be
likely be at least a couple LD50's in the confines of a plane. If you had several terr's on board the plane, none of which knows
the other is there, then you'd ensure success and mega-dosing of the airplanes passengers and crew. :D
Or, if they have a woman martyr, silicone boob implants that's designed to be filled with saline. The implants are left empty
until immediately prior to her boarding the plane. The implant is filled with Sarin, instead of saline, in a van in the airport
parking lot and the martyr gets on board the plane (assuming the implant is at least somewhat impermeable to GB
penetration for a couple of hours) where she then cuts her own tits open, spilling out the 98&degF Sarin.
Or she could place small explosive charges into her bra to explosively disseminate the Sarin, ala shoe bomber.
Since implants can hold more than 500ml each, and there'd be two of them, that could be at least a liter of Sarin dispensed
inside of a 747. What do you think the chances are of the passengers surviving that? I'd say zero.
If the plane is a trans-oceanic, then it would crash into the ocean with no chance of recovery, and no-one knowing how it
happened. Since they wouldn't know how it happened, there'd be no precautions taken against it, meaning it could be
repeated again and again.
How many times would it take for trans-oceanic flights to crash into the ocean, with all hands lost, before people start thinking
twice (or thrice) before taking such a flight? And might not OBL profit by investing in shipping line stock? ;)
If they found out women martyrs with Sarin booby implants were the cause of the planes crashing, what would airport security
do in response?
"Sorry ma'am, but I have to check your boobs for implants, terrorists and all that, you understand." :D
xyz September 7th, 2003, 12:51 AM

Just to clear up the earlier confusion about bullet knives, the point of a bullet knife is to make it possible to carry a knife in a
standard ammunition bandolier without the need for a seperate holster. I have seen some very cool looking bullet knives that
have the same look/dimensions as 3.5" 12ga shells.
The other point to bullet knives is that they look cool:) , they were not designed as concealable weapons though.
James September 7th, 2003, 02:21 AM

Angelo: The greast thing about modern times is that almost anything a criminal or terrorist could want is out there somewhere.
The big trick would be finding and assembiling the peices like a jigsaw puzzle. There are ceramic knives out there, it's just a
matter of acquiring one.
I thought of posting a related Idea I had in another topic. I think I'll let it sit a while.
Flake2m September 7th, 2003, 03:41 AM

A terrorist could take a walking stick on a plane becdause he has a "bad leg". once on board the walking stick becomes a
weapon tosieze control of the plane. Because the terrorist has already been trained in martial arts, this would improve his
chances of being successful. The only thing worse then an angry arab with a stick on a plane, is an angry arab with a stick on a
plane that has a black belt in karate!
He/she/it could also bring a modified laptop on the plane. The laptop has had the HDD removed and replaced with explosives
or a sarin canister that can be set off via the bios. The laptop would be able to bypass airport security because they only ask
you to turn on the laptop to see if it goes POSTs (beeps).
Bigfoot September 7th, 2003, 04:46 PM

TSA is now using backscatter x-ray machines. Instead of a sillouette (x-ray shadow), the machine shows a 3-D image, using
reflected and transferred x-rays. INS office security uses them as well. Popular Mechanics ran article on these some years ago,
testing for Border Patrol use. Could see into a semitrailer. If a fellow wanted to smuggle a weapon aBest bet is to "sterilize'
yourself of all metal--gum wrappers, coins, everything. Shave all facial hair. Wear button down shirt, necktie. Plastic knife goes
up your sleeve.If nothing on you triggers the detector, and your bags are clean, easy. You get wanded, go through your
pockets fast, find the metal shaving before they have the wand on you--they'll hand search you if they can't find the metal.
Heads up--if your bags have carried ammo, you'll get unwanted attention, the scanners include nitrate sniffers. A gunsmith I
know almost missed his flight as they unrolled his socks and jockeys to find the supposed explosives.
Chemical_burn September 8th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Hey Flake2m for a modified laptop I would have the Cd rom and floppy drive removed that way you can get in even more
explosive. Hell leave in the HDD and you can do everything they want you to do you could even open your OS to prove it works
and everything. Also you could use an older laptop the really thick bulky ones then will with sheet explosives you could
probably get in an intire Killogram :eek: :D
Ok thats my $.02
James September 9th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Get an ancient luggable computer. Modify it with a 'disk on chip' or something similar. The chips would run cooler and you
would have more space for 'stuff'. No need for floppys, fixed disks, or Compact Discs. You would probably want to add some
instructions to make it start slower. :)
chokingvictim78 September 23rd, 2003, 09:29 PM

An idea struck me in class today when I slashed a friend with a guitar pick. Why not sharpen one side of a heavy guage pick?
Or sharpen both sides of the pointed part you use to hit strings with halfway up? You could use a razor blade or something
hot. Completely concealable, metal detectors don't pick it up, and you can even take it out in plain view...you just play guitar a
lot and always carry them with you;) .
Update: That didn't work out quite as well as I thought it would. I have a substantial amount of bright red streaks on my left
leg, but nothing particularly useful unless you're a masochist or something.

What about a nasal spray bottle full of some really nasty acid? - or even a DMSO/nicotine hydrochloride compound? Do they
look in all the little bottles?
cougar98332 October 12th, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by angelo
Yes but it is possible... if you know where to look you can find high quality knives made entirely from plastic/ceramic and at a
good price at that... again, its just a matter of knowing where they are.
Chade October 16th, 2003, 11:47 PM

Before any of you try to hijack anything, consider how long it takes for them to introduce the ideas in patent number
US2003163232A1.
I thought it a clever little idea. Basically it's a panic button for pilots. When hit, it locks out the controls, and no-one on board
can take over, including the pilots. The plane switches to auto pilot, and is guided into landing over an encrypted radio
channel. Also it suggests the invention could disperse knockout gas through the plane, incapacitating everyone on board.
bloodbob October 18th, 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Chade
Before any of you try to hijack anything, consider how long it takes for them to introduce the ideas in patent number
US2003163232A1.
I thought it a clever little idea. Basically it's a panic button for pilots. When hit, it locks out the controls, and no-one on board
can take over, including the pilots. The plane switches to auto pilot, and is guided into landing over an encrypted radio
channel. Also it suggests the invention could disperse knockout gas through the plane, incapacitating everyone on board.
Thats gonna work great on the other side of world ( compared to us or wherever the base station for radio signal is )
knowledgehungry October 18th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Satellites would be used... and we shgould probably try to keep topics on topic.

The pen knife EP mentioned (Rightmost one on the link) is the one I have.
They used to sell them in the UK (I've bought one this year) and they consist of a pen that you twist to retect or extend the
nib, but only the top half is a pen. Pull it apart and it reveals a 3" stilleto blade. It'll be picked up by metal detectors, as it's a
pen, but it'll just go right through. The key fact is that you can write with it, and is indistinguishable from a real pen, unless
you open it. I've forgotten it was what it was and lent it to people accidentally before now. I don't know how bad (or good)
airport security is, and I know it varies heavily depending on where you fly to/from but I've traveled on a plane less than a
year ago (unarmed of course, I'm not looking for that sort of trouble myself) and wasn't searched at any point getting off or
on. I doubt they'd check everyones pens unless you looked particularly dodgy. They sold them at a store called 'home design
stores' (uk), but I've not seen them there lately.
I can imagine something like that, the police could even take it off you without knowing it was a weapon. I love the idea of
them returning you belongings when you get out of jail, and handing you your knife back. Note all the x-ray photos on that
page. Most have a clearly visible blade. If your scabbard or holder is metallic and allows the blade to slide into it snugly, rather
than openly, the whole shape should appear innocent. You could even make it invisible to those 3-D backscatter x-rays.
BTW, I apologise for distracting the topic. I presumed cutefix was referring to taking a weapon onto a plane to defend yourself
in case of a terrorist attack. No?
If you're talking about making an improvised version of weapons like that in general, the Obesidian knife has potential. Just
make one out of glass, like is shown here:
http://www.cavemanchemistry.com/cavebook/chstone3.html
I've seen nylon knives on many websites, and bemoaned the fact you can only seem to get them in the states fairly often.
The knives mentioned had two broad types. Types you never see, and types you never see.The first type is the type made
from something that doesn't show up on an x-ray, and a metal detector won't pick up, but if the actually do see it, you're
fucked. The second type is one that
They see, in plain sight, but don't 'really' see, like the keyring knives, or pen blades.
I think the second type are far better, and somehow more elegant. I loved the one that had a blade in a motorcycle helmet
key ring, you'd never suspect that. Trouble for making these at home is that the case has to look completely like the real
thing, and that requires more skill than making a functional weapon. It does have the advantage though, of not being a mass
produced one that'd show up on a list like that as something to watch out for.
Also, how useful would some of those 'weapons' be, exactly? The piddling little 1" swiss army types, or the pen with a 3mm
scalpel blade are next to useless for the risk you're running. It depends heavily on your situation, what type of concealed
weapon you wanted to design. For example, if you wanted to make sure you're left with it during a night in the cells to protect
yourself, you'd go for something different than to alleviate rampant paranoia during a flight.
If it were for flying with, as self defence, I'd go for a group of concealed darts, preferable tipped with something nasty like a
knockout drug (ignoring for a moment the difficulty of getting that to work.) Ok, the terrorists could still grab a group of
people, and on a plane you suffer from the problem of not being able to get over to attack them, so a knife is not all that
good. but a pocket full of darts would allow you to get a few good hits in before they could get too close, and you dont have to
clamber over seats and passengers to attack. As for how to actually conceal such a weapon...
I'd have it dissassembled, so the points (coated with something, just enough to disorient them is what I'd go for, but who
cares if it's more toxic?) would be either proper darts points or inflation needles sharpened with a file. The needles already
come with a screw thread, the darts would have to be soldered to one. You'd then drill holes of the same diameter in a block
of metal, and slide them in. this would leave them invisible on an x-ray. I'm sure there's a few ways to conceal a small block
of metal. Perhaps embed it in the base of a metal lighter?
As my absolute first thought for the dart body, I'd use pen bodies with the pen tip screwed in, so you can unscrew the pen tip
and screw in the point. Then I'd have flights which slipped around the outside of the pen snugly enough to hold in place when
thrown. Perhaps you could fold the flights into something like a bookmark? Nip to the toilet as soon as you can afer take off
to assemble the darts in your pocket ready, then again to dissassemble them when you land. Very unwieldy way of doing it,
and I'm sure that method can be improved (a lot), but you get the idea. Big problems would be making sure your customised
pens look enough like mass produced pens. Same for the lighter. Any signs that it's been put together in a workshop would
arouse suspicion. Same for any concealed weapon. Visible gluing, ground metal, uneven edges, caps not quite fitting, etc.
Very difficult to do. The first type is easier, but also easier to spot. Basically, all they have to do is search you, and they'll spot
it. In an ideal world, I'd want a ceramic gun like in Die hard II, but you'd have to be bloody careful about using it in a plane.
But at the end of the day, if you're highjacked, just rush the fuckers, and hope everyone else does the same. They'll try to
spray the cabin with blood from a couple of 'sacrificial' hostages, and indeed, have a host of tricks to scare the hell out of
everyone, to keep them sitting down and cowed. Your best chance of getting support for an attack is when it all kicks off, as
after that, they're in control. Remember, the passengers outnumber them. If you all attack at once, it doesn't matter if they
have things like ceramic knives. They're going down.

Its kind of a silly idea, but I figure someone might be able to make something useful with it. Not ot brag, but I am quite good
at Bo Staf (ancient martial art of beating people wich sticks :p ), and I happend to come across my cousin's Jedi Lightsaber
toy, the kind that flip out when you swing. You could faily easily create a similar setup out of a thich retractable antenna
possibly, throw in some other HAM radio bits and pieces in case you get questioned.
Course its much more practical to whip out a small sharp object, but beating people with sticks is just plain fun (I can't stop
laughing at that angry arab with a stick post).
While we are on Oriental weapons, what about num chucks? Kind of obvious (make that very obvious) if you are found with
them, but if you can conceal them well enough, it wouldn't get picked up by the metal dectetor (if you have the kind without
metal chain, the rope kind). Those things can get going fast, a quick swipe to the temple and they're out cold.
Heres another pretty simple yet effective idea. Fill a water bottle with MEKP, and then figure out how to get a very small
detonator in. I haven't made the stuff and I've heard it gives off quite a smell, but if you happen to have one of those
VacuuSealers (the infomercial thingers) then it would seal quite nicely.

My old Aikido teacher showed us how to sew a nunchuck arrangement into a backpack. The bars of the nunchucks fit down
slender pockets just the right size, on either side of the bag, so they lie vertically against either side of your back when the
backpack is worn. The bars are connected by a flexible wire that runs between them at the top, underneath a flap of material,
so if inspected, the nunchucks appear to be part of the support of the bag. By reaching under the flap and pulling on the wire,
the nunchucks are easily to hand.
I never tried this, as nunchucks are one of those weapons that would injure an unskilled user more than an assailant, and I'm
definately an unskilled user.
As a brief segue (which I hope you will forgive) this brings to mind a couple of other pearls of wisdom from that same teacher.
When he had someone in a rather effective handlock, he demonstrated how you could easily grab their pinky finger and snap
it to the side, dislocating it. In his own words 'This will heal before the case comes to trial'.
He also told me an old tale of an aikido master who was challenged by a soldier armed with a sword. He was waiting on the
beach as the Aikido master returned from his fishing trip, obviously unarmed. As the Aikido master got out of his boat, he
threw sand in the soldiers face, then stabbed him in the throat with an oar.
Moral: It's not what you've got, it's how well you use it.

You bring up a very good point Chade. What is the point of weapons if you can kill someone with your bare hands? Or just any
kind of object that happens to be lying around. BTW that numchuck idea is very creative, and probably very effectice too. But I
don't plan on testing how well it works by trying to board a plane with numchucks :rolleyes: .
Hypothetically, though, if you had a little creativity you would never need to bring any items on board. On a given airplane you
could find: Soda cans (heavy), or the entire serving cart for that matter, pens and pencils (sharp objects), those crappy AT&T
phones, serving trays, shoes (with or without explosives :p ), various bags (strangle people), or just plain get ripped and beat
people up. You only start running into problems if the whole flight of passengers charges you. In that case though I don't
think a box cutter or pen knife is going to help.
xyz October 30th, 2003, 04:27 AM

What about bringing on board a strong plastic (polycarbonate?) rod of roughly the same diameter of a pencil, a pencil
sharpener, and a roll of duct tape.
Go into the toilet, sharpen the plastic with the sharpener, wrap the duct tape round the other end until you have an easily
gripped handle (the normal plasic rod would be too skinny to get a good grip on), and you now have an effective stabbing
weapon.
sauvin November 6th, 2003, 08:17 AM

Most plastics are not hard to machine. For prototyping purposes, I'll usually use polycarbonate, nylon, delrin, acrylic and abs
for the purpose of simple proof of principle in some new concept.
Some years ago, I bought a "CIA letter opener" which was made, I'm guessing, of some blend of polycarbonate and nylon.
This blend may be difficult to procure from standard plastics supply houses, but glass-filled delrin is usually immediately in
stock, not terribly expensive and you can whittle it with a knife to produce something that resembles this CIA letter opener for
most practical intents and purposes. Something similar could be done with polycarbonate but it's tougher to whittle by hand
(but probably compensates by holding a much sterner edge much longer).
ThIoDeN November 8th, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by angelo
A pen knife would come in handy. But the whole idea of the article is to let the dicks in security know whats out there.
I like the idea of a knife in a bullet. What's the point?
okay, a knife is handy, but if the pen is inspected and i've seen it happen, you're toast.
What most people don't, realise is that an ordinary pen, is just as effecitve a weapon as any knife. Just this morning, we have
practised the use of pens as weapons in my Hapkido class, and i can say that they realy hurt and DISABLE any atacker, without
causing any fatal wounds (wich can get you thrown in jail ). The idea of using the pen is knowing where on the body the
'presure points' are located. Normaly you try to hit these with a fist, hand, foot, ... but when you hit them with a pen (use
metal pens like Parker and such ) the surface that connects to the body is smal, 2 to 3 mm and the complete foce om the
punch is directed to these 3mm. I've personaly felt the pain a mild punch to the plexus gives you, i did not stand up for
about 3 minutes !
I always cary my stainless steel pen wherever I go!

xyz,
your idea about sculpting a rod of plastic into a knife is a good one, aside from the obvious problem of how exactly you carve
it when you don't have a knife? Hell, you don't even have a nailfile!
The only thing I can think of is if you get a bit of glass-paper and use that...
[Edit: Sorry, you said a pencil sharpener and a rod. My bad. I was thinking "Knife" not "Shank". Sorry.]
Trom November 10th, 2003, 05:31 PM

I was just searching for lockpicks, and came across a knife that would be easy to conceal...
i found this at terroristsupply.com and it is called "CIA Letter Opener"
It's basicly a combat knife made completely out of non metallic materials.
FOR $4,95 IT'S AN AWESOME WEAPON!
I bought one, and it was balanced enough to throw.
Also, when i was a bit stoned, I used a hammer to hit it through pieces of wood... I went straight through an 2 inch thick oak
tree. IT DIDN'T BREAK...
Imagine putting one of these in a leg holster on the inside of your upper leg.... They won't even notice it, because the metal
detactor won't go of
A nice added bonus is that you can actually use it to open letters aswell ;)
And here is the link, check it out.

http://www.terroristsupply.com/store/police/items/dept1/02.shtml
knowledgehungry November 10th, 2003, 05:44 PM

Mechanical pencils, the cheap ass plastic type, are IMHO an excellent weapon, they will puncture flesh. Stomach, neck and
eyes are all extremely vulnerable to this sort of attack.
PHAID November 10th, 2003, 06:57 PM

I dont know if i would trust their claim that it cant be detected.
From some of my travels ive had a great deal of hastle with the metal detectors.
Just for the metal detector itself ive had the eyelets form a shoe set it off along with the following items.
pen, foil from a pack of cigarettes, belt buckle, earing, smal metal sliver stuck in wallet.
They also have been pushing the body scanner for use in airports and it will show anything on your body.
Stick with common items such as the pen or mechanical pencil.
Years ago i remember a place that sold a spike that looked like a drafting pencil and when you hit a button it shot out and
locked like a switchblade.
Ill search and post a link if its still made by anyone.
Trom November 11th, 2003, 03:52 PM

I decided to test the detectability of the "CIA letteropener"...
With a handheld metal detector, it didn't give a single beep.
So I got a little daring, or really really foolish, and went to the local airport...
I asked the security officers there if I could look for my sister, who was probably at the tax free shops, and who had registered
with a group name i did not know.
They let me go to the area behind the security gates...
Upon passing the gates, they did not react to the letteropener...
IMHO $4,95 well spent :D

PHAID,
the CIA letter opener is made from glass fibre re-inforced nylon, or some such, and as Trom tested (rather foolishly, imho) it
will not set off a metal detector, since it utterly non-metallic.
Obviously, if you set off the detector with something else, like a key, and you get patted down, you are in deep shit.
Anyway, how is that thing "Improvised"?

I knew it was supposed to be made of glass fiber , I was just wondering if they happend to put enough of a metalic substance
in with the mix to catch them at the metal detectors.
Thanks for the answer though.
THAT Dude May 8th, 2004, 04:25 AM

Cold Steel makes two "plastic" (Zytel)knives.
The Delta Dart($3.99 or $6.99with sheath) and the CAT Tanto($6.75).
That is a cheap(well made) knife! :D
On the DVD they stab them through a 1/2" thick piece of leather(by hand!)
and many other things.
tdog49 May 29th, 2004, 04:28 PM

I was just about to mention the Cold Steel option!
However I do have another option that I use regularly.
1. hard to deloy but....using plexiglas of about 1/4" thickness shape it to match a credit card (height and width) then sharpen
and serrate one side.
carry in wallet or elsewhere in pocket. with enough force it will cut leather.
2. easier to deploy....your standard 5" unbreakable pocket comb, will not cut leather but will cut human skin. applied in a
slashing motion across the throat this will cut....be careful trying this we have had a few accidents in class.
ciao for now,

Tdog
Singing your posts is forbidden. Correct yourself in the future or die. NBK
THAT Dude August 21st, 2004, 06:00 PM

EP a pen knife is not a very good concealed weapon IMO,because most are not well made. Mine is the same as the one in
that picture and it does not
work well because of the design, the throat (the peace that attaches the blade to the handle) should be square or some other
non round shape. Because you have to twist the pin to extend the writing tip and the round throat that is standard just rotates
the blade is it's housing when you try to
extend the tip. So you have to pull out the blade and twist it to extend the tip for writing.
Improvements in the blade housing could solve this and the x-ray problem.
NBK you could put implants in fat people then you have more than
enough room those Sarin bombs.
Trigger Mike August 31st, 2004, 10:42 AM

What would be the best material to use to improvise a CIA letter opener?I could always just buy one but I feel that would take
away the fun of constructing a weapon.I know that any old plastic will not work, so I ask, where is the balance between readily
availlable materials(I live in the UK)that are strong enough not to break easily and are not so strong that they are impossible
to carve or whittle down?Any members in the UK know where I can get the materials?
tdog49 August 31st, 2004, 02:59 PM

Trigger
I have made them out of aluminum and also plexiglass. I use either a hand grinder or file or belt sander to shape and
sharpen. You could also use pyrex, but that wouldnt flex at all and might be harder to conceal. However you would be able to
get a wicked edge.....
raptor1956 August 31st, 2004, 07:31 PM

you could also make them out of fibreglass. If you made yourself a mold, you could even use the resin on it's own, or
experiment with adding plaster or similar substances to weight them for throwing.
Trigger Mike September 3rd, 2004, 03:32 PM

Would I be right in thinking that plexiglass and perspex are both the same material just under different names? I apologise
in advance if that's a stupid question.
Anthony September 3rd, 2004, 04:46 PM

Yes, I believe they are the same thing.
Surely a blade made solely from resin would be prone to snapping? The purpose of the fibre is to give the material strength in
this respect.
raptor1956 September 3rd, 2004, 06:54 PM

yes it would be prone to snapping, but under some circumstances, that could be desirable, which is why some prison perspex
blades have grooves files across them. I'll leave the "why" to your imagination.
Trigger Mike September 23rd, 2004, 12:04 PM

Most of the weapons talked about in this thread have been bladed but, wouldn't a length of fiber wire be a lot easier to
conceal that a knife or other type of weapon?You could wear it underneath your belt which would hide it from view and give you
easy access.Even coiled around your wrist to look like some kind of bracelet.
The main drawback of this type of weapon, going back to the hijacking scenario, is that it really requires an outright act of
violence to establish any type of control and to re-enforce the fact that you mean business.I mean you can point a knife at
someone and they will more that likely be scared but I don't think that waving a length of fibre wire in their face would have
the same effect.
I heard somewhere that surgical tubing is very good for strangulation but Im not sure if that is true or not.
Anthony September 23rd, 2004, 02:01 PM

Or NBK's idea of industrial sized cable ties. Pop it over someone's head, pull it tight and they're as good as dead. Saves you
the inconvience of having to restrain the victim for several minutes.
NightStalker September 23rd, 2004, 08:41 PM

According to NBK, it's not an idea, but a techinque he's actually used.
I saw a quote from a post of his on a russian board, though I can't find it now, where he said he used it on ducks and dogs.
He even posted a picture of the heads of one of his "victims" years ago. :eek:
Fine wire sounds like 'shigawire' from DUNE.
I had an idea for modifying the Delta darts you can buy from Cold Steel.
You cut off the triangular blade portion from one of the darts, and drill a hole almost completely down the center, with a
smaller hole drilled through each of the 3 faces of the blade, connecting with the central core hole at the mid-point where it
terminates in the blade, and a tiny hole drilled in the very end where the central hole terminates, which allows the trapped air
to vent out when you insert the handle piston.
There is also an interior groove cut into the handle end of the central hole of the blade, into which goes an O-ring.
Next, a similar sized hole as the central blade hole is drilled into the handle, again running most of the length, into which goes
a plastic rod of strong plastic like delrin.
The rod is of such length as to go all the way into the blade hole and of a smaller diameter for the middle part, with the ends
both being full sized. There is a small O-ring notch cut into the end of the rod which goes deepest into the blade hole onto
which an O-ring is applied.
Next, insert the handle rod completely into the blade hole, fill the central portion with a powerful poison through one of the
holes, having sealed the other two with silicone plugs, and finally seal the last hole.
Now, the spike portion (blade), having had some sawback notches cut into the edges, will remain in the flesh of the victim
and, when the handle is pulled out, the central piston will act as a syringe, ejecting the poison out through the holes in the
spike.
I think a pull-piston is much more effective than trying to make it as a push-pistion, as with a pull-piston, the poison is only
ejected AFTER the blade is fully buried in the target, rather than being squirting out as it's stabbed through clothes and skin
on its way to the internals.
PS:
While searching for the NBK quotation, I ran across this short story that uses a zip-tie garrote, and thought it cool enough to
include here, highlighting the relevant portion. Found it at http://www.whisperingalley.com/yabbse/index.php?action=recent
Started by Psiberzerker
He follows me through the night, no doubt thinking I want him. For once, he's right, just has no idea what for.
Rapists are pretty predictable. Dangle a pretty little body in their face, and they'll follow you anywhere. I happen to have one
handy, so he takes the bait. A smarter man would wonder what brought me back here, at such risk.
In this case, it's a service entrance for dumpsters, and loading docks behind a closed warehouse store. No girl in her right
mind would come back here with a strange man following her. The suburban equivalent to a dark alley, I had no business
back here except for something I shouldn't be doing.
I lead him to a tight place behind a cement stoop, and pause to let him catch up by lighting a cigarrette. Possibly my last, I
cough. Even these young lungs are starting to burn out.
He grins at his fortune, and moves to cut me off. His teeth shine unnaturally white in his backlit face as I finaly get a good
look at what I have here. Neither attractive, nor ugly, he's a bit large. True, most of it is fat, but he looks strong too. His round
cheeks make him look fatter, but I can tell it's mostly from breeding. For his size, he looks rather harmless.
Probably what made him so good at this, actually. Without him cornering me like this, the lust obvious in his eyes, noone
would think it of him. I did, but I've gotten good at reading people.
The dim light glints off his eye, reflection from the blade that clicks out in his hand. "Behave," he warns me gently, "And I
won't have to cut you."
"Please!" I let tears well up in these big brown eyes, and bring my hands up defensively. His blade dips slightly as he relaxes
a little. A twist of my waist, and it's knocked aside. I keep spinning out, to get behind him, but he's to big for me to throw.
I don't even try, just jerk the pipe "T" out from behind my belt, and shake the loop out. He tries to turn, but I put a fist into
the nerve plexis under his arm, and he has to jerk back with a grunt.
An instep to the back of the knee, and he stumbles to the asphalt. He's too stunned to stop me as I throw the loop over, and
give a good jerk. The cable tie buzzes as the little nylon rachet cinches around his throat.
Now, I have to save him from himself. Predictably, he tries to cut free with the knife, but I manage to kick it away first. It
wouldn't do him any good, it's too tight to get the blade under, and too tough to cut from the outside. All that'd accomplish is
to damage his throat. I can't have that.
Blood backs up above it, standing out in facial veins, and darkening his eyes. His tongue blackens as he opens his mouth in a
useless gasp. I keep my distance, he could still be dangerous, or start thrashing. With about twice my body's mass, that could
be disasterous.
He can't even get to his feet, starts crawling away, trying to escape. I follow patiently, wait for him to collapse. Man, what a
pain to roll over.
Still blood bloated, I can see his pulse in the vein on his forhead. Good, I won't have to restart the heart. Holding my clippers
over the clasp, I make sure it'll make a clean cut.
Leaning in, I pressed our lips together. His taste of sweat, fear, and desperation. They feel unnaturally warm, and firm,
bloated as they are with blood. I have to pull his jaw open with my free hand, then reach up to hold his nose before cutting the
zip-garrote.
His last breath rushes out, and I take it willingly. I can almost taste the pain, and terror of his death. The shock of being
strangled by such a little girl. I press on his chest to get it all, massage the diaphram under the ribs untill I have my lungs
full.
My vision contracts, a spinctering shadow like the end of a cartoon. Distant traffic sounds recede further, and I start to loose
feeling. The little girl body relaxes around me, and I gasp in reflexively. Eyes wide open, I push the corpse off of me.
The ligature burns around my neck, it always does, but it'll heal. I take the scarf of her long dead body to cover it, reveal the
old strngling marks on her neck. They'd faded over the months I'd had her, but they never go completely away.
She'd been easier, the little ones usually where. I'd enjoyed her, wore her out. It was like another shot ate teen age, a
vacation I'd taken countless times through the centuries. I'd miss her, the youthfull energy, the pretty face that'd make guys
do anything, and , of course the sex.
I needed muscle now, too bad I can't get a girl in this size. It'd be nice to have the strength, along with the multiple orgasms.
Oh well, you can't have everything. Well, I can, just not all at once.
Familiarity makes striping her pockets easy. First thing, I pluck out my cigarettes, and lighter. The cool harsh smoke is rough
on these new lungs, but they'll get used to it. It dangles from my lips as I clean out the rest of it.
She's still breathing, but I can fix that. I need to cover the old marks any way, so I fit my big hands over them, and squeeze.
I take my time, cutting off the air flow, but letting the blood into the brain. It'd bruise better that way any way. Finally, she
shudders, and dies for the last time.
Waste not, want not. I kiss her one last time, and press her chest to force out the last of her breath. Sometimes, a little gets
left behind. The dregs of me in her taste strange, alien like nothing else I've encountered.
ninja42 September 27th, 2004, 06:07 PM

Great story on the ZIP tie garotte!
I used to make body concealable knives out of printed circuit board (without the copper layer of course). It consists of layers
of glass fiber covered in epoxy resin. Several boards bonded together with epoxy glue and fashioned into a knife will give a
razorsharp weapon which can be concealed anywhere.
If small channels are formed in the middle layers and filled with poison in conjunction with a preformed break point the effect
is dramatically enhanced.
ninja.
Hobbit Porn October 7th, 2004, 02:23 AM

http://www.wftv.com/news/3786870/detail.html
Thought this news item might give a few of you some ideas for one you could make yourself
Isotoxin October 12th, 2004, 03:50 PM

The story is good but a strong person could get the tie off I think. They would have to get a finger under the tie however. With
a knife I would slip it under the tie on the back of my neck so if I cut myself I would not bleed out and saw it back and forth
till it came off.

Indeed, if you had a knife you could remove the tie even if done up very tightly. Even if it means digging the point of the
knife into flesh to get it under the tie. Anything less than a rapidly fatal wound (which would take some real doing) isn't going
to seem important when your face is going purple...
I was reminded of people giving themselves emergency tracheotomy when chocking from a windpipe blockage as an example
of the survival instinct. I guess it would also work in this situation though!
Obviously, it would be relatively easy to stop someone saving themselves if the attacker sticks around, even if they are a
comparitive lightweight.
People faced with death can summon hugh physical strengths, but a half-ich wide cable tie is going to have a tensile strength
of at least 100kg. I did test some 1/4" (maybe smaller) ones once, and IIRC they broke at about 50kg. It's not like a victim
would have any leverage either.
Everyone must know those plastic packing straps that are heat sealed together? I think they have a diamond pattern on them.
They've also been used to break into cars. Well, they don't look very strong, but even putting my foot into one and pulling
with both hands, I couldn't break the fucker. I'm pretty sure that the same strap tested at <100kg tensile strength.
doggie October 18th, 2004, 07:58 PM

here's a nifty little gadget to keep you thinking:
Cellphone gun
5 shots .22 cal, seems like something that might be on the table in a topic like this.
http://cellular.co.za/phones/gunphone/gun-phone.jpg
http://www.mobidirect.com/cellgun.mpg
Lurking_Shadows November 21st, 2004, 12:30 AM

A little something I made for myself a wile ago but then gave away.
The pics a bit cut off but you get the idea.
I sharpened it with a bastard file and made it from an old meat cleaver, designed as a slashing weapon it digs into what
y o u re slashing at with the serrated bottom of the knife and is razor sh arp. (Tested it on an o ld T-shit and some foam)
The pics about the exact size of the weapon.
http://www.geocities.com/taipan526/Knife.html
Psychlonic November 21st, 2004, 05:56 PM

I've always thought that a belt with a decently heavy metal buckle would make a good weapon. The belt strap itself could be
used to entangle an opponent's weapon or strangling techniques.
When held from the other end however, the buckle turns the belt into a flail with more than the force necessary to break
bones.
What's more, belts aren't exactly frowned upon unless the have one of those daggers in the buckle.
mixojoe November 22nd, 2004, 04:06 AM

well you could always sharpen the edge of a credit card and make a small finger/thumb notch i guess. Have also used small
party poppers attached to the wrist and hidden under clothing. These have been filled with an irritant and aimed at foes eyes.
Det cord is hidden under the jacket lol

Lurking_Shadows, that looks a bit more like a throwing axe! Nice design, anyway.
Psychlonic, most belts that carry decent weight buckles are far too thick to strangle anyone with. However, they are quite
effective for swinging, and as long as your trousers stay up, you should be fine. The obvious counter is to get your arm in
before the buckle, so that it wraps around, taking the power out of the stroke, and allowing you to pull it away from your
opponents grip. Either that our stay a bit out of reach so that you can counter after they swing and miss.
Hobbit_Porn, that page is gone - http://blogs.musicscene.org/gonzo/archive/2004/10/07/323.aspx has it though, as does

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6190178/ .
akinrog November 24th, 2004, 03:01 PM

If the aim is concealability and improvisability, then prison style tools are better, I think.
A toothbrush whose handle is sharpened, a good (robust and quite thin) pen/pencil, a prison style improvised razor blade
(which consists of sticking of shaving blade inserted at the back of a pencil) (which is dangerous to carry in the pocket,
though), are very handy for attacking. Regards.
mixojoe November 24th, 2004, 11:13 PM

the old soap in a sock trick

People in prison make weaons from razors and toothbrushes simply because they're unable to make anything better.
YOU have no excuses, being on the street.
Muffscer's Digits December 31st, 2004, 03:37 AM

A small shard of glass could be used, just cover up one side with some masking tape.
i imagin if you just slit one persons throat with it, you would have most of the people under control solely through fear.
Although it is quite crude, its cheep, small, and non-metallic.

tdog49 December 31st, 2004, 07:55 PM
the problem w/glass is that it is (usually) quite fragile. having it break in your pocket or in the midst of an altercation is just
unacceptable. a tough durable polymer is a much better option. So is pyrex...
Lurking_Shadows January 23rd, 2005, 03:45 AM

Just an idea but what about an eppy [sp?] pen?
Some people with sever allergies or that are diabetic carry a few with them.
If someone were to modify them to carry some other substance I'm sure that it would still get a pass through airport security.
Tribal February 19th, 2005, 07:35 AM

What about cyanide poisoned earrings, pearcings and so on? Could work, if trying to steal a plane... Or maybe a sharpened
belt spike?
guerrero March 15th, 2005, 12:44 PM

Cellphone gun
doggie,
do you know where I can find plans or blueprints of this "cellgun"?

Cellphone gun
doggie,

Cellphone gun
doggie,
shadow2501 March 15th, 2005, 03:09 PM

guerrero this cell gun was made in small quantities, blueprints should be extremely hard to find.Tribal, am i understanding
correctly?you're planning putting poisoned earrings and piercing on your own body?if you wanna die just swallow the poison it
will be quicker.Here's a not-so-concealed but original weapon that differs in size from the belt buckle push dagger, concept is
interesting http://www.artesaniaalcala.com/pag3_eng.htm



If you slit the throat of the first person on a plane, you are going to get your ass kicked by the twenty guys who decide to take
you down.
The stupidity of the entire victim disarming game of airport security is that now, unless there are two or more guys with guns,
no-one is going to hijack a plane with a box cutter again, yet they take nailfiles off women and think they are making things
safer.
Give everyone a small, non-lethal(ish) weapon that doesn't wreck the plane, and there wouldn't ever be an issue again.

you down.
safer.

you down.
safer.
skatastamoutra March 16th, 2005, 04:24 PM

Once i have seen a guy with a big thump nail polished and hardened.
It could easily slit a throat.
Now thats improvished!


Tribal March 17th, 2005, 12:29 PM

shadow2501, you misunderstood me, I was thinking of a needle covered With a Latex or a thiny pipe, that would work as a
holster, it's a messy work to make this, but that's a weapon, what can kill... others and one more thing, if the hole in ear is
healed, the poison can't get in the blood system, am I right?



if the hole in ear is healed, the poison can't get in the blood system, am I right?
Not exactly, some of the toxic compounds has good transdermal activity. Not worth for the risk.


shadow2501 April 21st, 2005, 05:15 PM

i agree with akinrog, it's pure common, when toxic and poisonous substances are used, the further you keep them from your
own body the safer you are.Maybe poison hidden in fake ring or little capsule in ear rings?Oh by the way, should be no news at
all for anyone but there's another shapes of "undetecable" blades than cold steel tanto and darts,even push dagger and
karambit, my favourites:)



why not just bang out a zip gun in .22LR ? They are a peice of puss to make and when I use them into my old boxing bag
they quiet enough, hold them against it and you barely hear the muzzle blast.
:)

:)

:)

Because if you read the start of the thread, we aren't talking about a gun in this thread.
If you get frisked or go on a plane, a zip gun will get you arrested, as it will be found, even if you wrap it in tinfoil and shove it
up your arse.
Back on topic, a large steel or iron ball bearing is quite effective if thrown hard and suddenly. Or you can put it in a sock, or
hold it in your hand to increase the power of you punch. There's no reason to have one, but that's not a reason to arrest you.

Because if you read the start of the thread, we aren't talking about a gun in this thread.
If you get frisked or go on a plane, a zip gun will get you arrested, as it will be found, even if you wrap it in tinfoil and shove it
up your arse.
Back on topic, a large steel or iron ball bearing is quite effective if thrown hard and suddenly. Or you can put it in a sock, or
hold it in your hand to increase the power of you punch. There's no reason to have one, but that's not a reason to arrest you.
Silentnite June 11th, 2005, 09:46 PM

If I recall a story I was told, those "Carbon fiber"-type blades have an assortment of metal fibers embedded as well, due to
the security issue. Maybe the older one's don't though.

If I recall a story I was told, those "Carbon fiber"-type blades have an assortment of metal fibers embedded as well, due to
the security issue. Maybe the older one's don't though.

I often wonder about rumours like that.
If I were selling a knife that was designed to be invisible, and selling it as such, whilst pissing off law enforcement all over the
place, why would I decide to add something to make them detectable? It is a classic lose/lose - your customers don't trust you
again, and LEOs still hate you for selling the knife!
Anyhow, as stated above, just make one. Get a rod or piece you like, and go at it with a hacksaw and then sand to your
desired finish and shape.
The UK just passed a law banning lettuce knives, following on from the 'success' of the handgun ban... I doubt banning plastic
knives wll turn them into weapons of choice, though.

I often wonder about rumours like that.
If I were selling a knife that was designed to be invisible, and selling it as such, whilst pissing off law enforcement all over the
place, why would I decide to add something to make them detectable? It is a classic lose/lose - your customers don't trust you
again, and LEOs still hate you for selling the knife!
Anyhow, as stated above, just make one. Get a rod or piece you like, and go at it with a hacksaw and then sand to your
desired finish and shape.
The UK just passed a law banning lettuce knives, following on from the 'success' of the handgun ban... I doubt banning plastic
knives wll turn them into weapons of choice, though.

I sawed a decent chunk back in my highschool days out of a wooden school desk, with a plastic picnic knife. The one with the
serated edges. Obviously it could do some damage to a person. Then the lovely tests whereabouts you drive it straight
through the core of an apple.
But then, Any item, properly used, can be turned into a deadly weapon.

I sawed a decent chunk back in my highschool days out of a wooden school desk, with a plastic picnic knife. The one with the
serated edges. Obviously it could do some damage to a person. Then the lovely tests whereabouts you drive it straight
through the core of an apple.
But then, Any item, properly used, can be turned into a deadly weapon.
nbk2000 June 13th, 2005, 01:22 PM

The idea of making a spike blade from fiber-reinforced nipolite, and imbedding a pull-fuse igniter between the spike and the
handle (which seperate upon withdrawing from a stab), seems fun.
Stab someone, and as you pull back on the (reusable) handle, the pull igniter sets off the nipolite spike embedded in the
victim. Either explosive or incendiary will have dramatic effects. :)
And can be totally non-metallic too. :D
Imagine the effect of a couple of ounces of double-base guncotton burning six inches inside of your chest cavity. ;)
nbk2000 June 13th, 2005, 01:22 PM

The idea of making a spike blade from fiber-reinforced nipolite, and imbedding a pull-fuse igniter between the spike and the
handle (which seperate upon withdrawing from a stab), seems fun.
Stab someone, and as you pull back on the (reusable) handle, the pull igniter sets off the nipolite spike embedded in the
victim. Either explosive or incendiary will have dramatic effects. :)
And can be totally non-metallic too. :D
Imagine the effect of a couple of ounces of double-base guncotton burning six inches inside of your chest cavity. ;)

i was re-reading over this thread, and i came up with an idea that i'd never thought up before... and had never been posted.
sunglasses- most have plastic pieces that go over your ears, to make them more comfortable. now if you were to slide those
off, and sharpen the points of the (hopefully) metal frames, and slide the plastic back on... you could have a seriously sharp
spike a few inches long, that would never be cared about...
another idea that came to me was to sharpen one of the ends of a keyring, but have it lying flat to teh ring, when needed use
a key on the ring to bend the point outward, making a potential melee weapon (granted, not very powerful)
one could also take the film out of a film roll, and replace it with any sort of substance/object, if you have a lead bag for your
film when it goes through the x-ray it may be only visually scanned by the operator. (wouldn't hurt to glue on a tab of film to
make it look real.)
if you were to carry on a cane, i'd reccommend devising some way to have one of the ends pointed (under a rubber foot cap
perhaps) to make it also a valid piercing weapon.
you could have a lot of fun with the ~2 foot long metal bars that support an internal frame backpack... providing it was valid
for carry-on

i was re-reading over this thread, and i came up with an idea that i'd never thought up before... and had never been posted.
sunglasses- most have plastic pieces that go over your ears, to make them more comfortable. now if you were to slide those
off, and sharpen the points of the (hopefully) metal frames, and slide the plastic back on... you could have a seriously sharp
spike a few inches long, that would never be cared about...
another idea that came to me was to sharpen one of the ends of a keyring, but have it lying flat to teh ring, when needed use
a key on the ring to bend the point outward, making a potential melee weapon (granted, not very powerful)
one could also take the film out of a film roll, and replace it with any sort of substance/object, if you have a lead bag for your
film when it goes through the x-ray it may be only visually scanned by the operator. (wouldn't hurt to glue on a tab of film to
make it look real.)
if you were to carry on a cane, i'd reccommend devising some way to have one of the ends pointed (under a rubber foot cap
perhaps) to make it also a valid piercing weapon.
you could have a lot of fun with the ~2 foot long metal bars that support an internal frame backpack... providing it was valid
for carry-on

what about the fbi data base of concealed edged weapons, free online download?

what about the fbi data base of concealed edged weapons, free online download?

Mega old thread but just wanted to mention a lot of the weapons listed in this thread are not very good. Not meant as an
insult or anything, but sharpened guitar picks or credit cards? Sorry but no, that's not going to do anything. Improvised
weapons need to be practical and available almost anywhere. You need to be able to have one of these at any moment,
without notice. It does not help you if your uber kevlar carbon fiber knifegun is stowed in your bunk at home in Texas and
you're out in the middle of Kandahar.
Improvized weapons? Well depends what you need it for. If you need a weapon for killing somebody, i.e. you intend to strike
first, then something long, hard and a very sharp tip is best. For example an expensive metal fountain pen could be used as
a base design, except the fountain tip has been softened (tempered) so it won't snap, or better yet the entire internals of the
pen have been replaced with a single long, retractable carbon steel blade. That wouldn't get past an x ray machine though.
Don't start with the 'lead shielding' stuff. An x ray tech would have you arrested the minute they saw lead shielding, and they
can definately spot it.
It's been mentioned here before, but coffee mugs and glasses also make good edged weapons on an airliner. No security
guard will ever stop you for a coffee mug, but if you smash it in flight you've got yourself a dandy edged weapon plus corners.
It won't take much abuse but if you know your stuff it'll get the job done.
Some types of keys make decent weapons in a pinch, generally the more recently they were cut, the better. If the edges of
the key are still somewhat sharp you can cause some shallow cuts on a person, but they are also useful for putting small
holes in places like the eyes or tearing up flesh like the nose/ears, etc. But you need to be pretty desperate to resort to keys.
When travelling in a car, car lighters are probably the best weapon. Stick one of those in 'the chosen one's' face and then
handle the situation from there. Cigarretes in the eyes work ok, so does smoke from cigars or cigarrettes in the eyes, but only
very briefly and at close range. Better to use the burning tip.
If wearing a hoodie, backpack, or track pants, the string can be removed from the article of clothing and be used as a garote.
Better is soaking the string in water or urine if you have no water available, this will make the string stronger, and better suited
to strangling (it'll dig deeper into flesh, more friction), though it will stretch somewhat before you get max tension.
If confronted on a street, use garbage cans as a defensive mechanism. No joke, remember people used to use chairs to fend
off huge hungry animals, a garbage can is enough to temporarily fend off someone attacking you.
A really good one that almost anyone can do at any time is the old 'rock in a sock'. Simple as it sounds, stick a big rock in
one of your socks and you have a crude morning star kind of thing going on. Works best if wet or urinated on, again, the
material has more friction when wet and will do more damage. Also even if it doesn't seriously hurt the person it'll leave a
bigass imprint of your sock on their skin which will make them look pretty stupid, until you finish them off anyway.
Those are just some basic ideas. The rock in the sock one is probably the best and most practical out of any of them. Even if
you can't find a rock you can always find something, like a cell phone, or just other heavy shit to put in it. Terrorist took over
your flight? Fuckin whack his rag head skull from behind with a cell phone in a sock, then cut his ugly throat for being such an
asshole.
Those are some pretty simple and available weapons. There's lots more out there just use your imagination. Consider this
though, don't even think of using something as a weapon that is already easily breakable in normal use. A plastic serrated
knife? The kind in caffeterias? Gimme a break. That won't do shit to anyone, it can't even go through clothing.
If you have access to more advanced resources, then you start getting into really good stuff. For example if you're expecting
some kind of raid on your property, you could create landmines from 12 gauge shotty shells and nails and put them along
expected travel routes. The VC did something like this in NAM. If you have greater explosive resources available you can
make very large landmines or even claymore type mines based on the same principle.
Other VC tricks like putting grenades attached to strings inside soup cans is another good one. Trip the wire, pull the grenade
out, kaboom. But most people don't have grenades so..
Another one from Tom Clancy land, but it actually works; shotgun shell surrounded by extremely thick cardboard tubing, with a
metal base plate and 1 time use firing assembly. The cardboard tube is only a little longer than the shell itself. Walk up to
your target, stick the end in his chest, whack the bottom of the device with something hard (your hand even, if you do it hard
enough) and there you have it. Of course you may break your arm from the huge amount of recoil that generates, but it's
improvised!
All kinds of stuff out there! Just think hard.
And always remember the best weapons you have are your own brain and your own hands. If you learn some kind of Japanese
martial art you'll probably be able to handle any clowns that are trying to bother you without even using weapons. My personal
recommendation is either Japanese jujutsu (NOT Brazilian), or judo in conjunction with oyama style (kyokushin) karate
(throwing and striking balance eachother out)
Ropik June 6th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Or Kali, where you can learn using knives and sticks as well.
I think that quick riffle through Marc MacYoung's book about improvised weapons is all you need to begin to see your
surrounding like an armory...
I wouldn't dismiss things like sharpened guitar picks or credit cards. Of course, you aren't gonna to lop somebody's arm off
with it, but it can give you an upper hand by means of surprise. Credit card with spyder edge-type grind is nasty as hell, if
somebody is close enough to use it on your face, neck, et cetera. I know it myself. It won't put you out of fight, but it buys the
opponent enough time to ram a haymaker into your temple.

Gollum, cheers for the recap of the thread!
Everything you said has been said on this thread already. Yes, we all know that using a guitar pick isn't the same as a slamfire
cardboard shotgun, but nor are the penalties for having one.
I'm going to have to advise a friend who took a beating the other day, lost some teeth. He wants to go with a home-made
tazer to fend off three+-on-one attacks. I advised him to use his "natural weapons" - his crash helmet is a fight ending
headbutt or bludgeon. A razor knife is a big risk by comparision, given the UK "Knife amnesty" shit that is going on right now.
I also suggested a thin steel bar or DOM tube, as it looks technical, and yet will break/chip bone without trouble if swung hard.
underMan June 11th, 2006, 09:06 PM

I can think of a couple ways to design a chain necklace to be some fatal sized darts. Not that difficult to imagine a couple
efficient ways to do that.

What is this termine "conceable"?Weapon non-detected trough usual means of detection.Few examples
Three simple door keys with sharpen ends a connected with angle 120 create shuken (throwing star)
Common family ring with welded blade create of "tire cutter" weapon used by OSS in WW2.
Common write pen may be created on lathe from steel and sharped as spike..
James Bond gadget: hand clock with Jigly saw or piano wire inside...
Fake hand clock with molded plumbum inside (mini black -Jack )
Continue and continue..
mrtnira July 11th, 2006, 08:09 PM

I think defining "concealable", as Teshilo points out, is the place to begin. Environment, motive, and ability play significantly in
the usefulness of a tool.
If a tool box is natural to a construction site, then those tools can be expedient weapons and would be hidden until they were
turned from tools to weapons by action. That same tool box might be unnatural in a stock broker's briefcase, and would draw
suspicion. So, we first have to look at the operational environment.
Motive, or cause, is the second thing to think of when choosing a concealable weapon, because how it applied will affect choice.
Not all weapons are best used in all places. Is a weapon to intimidate, or to injure, or to outright kill? Some can do all three,
but a truly "concealable" weapon might be limited.
Physical and psychological ability is another thing to consider. If I am slow of reaction, limited in stamina, or not
psychologically agressive, maybe no weapon is sufficient.
My favorite concealable weapons are defensive ones available to most people: the belt, a ball point pen, a jacket, the edge of
a hard copy book, among others.
One person wrote earlier, "a coffee mug". This also is true and shows what range expedient weapons actually come in, and
how concealable they really can be.
teshilo July 15th, 2006, 10:19 AM

Do NOT quote whole posts!
All conceable weapon this Only "LAST CHANCE WEAPON".
Without camouflaged firearm, poisoned throwing weapon and all things sorts as "HIT AND RUN", common thing in your
pockets.
With help these you can got small dose of life. In use main speed and accuracy ...Crushed cigarette throw in face, pen
stabbed in legs. All this needs training.
Bando January 1st, 2007, 07:41 PM

Reminds me of Ace Ventura when he pulls out has contact lens cracks it on the bar, "So you wanna play with glass." This
wouldn't apply these days considering a majority of contacts aren't made of glass anymore. Sorry if this post is ridiculous, but
the thread sparked my memory of it and i thought i should share my laugh.
paroxysm January 25th, 2007, 07:40 PM

Whether something is allowed on a plane or not is irrelevant, my cousin once got on board an aircraft with two 5l bottles filled
with portuguese fire water (70% alchohol) and a lighter in the same carrier bag, in hand luggage.
And although some of those knives look cool, and may be useful, some of them would be impossibly difficult to machine
yourself.
anonymous411 January 28th, 2007, 05:21 AM

"Concealed weapons" and "improvised weapons" are two entirely different conceptual categories. Virtually anything can be
used as an improvised weapon; you can kill somebody by shoving a pencil in the back of his neck at the brain stem, or using
the old "toothpick in the carotid" trick. If I've got something hard, heavy, and/or sharp in my hand, I'm good to go.
Case in point: I once attended a policy lecture by a controversial public figure, and found myself sitting behind a guy I
instinctively knew was going to be a problem. I quickly scanned the room, and decided if he did anything dangerous, I was
going to whip the scarf off the neck of the lady sitting next to me and garotte him with it. Sure enough, he did start to cause a
disturbance, but it was only standing up and heckling. Since it didn't really warrant the degree of force I had in mind, I calmly
stood up, swiftly grabbed the collar of his shirt and twisted it into a compliance hold until he shut the fuck up, and other people
muscled him out of there. So that's one kind of "improvised weapon" for you. Heh.
Jacks Complete January 28th, 2007, 09:48 AM

Last time I tried to fly, the bastards stole the duty-free we had bought after check-in, as they wouldn't allow glass bottles in
hand luggage. Talk about a con!
I'm sitting within about 2 feet of hundreds of weapons. Many of them could be fatally applied if the need arose, but it all
comes down to training and timing. In theory I could get an attacker to stop and OD on vitamin C tablets, but unless you are
Derren Brown, that's not going to happen.
Unless you are sure, stick with what you are sure will work, and that you have to hand. Even a toaster can kill if you can swing
it hard enough (thanks to Stephen King for that idea)
festergrump January 28th, 2007, 10:13 AM

Even a toaster can kill if you can swing it hard enough (thanks to Stephen King for that idea)
The scene from "Suicide Kings" (where Dennis Leary's character beat down the frisky step-dad of a link to his boss' kidnappers
with a toaster) comes to mind...
Lethal? Not in this case, but it goes to show that extra weight in hand increases the effect of the inertia within a punch well
landed.
He used it more like a bludgeon than a flail, even taking the time to carefully wrap the electrical cord around it first... :)
When anything and everything is a weapon to the right mind, how can weapons possibly be "regulated"???
sbovisjb1 January 28th, 2007, 07:28 PM

Now this may sound k3wl, but ill give it a shot. (Sorry if it does). *IT DOES*
anonymous411 January 28th, 2007, 08:50 PM

Here's one for the ladies in your life: I once heard of a woman who welded together four sizable rings with semi-precious
faceted stones in them. The most elegant set of brass knuckles ever created! LOL
Speaking of stealthily-tough women, did you know Nancy Reagan packs heat? I heard she keeps a little gold .22 with a
mother-of-pearl handle in her Chanel bag. ROTFLOL!!
Defendu January 28th, 2007, 09:29 PM

I once heard that you could use a metal lighter (Of the good zippo type) as a reinforcer for your hands.
I heard she keeps a little gold .22 with a mother-of-pearl handle in her Chanel bag. ROTFLOL!!
http://i11.tinypic.com/2rf965x.gif
sbovisjb1 January 28th, 2007, 11:53 PM

Note taken... Like I said, any object can be an "Improvised" weapon. And the idea of a lighter, was just this... an idea. The
best concealable weapon is one that you buy. Preferably a retractable police baton :D. Or a knife.
Charlie Workman January 31st, 2007, 02:52 AM

Actually, Nan was well known to keep a small .25 auto in her bed side table when she lived in the White House. When a
reporter asked about it, she laughed and said it was "just a tiny little gun". Never heard of her packing in public, though. One
of the reasons I always liked that lady. Lives in the most heavily defended residence on earth and still refuses to rely
completely on others for her protection. It was rumored Ron kept a .45 in his bedside table, but this was never verified.
Alexires January 31st, 2007, 05:19 AM
The best concealable weapon is one that you buy. Preferably a retractable police baton :D. Or a knife.
I beg to differ. The best concealable weapons is....... something that you can conceal easily and is an effective weapon. Its
like saying that just because you paid for it makes it better. Paying for it makes it worse in my opinion. Someone knows that
you bought it and hence other people may know about it.
How often have we heard of a knife or baton being taken off the person and turned on them?
My advice would be wait until the last minute to play your hand. Don't let them know about the baton/knife/stick until it
actually hits them. Forwarned is forearmed, and its just stupid giving your enemy more weapons than he has.
Personally, I like the idea of the sock+change flail. Concealable (it isnt around until you make it up) and easily hidden
afterwards.
Keys on a keychain are another good one, but be wary of blood getting on your keys, leaving behind evidence.
lewisimo January 31st, 2007, 08:02 AM

I think the sensitivity of the metal detector machines as I travelled out of England i had no trouble wearing a studded belt
through the machine which seems like a fair amount of metal to me. So it seems to me you could actually get an improvised
weapon through..
PhilAnarchist February 10th, 2007, 09:54 AM

I was just about to mention the Cold Steel option!
However I do have another option that I use regularly.
1. hard to deloy but....using plexiglas of about 1/4" thickness shape it to match a credit card (height and width) then sharpen
and serrate one side.
carry in wallet or elsewhere in pocket. with enough force it will cut leather.
Great Idea! I was actually thinking about this while I was reading the post before I came across yours. But thinking of having it
made from a thinner piece of aluminum, sharpened on on side. Carry would be in a wallet.Carried on my left rear pocket.
darkknight1975 July 12th, 2007, 05:17 AM

What about bringing on board a strong plastic (polycarbonate?) rod of roughly the same diameter of a pencil, a pencil
sharpener, and a roll of duct tape.
Go into the toilet, sharpen the plastic with the sharpener, wrap the duct tape round the other end until you have an easily
gripped handle (the normal plasic rod would be too skinny to get a good grip on), and you now have an effective stabbing
weapon.
ceramic butcher knifes and steak knifes are available on the internet now that would pass through metal detecters easy . just
do a google they are not cheap at least not to a poor bastard like me , but they are easy to get a hold of and slipped through
. I dont think a knife is very much though against a man that is good with his hands and feet and determined to live. Live
Free Die Well
hatal July 12th, 2007, 06:17 AM

ceramic butcher knifes and steak knifes are available on the internet now that would pass through metal detecters easy . just
do a google they are not cheap at least not to a poor bastard like me , but they are easy to get a hold of and slipped through
. I dont think a knife is very much though against a man that is good with his hands and feet and determined to live. Live
Free Die Well
These knife are made from zirconium (di)oxide but many manufacturers also place a sufficient amount of metal (steel) inside
the knife so it stays detectable by scanners.
So if you want to smuggle a ceramic knife be sure to choose the right one. The best choice would be "military grade" (no
metal in it). Ofcourse, beside being expensive, thats even harder to get. (But not impossible :))
prespec July 12th, 2007, 08:12 AM

I can't wait for the next installment! Then we will all know how to make something we can throw .
CricketSquish July 17th, 2007, 05:31 AM

I found this video of a 4 shot .22 lr cell phone. It looks from the 80's or some shit, and these days it wouldn't be so
inconspicuous I guess.
I would have put the chambers way more back to allow for more than 1" of barrel and hence more power and effective range.
But hey, who is gonna put a scope on a phone anyway? Maybe an integral laser though!
Not enough room for a suppressor but that would be a definite plus! ;)
http://www.guzer.com/videos/cell_phone_gun.php
I just found this too. Notice it's .17 M2 Interesting.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/mini_machine_gun.php

That cellphone gun is indeed from the 80's. There was a big stink about them in the UK about two years ago.
Personally, I'd go for a single shot pen-gun. But I'd build it into a tweaked laser system that spat out a load of IR and green
light at dangerous levels at the same time. Useful both for aiming and blinding.
rollie July 23rd, 2007, 01:36 PM

Perhaps, following on from the discussion of concealable weapons that wold not be picked up by a metal detector, you could
sharpen a "needle" out of a thin plastic rod and attach it to a syringe with your drug of choice in hand. Or even just sharpen
the end of the syringe.
OR if you suffer from diabetes, swap your some of your insulin for something more "nasty". That way you don't have to
conceal the weapon from security

That cellphone gun is indeed from the 80's. There was a big stink about them in the UK about two years ago.
Personally, I'd go for a single shot pen-gun. But I'd build it into a tweaked laser system that spat out a load of IR and green
light at dangerous levels at the same time. Useful both for aiming and blinding.
Yes these laser device described on GBBPR site also cutting weapon parts from broken CD or sharpened plastic VISA card .Or
plastic tube filled with any CW agent. Used KGB in assasination gas pen gun filled prussic acid can be maked without any
metal parts..:rolleyes::rolleyes:
MrCrowley45 September 11th, 2007, 03:41 AM

Couldn't you make a sharp knife out of PVC, with a PVC handle to get past airport security? PVC can be pretty sharp and it's
not detected on x-ray machines.
file September 15th, 2007, 01:03 PM

While you could use PVC, if it does get found you'll have a tough time explaining why you have a PVC knife.
Now if you used a piece of glass(from something that looks like a picture frame) that happened to break in your luggage and
the "frame" broke too(providing a means to grip the glass) you'd have a workable knife and a reason why you have a sharp
piece of glass(part of the "picture frame" you brought on board)
joffe September 15th, 2007, 04:27 PM

PVC can be pretty sharp and it's not detected on x-ray machines.
I'm afraid you're mistaken there, a PVC-knife will turn up on a properly adjusted x-ray machine. They will pass through a
metal detector though.
Now if you used a piece of glass

Glass is an extremely poor weapon. Sounds good in theory, but if you try it, you'll see how lousy it is. It might be useful for
one stab or cut, but that's about it. And if the victim is wearing thick clothes, your chances with the glass knife will be drastically
reduced. Besides, if a reasonably airport security guard found broken glass in your luggage, he'll most likely confiscate it.
LibertyOrDeath September 16th, 2007, 05:06 AM

In addition to x-rays and metal detectors, an increasing threat to carriers of concealed weapons is the use of millimeter and
submillimeter waves. Basically, cameras that detect at such wavelengths can see right through your clothes (but not through
biological tissue), thus making you appear stark naked and revealing anything you're carrying.
Here are a few articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave#Security
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/17840/
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6118
http://www.ccnmag.com/news.php?id=4362
Note that nonmetallic weapons can definitely be seen by these devices. And even though the "homeland security" pigs claim to
care about your privacy (i.e., not seeing you naked), rest assured that in the future these cameras will be set up in public
places -- perhaps hidden -- and will be used to view everyone bare-assed.
Doesn't it make you feel great that our tax dollars are being continually used to come up with newer and better high-tech ways
to disarm and control us? :mad:
The good news is that these wavelengths don't penetrate metal. So, for example, hiding a weapon inside of an innocuous
metal object while walking in a public place would defeat the technology. (Of course this doesn't apply to high-security areas
where you have to walk through a metal detector or are otherwise subject to close inspection.)
Charles Owlen Picket September 16th, 2007, 10:50 AM

Just my opinion but many if not most men who have not worked in a corrections environment will not focus their attention on
the genitals of another man. Women may crotch-watch but will feel somewhat embarrassed to do so in the company of others.
Hiding objects along the shaft of one's penis or kiester stashing shit is still a viable option.
chemdude1999 September 16th, 2007, 11:04 AM

Hiding objects along the shaft of one's penis or kiester stashing shit is still a viable option.
Well, there goes my idea for concealing a 1911.
I remember reading about those new devices in Popular Science IIRC. They implied they would have software that would blur
the crotch area out. Riiiiight.
hatal September 16th, 2007, 03:19 PM

Solution: wear clothing similar to x-ray protective gear or clothes with metal fibers sewn (like aluminium)
joffe September 16th, 2007, 04:46 PM

Solution: wear clothing similar to x-ray protective gear or clothes with metal fibers sewn (like aluminium)
Not a very good idea. If something shows up blurry or unclear, it's standard procedure to do a manual search.

There are several areas that aren't visible to millimetric cameras, at least in the pictures I've seen:
1. Bottom of feet
2. Top of head
3. Inside of thighs
All of these pre-suppose that the object you're trying to hide is flat.
A.C.E. September 17th, 2007, 01:56 PM

Well, making a knife flat enough for concealing under your foot isn't so hard. Unless you have to remove your shoes you can
hide something relatively large under your foot, you could even modify the sole of the shoe to provide extra room for your
stash.
If you face the risk of beeing forced to take off your shoes or clothes you have a problem though. In this case the knife would
have to be thin enough to be taped to your skin. If you're sure you won't face a metal detector using a steel blade is of course
the best. The problem starts when you have to pass through both x-ray/mm-camera and metal detectors. This would call for a
knife both very thin and non-metallic.
There are four materials (apart from metal) I know of that will hold an edge well enough to be used as a weapon, these are:
horn, bone, stone and plastic. I've left ceramic materials out of this since noone I know has any knowledge of working with
them. Mankind has been making knives and weapons out of these materials (except plastic) for thousands of years. I haven't
been doing it quite that long but still, learning how to do it isn't hard.
The problem is that none of them can be made into a very thin knife if it is to have any durability at all. What remains is
plastic, I'm currently working on making a thin (think 1-2mm) plastic knife that will hold together well enough for weapon use.
I've made some progress by laminating thin plastic sheets with epoxi but I have to make the blades very wide (50-60mm.) to
keep them from snapping on impact with the target. To solve this I would need some very strong but flexible material to add
to the blade but I'm fresh out of ideas on what to use and I could use some help on the subject. A thin sheet of aluminium
from a coke can worked really well, but last time i checked aluminium shoved up perfectly well on metal detectors.
The goal is making a knife with a blade no wider than 25mm. and at least 50mm. in length. Preferably from material that is
readily available.
Charles Owlen Picket September 17th, 2007, 07:22 PM

Whether it's a hand-held or a step through detector, it can be adjusted so that the zipper in one's pants or the fillings in one's
teeth don't set it off. That's why the toothbrush razor trick worked until the authorities started to use detectors that worked on
ferris/non-ferris metals and had adjustments. A non-ferris metal of light weight was presumed to be a zipper or tooth fillings
but any small ferris metal was assumed to be a razor.
Plastic doesn't need to "hold" an edge. It simply needs to be sharp and strong enough to get the job done. If anyone really
looks around any room the amount of weapons is unbelievable. You just need a bit a desire to to what needs be done.
If you think there is any truth at all to the 911 hijackings - they were done with the most basic of tools. The penetration of an
edge or a point is not limited to the length of the metallic object alone but the pressure and position of the hand that holds it.
Thus a "Buck knife" can puncture lungs; because the handle of the pocket knife plus the position of the hand make the blade
longer than the blade measured alone.
The ideas for this are virtually endless. A sharpened steel tube (like a hypodermic needle) can act as a "trake-tube" and save
a life or it can let someone bleed out fast as hell. Think of a metal pen sharpened on concrete, etc
chemdude1999 September 17th, 2007, 10:25 PM

I like the idea of a large hypodermic. I'm not exactly sure on the concealment part. But a ruthless person could, in theory,
incapacitate the target and bleed them out with it while they were unconscious.
Getting back to ACE's original thoughts and questions: Perhaps a layer or two of Kevlar could be adhered between the
laminates of plastic to add strength against breakage. Or just make the whole thing out of fiberglass. However, I'm not sure
about a signature in the forms of detection discussed so far.
perrymk September 18th, 2007, 01:57 PM

The problem is that none of them can be made into a very thin knife if it is to have any durability at all.
This is just a thought and I am not sure how practical. If the thickness is a problem how about carrying two thin, not so durable
blades and putting them together when in use to make a slightly thicker and thus more durable blade? Sure it requires
assembly but I'm sure the right design could simply snap or slide together in a second. Even just holding them together would
add some strength to the blade.
A.C.E. September 18th, 2007, 06:18 PM

@Charles Owen Pricket: I agree, but it's much easier to fight with a proper knife that has a decent edge than to use
something more or less improvised. Having a good, sharp edge will reduce the amount of force needed to penetrate the
target thus putting less stress on the weapon. Believe me, having your weapon break while you're using it is a very bad thing.
It happened to me when I tried to use a broken beerbottle, I was wearing gloves at the time which is most likely what saved
my hand from permanent damage.
@chemdude: Good idea, I'll try to get a hold of some kevlar (I have an old army flak jacket I can butcher up for material) and
give it a shot.
@perrymk: That could work, or if you had time to prepare your weapon inside the secure zone you could simply bring som
instant glue and put it together just before it's needed.
Charles Owlen Picket September 18th, 2007, 08:59 PM

Screwdrivers work and don't break as do hammers. The world is filled with stuff to use: the trick is to relax and see what's all
around you.
thelasttrueone November 5th, 2007, 11:42 PM

I have brought my old win95 laptop onto many flights with me. The funny thing about this laptop is it has no battery or floppy
drive meaning the entire front half besides the tiny hdd is open space. One could fill that with anything really then just cover
the anything with the outer casing of the battery and floppy drive. I have never been asked to turn it on anyways(would have
to plug it in which is ridiculous) and I always think "in all that complicated wiring and circuitry how easy would it be to hide a
detonator?". So yes a kilogram of some non nitrate explosive and a small fuse in the door of the floppy drive with matches in
your pocket would be something one could do.
Hirudinea November 6th, 2007, 09:18 PM

I have brought my old win95 laptop onto many flights with me. The funny thing about this laptop is it has no battery or floppy
drive meaning the entire front half besides the tiny hdd is open space. One could fill that with anything really then just cover
the anything with the outer casing of the battery and floppy drive. I have never been asked to turn it on anyways(would have
to plug it in which is ridiculous) and I always think "in all that complicated wiring and circuitry how easy would it be to hide a
detonator?". So yes a kilogram of some non nitrate explosive and a small fuse in the door of the floppy drive with matches in
your pocket would be something one could do.
I thought of somthing like that as well, and if you remove the HD and CD/DVD, replace the HD with a CF Card, you could use
the space for explosives and use the battery to set off the fuse, just put a small switch in an unnoticeable space and you have
a nice little suicide bomb.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Beryllium Pipebombs
Log in
View Full Version : Beryllium Pipebombs

Most pipebombs, as far as I know, use a steel pipe for confinement and shrapnel. As I was driving home tonight, i thought a bit about the use of other materials to increase the
damage done by such a device. Searching the archive, i was unable to find any contributions on the subject of beryllium casings. Given it's toxicity when oxidized, I think
there's an untapped potential here.
Perhaps the pipe could be Be? Even if beryllium pipe couldn't be obtained, the bomb could be jacketed with scraps of beryllium. I have a friend that works in a machine shop,
polishing metal parts, including beryllium (of course, he wears protective gear). I can't imagine scraps would be that hard to come by. Would either be sufficient in detonation
to be toxic?
EDIT: Typo

It would be effective.. but isnt the goal of a pipebomb to kill then and there? I dont imagine it will be worthwhile to you if you set it off.. and dont manage to kill anyone.. yet
everyone get a bit of the shrapnel.. Then your ass gets dragged of to prison, where Bubba will make you wish you rammed the damn pipebomb up your ass first and then set
it off... Also.. Im not quite sure how toxic Be is..
Good idea if you just want to poision someone.. but then again.. simple puting the Be in a place they come in contact with frequently should be enough... The pipebomb is
meant to kill... not posion. If you want to make it a win-win situation.. I would try a more potent toxin, and just coat that on the casing of the pipe.
Also.. this is early in the morning.... so if this is incoherent, Im sorry....
blindreeper August 13th, 2003, 03:17 AM

Whilst on the RAAF base for cadets we were visiting the place where they hold spare parts for almost everyhting. Nusts, bolts (bolts for guns), F-111 engine parts you name it
they had it. Anyway one bright spark stuck his hand up and asked whats the mopst dangerous thing you guys have here. The FLGOFF replied "The beryllium in the F-111's, we
have to have full body suits when we handle it. If you come in contact with it you will be in a world of hurt"
Maybe he was just trying to scare use but if what he said was true, beryllium in pipe bombs would be something to be afraid of. So IMO beryllium would be a good choice.
irish August 13th, 2003, 05:39 AM

It is very toxic but I don't think it is going to kill anyone in a hurry.
Also it may be a bit light to go far with any energy (speed) to do any damage.
Maybe Beryllium oxide powder mixed with your explosives will do the job better, toxic dust everywere long clean up etc.
Arthis August 13th, 2003, 05:45 AM

The toxicity of Be seems to come from the risks of inhalation of small particles that affects lungs.
Some symptoms of Be toxicity are persistent coughing, shortness of breath with physical exertion, fatigue, chest and joint pain, blood in the sputum (saliva), rapid heart rate,
loss of appetite, fever and night sweats.
The Be you use would be therefore way more effective if grinded/ball milled, before you use it in a pipebomb.
Some sources to get Beyllium are:

springs, swithes, relays, connectors in automobiles, computers, radar and telecommunication equipment, (...) golf clubs and bicycle frames, dental bridges and related
applications.
I guess you would need to extract the Be from alliages, which is not the best thing. But this shows that only the pure compoud is toxic (dental bridges :))

Blindreeper: Unless I am completely mistaken, it's the oxide that's toxic. It's not too dangerous to handle a piece of beryllium, unless it's in powder form. That also makes it
pretty tough to machine.
Arthis: I would NOT want to ball mill or grind beryllium. At the machine shop, they soak it in kerosene to keep the dust down as they polish. I can't imagine that would be
possible in a basement shop with a grinding wheel.
Chemwarrior: Sure, the pipebomb is meant to kill. The beryllium is there in the same way a bit of cesium would be. As a weapon of terror. Perhaps it wouldn't really poison
anyone, but it costs a lot of money to clean up, and it would scare people.
Ah well, there's I nothing i'd want to pipebomb, and there's no way in hell i'm experimenting with Be anytime soon.
nbk2000 August 13th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Beryllium is toxic by inhalation, and only if it's in a water-soluble form, like the oxide, so that's what you'd want to use. Using Be as a casing material would be pointless
because only a very miniscule amount of it would be oxidized by the explosion into a suitable size for inhalation.
It has a high heat of combustion, and was considered as a possible fuel in use with thermobarics, but dismissed because the toxic BeO smoke may have contravened the
Hague and Geneva prohibitions against toxic weapons. A terrorist would be under no such restriction, so if they whipped up a berylllium based thermobaric fuel and used it in a
crowded building (thinking night-club), than anyone not immediately killed by the flame/overpressure/paniced stampede would likely be exposed to the toxic BeO smoke,
which would then effect a slow kill on the survivors and the rescue workers.
Speaking of which, I heard on NPR last week that more than half of the 9/11 rescue workers have developed respiratory problems, ranging from shortness of breath upon
exertion, to full blown emphysema that requires oxygen, because of all the particulates and burning plastics.
So there's more than 2,000 dead from 9/11, it's just going to take some time for the body count to start creeping up, till there may be more dead from amoung the rescuers
than there were victims in the buildings. :D
vulture August 13th, 2003, 05:13 PM

Have you got any idea how expensive Beryllium compounds are?
Furthermore Beryllium metal is probably being watched as it has it's main use in nuclear reactors/weapons as a neutron reflector.

Could'nt you just use the white tin allotrope if Tin, my chem teacher said that the white metal allotrope formed at cold temperatures (think fridge) and it was toxic. It would be
cheaper than Be, but you would have to chill your pipe bombs before use:D

Umm... one little problem with that idea... when you detonate the pipebomb, your going to create a large ammount of heat that is going to cause the whole idea to go down
the drain....

yeah I thought about that :P
Anyway, tin is a really, really inefficient toxin, there are soo many other things that kill you why bother with some cold metal.
streety August 23rd, 2003, 08:56 PM

If your heart was set on a poisonous pipebomb you could fill it will dry ice. Rapidly heat that, it expands, blows the pipe apart but without destroying the poison. The dry ice
could also help to form the poison in the first place.
thrall October 31st, 2003, 12:27 AM

I was thinking about coating the outer surface of the pipe with KCN(melting point 635 centigrade).Just melt the KCN and coat the outer surface of the pipe with molten
meterial.Or one can stick two three layers of paper over the outer surface of the pipe and than dip it in saturated soln. of KCN and let it dry.After that(in both the cases) cover
the pipe with paper so thet it can be handeled with less risk(where there is cyanide,there IS risk anyway:eek: ).
As for making KCN it's in the forum already but somewhere I read that even heating K4Fe(CN)6 over 800 centigrade will give a mixture of KCN and (FeO?) if you heat it in a
closed container with a small hole on the top(so that air doesnt oxidise the KCN).Otherwise heating with K2CO3 is always a mathod.
It think this will make an exellent pipe bomb.Wounded=dead;) .Though this all is just a theory but I think KCN CAN sustain the heat of explosion(M.P.=635 and that too on
the outer surfase of the pipe).I'm not going to try this;)
Mumble October 31st, 2003, 02:09 AM

And the purpose of coating the outside of a pipebomb with KCN would be? Sure, if shrapnel is thrown into a living organism and there is still KCN on the fragments they will
possibly be poisoned in addition to getting a nice wound. I'd imagine a good bit of the KCN would be vaporised by the heat of explosion. Unless they were right on top of it,
that probably wouldn't have much effect. I'd say by 25 feet, lets say 5 grams of vaporised/particulated KCN would be diluted enough by air to not be fatally poisonous
anymore. If they were right on top of it, the shrapnel from any good pipebomb should produce a fatal wound.
Melting it onto the surface is the only viable way. The paper thing stands no chance. Ever seen a firecracker or m-80? The paper will be destroyed, and paper does not fly very
far. Nor does paper have much penetrating force. If you want a poisonous casing why not just use lead sprayed with some nitric inside and out for soluble lead compounds?
Unless you can find someway to deliver a poison in either large amounts or with a very small nececary dose, this general method will not be effective. Why not use the pipe
bomb to deliver a toxic substance into the air. This would be much more effective, and would cause mass panic if the news that 2 kilos of anthrax has just been realeased
airborn is on the 6 o'clock news.
thrall October 31st, 2003, 04:38 AM

This is what I meant.Glue the papers to the sufase of the pipe not WRAP.the papers will be cyanide saturate Before or after the glue.So when after the blast the pipe will be
fragmented the papers will be the part of the fregments still sticking to the pipe.For this I'll do the experiment on this weekend anyway(wheather the papers will be sticking to
the fragmented pipe or not though I think it's a bit obvious that they will since during the explosion there is no force that tries to seperate them from the surface of the pipe).
As for evaperation of cyanide the boiling point of KCN is fairly high.to prevent particulation one can tape the outer suface with holes in the tape.And you presumed about the
use of the pipe bomb.It may be intended to kill ONE specific target and you want smallest size of bomb for this purpose that can be easily made as well.
.................. .| |||......................| O O O |..........

Pipe surface. >| |||<.Papers layer...| O O O |..........
.................. .| |||......................| O O O |<..Tape
.................. .| |||......................| O O O |..........
.................. .| |||......................| O O O |..........
EDIT:it took literally 8 trials to get it correct.I don't know in the editing widow it showed perfact and when I post it,it gets muddled.Oh. and the holes in tape for the poison to
quickly come in contact with biofluids of the victim.Otherwise complete covering will hamper contact and meanwhile if the sharpnel is removed from the body it will be not
effactive.
AsylumSeaker November 1st, 2003, 12:49 AM

I remember reading that a guerilla group (possibly farc) use scraps of poisonous substance on the outside of their improvised grenades. The point of a grenade or a pipebomb
in a battle circumstance is more to maim people than to kill. A maimed soldier is much more damaging to the unit. 1 guy out of action in pain, 2 other guys to carry the
stretcher. If each bit of shrapnel is poisonous then it slows down even more of the unit. That was not especially relevant.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Exo-electric Armor
Log in
View Full Version : Exo-electric Armor
nbk2000 August 16th, 2003, 04:55 PM

Fancy title, eh? :D
What it translates into is a jacket that has conductive fibers w oven into it that is attached to a high-voltage source that energizes the fibers to 80,000 volts, making it impossible
for anyone to grab your arms or bear-hug you.
It'd also make it rather difficult for piggies to arrest you since they can't physically touch you. :p Though they could still shoot you...:(
Anyways, go to ww w.no-contact.com and check it out. The idea w as developed at MIT as a way of "bringing the plight of w omens disempowerment to the attention of the
world"...:barf: :rolleyes:...but it would go a long ways to empowering crims!
Shoplifter w alks out store with bag full of goodies, store security goes to grab him...ZAAPPP! No touchy! :p
Cop goes to tackle 'hoodie with Nike starter jacket...ZAPPP!...cop gets shit shocked out of him...'hoodie rolls on top of cop who's flopping like a fish under him, pulls cops
gun...and it's 187 on an undercover cop! >)
Fedaykin board airplane w ith the stunner modules hidden as walkmans or such, and the coats lined w ith TWARON or other lightw eight bullet-resistant material. On cue, the
fedaykin attack! Anyone trying to grab them, can't. Air marshall tries to shot them, first fedaykin catches the bullets, acting a as shield for his comrades behind him, who push
him into the offending hero, shocking the shit out him prior to being shish-kabobed!
The conductive fibers are made from kevlar, so they're strong, and could be woven into a net. Add a stunner module, toss on someone, and they're easy prey!

Yeah, I saw that. Toss a litre of brine over it and see what happens.:rolleyes:
Blackhawk August 16th, 2003, 09:44 PM

You'd have to hope you are really well insulated from your jacket, or you will be the one rolling around in agony, might get tricky if someone in the plane throws some kind of
conductive liquid on you, even water could conduct well enough at 80000V (all depends on amperage however)
nbk2000 August 17th, 2003, 12:35 AM

It's rubber insulated and w ater-proof. Did anyone bother to read the whole site before commenting? :confused:
Yes, brine is quite commonly carried as a refreshment on board airplanes, right next to the squid brain pate' on the little roll-around cart. :p
Water, even conductive, isn't going to short it out since it's manually activated. And you'd only be activating it when someones making a move on you, right? And that means
they're touching you. If you're covered in water, and they touch you, then the electricity is even better conducted into them then if you were dry. So :p :p
Also, in my context, the weapon (that's what it is) is not activated until immediately prior to use, and is not set up to give visible/audible warning of what it is. No flashing arc or
snapping crackle. Just like a gun, you don't draw it to intimidate, you use it to kill (or stun in this case).
I'd like to sample scam some of this conductive fiber, but need to know w hich kind that's best suited for use with stunners, low or high impedence?

Yes, did read the page. I wasn't suggesting the w earer get zapped, rather that the brine would create such a low impedance path over the outside of the jacket that it would
carry most of the current, with luck creating a carbon char path that would effectively ruin the jacket. I was only thinking in terms of the use described on the page, and how
you'd defeat it.
If you want a conductive fibre, go low impedance. Otherwise you'll lose too much voltage down the fibre, and stuff all current w ill reach your target. Carbon fibre w ould be a
good choice.
Actually a carbon fibre vest would be a good defense against a taser.
NBK, you haven't been w atching "Die another day." (Bond) have you?
Edit:my typing skills have gone down the toilet.

In relation to this topic there have also been some incredible new advances in nanotechnology allowing for the creation of "carbon nanotubes", w hich have been reported to be
17 times as strong as kevlar, and just as light as a t-shirt. They also have electrical properties(don't know exactly w hat kind), so it might be possible to use them for this
purpose. Now, I know it's impossible for us household chemists to make these things, but in a few years if they keep w orking on these nanotubes, then you might be able to
buy them in the form of everyday clothing.
nbk2000 August 18th, 2003, 02:22 PM

It'd make an interesting experiment to weave a vest of this conductive fiber and see how well it works against a TASER. :)
Tuatara, w hy'd you ask if I saw a bond movie? Was there something like this in one?

Yeah, the big baddie had this electric armour thingy, so he could basically eletrocute people at a touch. Very 'bondish' sort of gadget of course, nevertheless a possible source of
inspiration.
James August 19th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Hmm. I think that such a jacket w ould also be somew hat useful against EM weapons (i.e. neural disrupter (http://w ww.roguesci.org/theforum/show thread.php?
s=&threadid= 2984)). It doesn't say if the underlayer has to be rubber. Imagine say a bullet-resistant vest w ith most of the electronics under the jacket and a conductive layer
on the outside. Have a matching (but w/o electronics) set of leg armor and maybe a coyf(sp?). It w ould of course leave your face, hands and feet exposed though. :)
nbk2000 August 19th, 2003, 11:07 PM

The conductive fibers would only be effective as shielding against EM weapons IF it's connected to an efficient earth ground, totally enclosing, insulated from contact w ith your
body, and capable of conducting the frequency of the energy.
In other w ords, a full body faraday cage. Not happening.
Besides w hich, the nueral disruptor is aimed specifically at the head, w hich is what w ould have to be covered.
The real value in this sort of thing would be in the surprise value against a physical grab. I'm thinking south american kidnappers snatching you off the street kind of grab. What
are they going to do w hen they can't touch their prey? Kind of hard to kidnap someone w ho's electrified! :p
Since it uses fiber, and fiber can be w oven, what could you w eave out of it that would be useful? A net is obvious. But a net of hair fine fibers layed over a seat that the victim
would sit in is not so obvious, especially if activated by their body weight.
vulture August 20th, 2003, 08:34 AM

Not activated by their bodyweight but activated by the 3rd gear....:D
A-BOMB August 20th, 2003, 10:05 AM

What about a pair of electrified kevlar gloves? I mean you punch someone...ZAP!, since there kevlar you grap his knife...ZAP!, you grap the gun in the pigs hands..ZAP! This list
could go on and on. And the knife in you hands is also electrified too so you cut and fry him at the same time. :)
Anthony August 20th, 2003, 02:52 PM

The cops in this country are migrating to the Advanced Taser, and they expect it to work everytime they hit you. Unlike mace or batons which can sometimes not be very ective
on first application. An with the taser, they only get one shot.
What I'm getting at, is that foiling their attack is going to surprise them more than with other weapons IMO.
So a conductive jacket with a strong/thick backing to both insulate and stop the electrodes penetrating w ould be a huge advantage. You only really need a jacket too, since
they aim for centre mass.
john_smith August 26th, 2003, 10:59 AM

How about a kevlar vest w ith metal screen/wire mesh on it?
Flake2m August 27th, 2003, 11:02 AM

This give me futher ideas still.
If you take the same concept of exo electric armor and replace the electrical kevlar w ith fibre optics and some software capable being operated off a palmtop to control the fibre
optics then you could have a psuedo-cloaking system.
Maybe I have played too much Deus Ex but there was an idea in the game based behind the concept I am talking about.
Maybe if the PSU w as improved so it was capable of zapping multiple times and combined with a fibre optic system you could have a jacket/body suit that not only had exo-
electric armor but also had a fibre-optic camoflage system. That way if they did see you they'd have the shock of their life ;) (pun intended).
Anthony August 27th, 2003, 02:50 PM

If the fibreoptic thing w as remotely feasible, wouldn't the military have experimented with it by now ?
The problem w ith the idea is that by the time you've covered the front/rear surface of your body with fibre ends, the fibres running around your body have increased your width
by several feet. Heavy, restrictive and you're less camoed than you were to start with!
Efraim_barkbit August 27th, 2003, 05:06 PM

About the fiber optic cloak, I saw a program on discovery once that were about these kinds of stuff, I dont remember it very much, but the idea about fibre optic cloaks were
mentioned, and I think there w ere some experimentation going on about it.
Of course you wont become totaly invisible, it would rather make you appear more or less "blurred".
kingspaz August 27th, 2003, 05:36 PM

the US military has experimented with the fibre optic idea to make try and make things invisible. also some japanese guy has made an 'invisibility cloak'. i doubt this w ould be
as good as anything the military will have developed by now.
http://ww w.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747591.html
Zerstoren Sie October 19th, 2003, 06:18 PM

A-Bomb, I like your idea about the electrified gloves. What about simply taking a pair of kevlar gloves, or something else that could insulate, and making your own? Maybe take
a bank of photoflash capacitors and have them strapped to your arm. then put contacts on the pair of gloves. This way w hen you hit somebody, your punch packs a w allop. I
bet if one used say 5 or 6 caps, you'd only need one hit. If that's the case, there could be a seperate charging device to attach when not in use. Of course, why not extend this
idea further. Weapons, like an electrified mace or flail. The possibilities are endless.
JDAM October 26th, 2003, 01:53 AM

It'd make an interesting experiment to weave a vest of this conductive fiber and see how well it works against a TASER. :)
Tuatara, w hy'd you ask if I saw a bond movie? Was there something like this in one?
Not very well likely. Even heavier bullet resistant vests do a lousy job of keeping finely pointed things from penatrating through such as the tip of a knife. Will a knife go right
through, no, but it could far enought to draw blood. Tazers use short barbed "anchors" to penatrate and attach and w ould likely penatrate given a close enough range and
sufficient velocity.
What's with this fool that started the thread? Supporting and sympathizing with gang-bangers and terrorists? Is it supposed to make him look cool or contraversial? Makes him
sound like an idiot and someone of questionable character.
JDAM
++ ++++ +++ ++++ +++ ++++
Questionable character...maybe...but a fool? Perhaps n00bie needs to take a permanent vacation for being foolish in insulting an admin? :D

Originally posted by Flake2m
This give me futher ideas still.
If you take the same concept of exo electric armor and replace the electrical kevlar w ith fibre optics and some software capable being operated off a palmtop to control the fibre
optics then you could have a psuedo-cloaking system.
Maybe I have played too much Deus Ex but there was an idea in the game based behind the concept I am talking about.
Maybe if the PSU w as improved so it was capable of zapping multiple times and combined with a fibre optic system you could have a jacket/body suit that not only had exo-
electric armor but also had a fibre-optic camoflage system. That way if they did see you they'd have the shock of their life ;) (pun intended).
The USAF is experimenting with this now as an all aspect camo for aircraft. Basicall the plane is cover in some sort of color shifting material that get commands from the aircrafts
CPU that gets info from the the palnes internal gyros to get a position fix of the aircraft in relation to the ground as well as micro cameras that take pictures of the planes
surroundings and change the color as needed to camo the plane. Does it make it invisable? No, merely harder to see.
From the ground, the plane fying in a bright blue sky would essentially dissapear as the bottom of the plane would attempt to match the dominant conditions of the sky around
it while a pilot from above the plane might see (or not see as it is) what appears to be ground clutter or material as the top of the aircraft emulates the dominate features
(colors) of the ground below it.
It is possible with todays tech but would be very costly and complicated not to mention maintenence heavy for planes that already require a huge number of man hours just to
stay inthe air. I think it would be more practical for bomber aircraft.
JDAM
Zerstoren Sie April 17th, 2004, 05:24 PM

A-Bomb, I like your idea about the electrified gloves. What about simply taking a pair of kevlar gloves, or something else that could insulate, and making your own? Maybe take
a bank of photoflash capacitors and have them strapped to your arm. then put contacts on the pair of gloves. This way w hen you hit somebody, your punch packs a w allop. I
bet if one used say 5 or 6 caps, you'd only need one hit. If that's the case, there could be a seperate charging device to attach when not in use. Of course, why not extend this
idea further. Weapons, like an electrified mace or flail. The possibilities are endless.
Update: Well, I have got a disposible camera. I think to test at first, I plan on using it to charge at least one extra photoflash cap. I think in the future though, it would be nice
to build a better charging system. One extra idea I was thinking about for the actual glove was instead of just using simple contacts on the knuckles, use pin-like items, so that
it either punctures their clothing, or even better, their skin. Now then, the only problem area I am thinking of, is that I would like to use store-bought gloves, hopefully without
changing them too much. Are there any suggestions on a material? The caps will be charged to around 300 volts, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Also, I w as thinking about how
to conceal this device. If one w ere to use the gloves that come up the arm part w ay, I think this might be pretty easy. An extra layer of material could be sewn on over the
electronics, and the w iring, and then only the pins would stick out. One could then wear long sleeves to conceal the bump left from the charging system. Well, any comments/
ideas??
Not sure about the gloves. Anyone know the breakdown potential for latex or nitrile rubber? I would go for latex, as it is a lot less noticeable as the outer covering, though the
nitrile rubber is a hell of a lot better at stopping stuff getting to your skin normally. Of course, if the overgloves look really wild, you wouldn't care about bright blue underneath
them! Then put a latex glove over the top, and let the pins stick through.
Zerstoren Sie April 18th, 2004, 05:31 PM

Well, I didn't search thoroughly yet, but I found one site saying that in general, rubbers can break down between 450 and 1000 volts/mil. Assuming this is true, both gloves
should easily work, even if the one chosen had a breakdown voltage of 450 V/mil. As for the pins, I'm thinking of something maybe a little stronger than push pins, though
having the round backing would be nice to cushion the blow and prevent puncturing the gloves. Again, I'd like to keep this project completely store bought, maybe even so you
can just go into Wall-mart and get everything. Ah ha, how about roofing nails for the pins? they could be sharpened nicely and w ould be tough to bend. Also, when this is
complete, I was thinking of making a pdf with my results, and also the construction method,so w hoever would like can go and make it. Don't know how soon that'll be, but
when i get time it'll get done.
xperk April 18th, 2004, 06:45 PM

zerstoren sie
you probably w ant to keep those roofing nails blunt, you don't w ant to fasten the weapon in your opponents bone tissue, else remember to bring an insulted pair of pliers to
relieve yourself of the spastic corpse
Perhaps you should go for a construction more like non-conductive material knuckles sporting those roof nail points, and then gradually scale down the construction to fit a glove
system.
For instance if you use plastic tubing to mount the nails on, you would have an insulated base to put your fingers inside allow ing both for striking and retracting the weapon.
These 'rings' you could wear underneath a pair of ordinary gloves.
good luck!
Zerstoren Sie April 19th, 2004, 02:13 AM

xperk, First off, i do like the way you said about the 'rings'. Could be an excellent way to do it. Now then, sharpening the nails serve 2 purposes. First, to puncture clothing.
Second, if the nails should penetrate the skin, the moisture should increase conductivity quite a bit, w hich will increase the speed at which the capacitors discharge, making for a
much more deadly shock (1 joule = 1 watt discharged in 1 sec. or 1000 watts in .001 sec.). There is not much need to worry about being shocked should you need to pull them
out, as the capacitors will be mostly drained. Of course, for safety, one could simply short the terminals, to be sure of full discharge.
Small Town April 19th, 2004, 04:18 AM

As i see it the exo-electric glove could easily be scaled down to little more than obscured brass knuckles (though obviously not made of brass) w ith sharpened points as
electrodes and a leather or similarly obscuring glove over the top. Electronics can be stored on the underside of the wrist and may extend slightly up the length of the arm, a
long sleeve shirt/coat would be neccessary.
The unit itself would be composed of an acrylic or similar, would need to be shaped to fit the fingers relatively w ell to avoid breakage w hile maintaining discretion. Building this
part of the unit from a polymer would have the added advantage of insulating the user from the charge.
The main obstacles to construction of a useful article w ould be forming the plastic to a snug yet strong shape, incorporating the electrodes into this piece, and making the
powerpack easy to conceal such that one could w alk around zapping folks to their heart's content.
Zerstoren Sie April 19th, 2004, 05:18 AM

That would be pretty nice actually. The main point of me doing it the way I am though, is to make it easy to obtain. Also, A larger unit will allow the user to add as many
capacitors in series as they please, albeit, the charge time will be longer. Really the device is quite simple, I think it'd be nice though to have the info. at hand for those not
familiar w ith electronics. This w ay everyone can make showering sparks of electric death.... :D . Maybe a compact version like you've described could be on the way. I need to
get to my device done first though, got the electronics, need the gloves, gotta go look, maybe tomorow.
Harpoon April 20th, 2004, 05:56 PM

The stun glove available from here (http://ww w.stungloves.com/) appears to be a normal stun gun only with a cable that runs from the stun gun body to the electrodes on the
glove. The glove has a pressure sensitive switch that activates it, and claims to be made from leather.
IMO leather isn't that suitable a material, as the last time I touched a farmyard electric fence with a leather glove, I got a fairly good shock. I'm guessing that a different type of
glove lining might be helpful here. The glove I was w earing at the time had a silk lining.
EDIT - I think the electrodes are placed on the palm of the glove to make it more covert.
Small Town April 21st, 2004, 01:14 AM

Harpoon's link also has a stun glove kit, and stun glove schematics available.
The main disadvantage with that unit is the contacts are in the palm, and it's fairly hard to slap someone who is trying to kill you. Also to contacts appear to be merely metallic
studs, so they will not penetrate things such as clothing, they will not penetrate the skin.
The best part of that design is the pressure sensitive arming mechanism. So can w e incorporate that into a device more akin to a knuckle duster, isntead of an angry woman?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Suppressed Urban Sniper Rifle, Small
Caliber, .22LR
Log in
View Full Version : Suppressed Urban Sniper Rifle, Small Caliber, .22LR
rjche August 27th, 2003, 01:20 PM

One can never tell when a situation like Iraq may visit America with its present wild government bent on bankruptcy and
pissing off all other nations.
Iraqis are fighting an invading army that invaded them just for the hell of it and to see what they could pillage. All the reasons
for them being there have been proven false, yet they stay. So the citizens are beginning to kill them to make the rest leave.
YOU may have to do the same one-day. Therefore know how to make an effective urban fighting weapon.
You want a bolt fed 22-cal rifle and about 5000 rounds of solid tip ammo. For very quiet use you need standard velocity, but
for normal silent use any high speed type will work BECAUSE THE RIFLE USES PROPELLANT BURN LIMIT TECHNOLOGY to keep
even high speed ammo from exceeding mach 1.
The rifle should be bolt fed to get rid of the rather loud noise of the action working on self-loading rifles. However, an auto still
makes a very quiet weapon. Let someone clack the action to slip in another round while you listen from 50 yards. If you could
nail the shooter from what you hear, then be wary of that rifle.
To convert it, cut the barrel off 2.25 inches from the bolt face with the bolt closed. This kills the powder acceleration before the
bullet reaches mach 1. IF you use a hacksaw, then file the end flat, and de-burr the bore end so no stickers are going to
scratch the bullet as it leaves.
Use 1.5-inch ID brass under sink drainpipe at least 12 inches long, for the muffler. Support it by a washer bored to fit the
barrel OD and to fit the ID of the pipe. Put one washer on the bbl as close to the breech end as possible and solder it there.
Put one on the very end of the barrel. Solder it there. Leave good fillets of solder.
Sand clean the inside of the brass pipe where the washers are going to rest, and wet them with acid solder flux. Slip the pipe
over the washers allowing the pipe to slip past the breech washer about a sixteenth inch to give a good solder fillet.
Heat the pipe outside with a torch, till it flows the solder of the rear most washer. Hold it so the washer is horizontal and add
enough solder to leave a good fillet to the outer pipe.
Now using a washer that fits the ID of the brass pipe with a 3/8 hole in the center, put it at the 6 inch point (center) if he pipe
and solder it there as above.
Now using a similar washer solder it 2 inches from the open end.
Now put crazy glue around the rim of the open end of the pipe, and press it against a clean piece of inner tube rubber till it
sets up. Then take scissors and cut the inner tube flush with the OD of the brass pipe.
Next fire a round through the gun with the rubber against a flat board to mark the center of it. Then take a hot nail or
soldering iron and burn out a circle around that hole to a diameter of about 5/16-inch.
Next, choose a bicycle inner tube that will slip over the OD of the brass pipe with slight stretching. Put a piece over the entire
brass pipe, with about sixteenth inch overlapping the front rubber washer. Crazy glue the front of the outer tube to the edge of
the end rubber washer.
Now test fire the gun to see if the noise level is suitable for your taste. Adjust your tactics according to the noise. This is a very
quiet design.
Put a scope on it, at the receiver groves if any, for best accuracy, but the scope mount MUST BE LOCATED OVER THE BRASS
PIPE exactly over the two rear steel washers so there is NO movement due to temp etc between the bbl and the scope. You will
have to cut through the rubber sleeve to solder it in place. OR you can do that before you add the rubber as you wish.
Set the scope so it s d ead on at about 65 ya rds, and the gun will be slig htly high a t 50 yd s, abo ut on at 15 yd s, and a tad
low at 75. Don t use this gun a t more than 100 yd s, for it may hit the target and bounce off the head really pissin g off the
target. Often the bounce causes unconsciousness, but not with really hard headed people, (at 100 yds). At 50 yds to 75 it
usually breaks through with enough residual speed to circle the inside of the slick brain cavity several times, causing lethal
damage.
You can mount a visible laser under the scope, attached to the front scope lens outer metal. Set it to hit at about 25 yards
d e a d on. It s for panic defens e shooting u p close, when you an d the target are moving. You won t use it m uch. Not m uch
point using an IR laser for the enemy will have Night Vision and can see both with that.
Now shoot that gun a lot until it becomes a part of you. Easy to do as it makes no noise in urban places SO LONG AS YOU
SHOT INTO A SAND BAG OR OTHER SOFT TARGET. Shooting wood will make a sound like hitting the wood with a hammer real
hard. IT IS LOUD.
You can do all the things to make the weapon small, like bull pup it, etc. for all that does not affect its silence or accuracy.
If the Iraqis had this type of weapon you would see a ten-fold casualty rate over there. There is almost no way to tell from
where the bullet came, except by trying to reconstruct how the target was standing and judging from the bullet wound. If no
exit hole that is of no use. With one it is not accurate because bullets change direction upon impact.
YOU MUST let a friend fire the rifle from about 50 yds at a target at 75 yds, and so the bullet passes with 3 ft of you so you
can judge what the target hears if you miss. Adjust your tactics according to what you learn. A bullet below mach 1 makes
considerable air noise up clo se. Pe ople can figure out wha t it is but a nimals typically think it s a n insect and ignore it.
This technology is illegal to construct while our cowboy government is chasing US hired terrorists, but if they fall flat, you may
have to make such a weapon out of desperation, as your only defense against all sorts of armed people who will be roaming
around and pillaging or conquering. Such weapons are legal in many countries, and even mandatory in some same as are
mufflers on vehicles. They are not legal in free America because the government is playing so many scams that it fears
someone would start shooting at them if such weapons existed. Not so, anymore than someone shooting at them with noisy
weapons, but government types are not expected to be logical nor intelligent.
Try different brands of ammo. One or two will usually shoot much more accurately in such a rifle. You want to strive for putting
them all inside a 1-inch circle at 50 yds, under all shooting conditions. You want the 1st bullet to do the job, then you move,
or lay low for a while. A bolt action disciplines you to make the first be the only one needed. You never engage superior
fire power up close like this and pick targets to be one or two persons, away from the cro wds. Remember modern soldiers
with an ammo wagon following them tend to hose down all directions when excited.
Remember the statistics. Your body represents an area of about 8 sq ft. At 50 yards and possible shooter between 0 and 30 ft
above ground, the area of the circle fence 30 ft high with diameter of 100 yards is about 30,000 sq ft. With one wild shot into
that possible enemy location, your probability of being hit is 8/30,000, or rounded off 1 in 3500. That is a very low chance.
Even if they cut loose with a spray gun and burn 100 rounds, that is still only one in 35 chance which is getting of concern,
except the shooter usually guesses at the enemy location and pours them all in that general direction. His guess is wrong
almost all the time against this weapon.
What the abo ve me ans is your chance of gettin g shot is low, s o don t pan ic. Take what cover you can, without attracting
attention, and your safety is better than driving a car downtown.
The difference between a skilled shooter and a soon to be dead novice is fear of things that really are trivial dangers. IF you
have to, to shut u p a panicked comp anion to the downed ta rget nail him but don t be in a hu rry, ta ke your time , ignore the
incoming wild shots, and nail him first shot.
For fully armored enemy soldiers, you must hit throat area, uncovered fact, armpits, groin area; ass is nice, etc. Once down
more unarmored areas will be exposed and you can often make a pincushion of the target.
The weapon can be made out of PVC piping as well and you can do it all with washers and epoxy or bondo, same as with the
brass pipe. With epoxy mount the scope on the receiver and NOT on the PVC. At the rate of fire you will be using heat is not a
problem.

I think we already have, many topics just like this. And if you cut off the barrel off like that, not only have you just decreased
your range by a very large amount, you made it so inaccurate that you couldn't hit someone standing a foot infront of
you.(trust me I know) I don't know if I should lock this or not. So I'll leave it open for now.
irish August 27th, 2003, 08:12 PM

A-BOMB is right, you will not hit jack schitt with it unless he stands very close to you :p .
Also who is going to be able to land an army in the usa ? here there are a few countrys that may be a risk but other than civil
war could anyone get close to you ?.
ps I would be buggered if I would let anyone no matter how good a shot they are fire a shot within a few feet of me ;) .

I would be buggered if I would let anyone no matter how good a shot they are fire a shot within a few feet of me
Absolutely the scariest thing I've ever done in my life was be a target for someone firing blanks from an MP5 at about 15m.
Fuck that was frightening, hoping like hell a live round hadn't got mixed in with the blanks (it had happened once before,
luckily discovered before any nasty accidents ocurred). Never again ...
zaibatsu August 28th, 2003, 07:45 AM

Rjche does make a valid point about the use of a .22 calibre rifle as an urban sniping weapon, the russians use one: http://
club.guns.ru/eng/sv99.html
As do the israelis: http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sws/ruger/ruger.htm
A-Bomb, while he suggests cutting the barrel off at a rather short length, you could always just leave the barrel longer and use
subsonic ammunition. What Rjche suggests is how to convert a very popular type of rifle (at least in the US) that is often seen
as a kids gun to something that has the potential to be a useful weapon. Plus, rimfire ammunition is so cheap that you could
stockpile a large amount without appearing too suspicious.
nbk2000 August 28th, 2003, 11:50 PM

The .22 isn't much of a snipers weapon. Trying to kill someone at 50 yards with a headshot is asking a bit much of this round,
especially if you reduce it to sub-sonic speeds to begin with.
Rather, use it as a terror weapon. Shooting an enemy soldier in the eye, throat, or nuts with it would leave him screaming in
agony, and hopefully blind/maimed/impotent. :)
A soldier who is head shot and drops dead without making a sound is a dead man who is buried and forgotten. But the
screams of a blinded man, the sight of blood pouring out the ruined remains of his eye and through his fingers...THAT will
remain a vivid memory in the others minds. :)
And so would blasting off a mans 'nads in front of his mates.
This is why the ragheads who are resisting our occupation are fuck ups. Killing americans won't accomplish anything without
terror. Blowing up a dozen soldiers with a car bomb hardly registers.
But, if those same dozen had been snatched off the streets in their ones and twos...and returned alive...but castrated...THAT
would strike fear in the hearts of the rest. Plenty of men aren't afraid of dying, but I can't think of ANY that would want to live
without their sacks! :D
stickfigure August 30th, 2003, 10:31 PM
A rifle using .45 cal or .44 would be a much wiser choice, the DeLisle Carbine is a wonderful weapon. .22LR has been shown to
skip off the skull and not even penetrate, .45 will most likely kill and at the very least, seriously wound. A suppressed AR-15
would give you the choice of fast follow up shots and the advantage of having more firepower. A suppressed AR with a 100 rd
drum would at least be a contender on the modern battlefield. An even better choise is a suppressed M1A. Silent action? in an
urban enviroment firepower is your ally, as you may have to deal with a lot of people in a short amount of time. A bolt action
is a good choice in the field where range is not important and your enemy has a long walk under fire to get to you.
xyz September 2nd, 2003, 04:49 AM

NBK, in the hands of a shooter who has had several hours practice, a headshot at 50 yards shouldn't be much of a problem
with a .22LR. Rabbits can be hit in the head at 100 yards with a low powered scope and a rabbit's head is a lot smaller than a
persons. Even with subsonic ammo, .22LR won't drop by more than 5 or 6 inches at 100 Yards, High velocity ammo will only
drop by 2.5 - 3 inches.
A hit in the eye with it would kill instantly because the bullet would easily have enough energy to penetrate into the brain
because there is no bone to stop it. IIRC .22LR can penetrate 15" of ballistic gelatine at close ranges.
I do agree that .45 would be a much better choice though, as it is already subsonic (no need for special ammo to acheive
this), and has a much heavier bullet meaning more projectile energy.
A nasty ammunition would be hollow points with the cavity full of horse manure.
Anthony September 2nd, 2003, 11:34 AM

No doubt .22LR can be leathal even at extended ranges, but reliably?
A headshot at 50yds should be no problem, as said, even at 100yds with a target the size of a human head still shouldn't be
too hard. Relying on an eye shot is a bit much, do able, but not reliably IMO, especially under the stress of "battle".
I suppose that leathality is going to depend on what profile your target is showing you. If he's facing you then that really only
leaves from the eyes up. he forhead might be to resistant at longer range. Above the forhead and it'll probablt skip over as
suggested.
Side would be better, just going anywhere at or above the ear. From the rear would be better as anywhere up from the base of
the skull is going to be faily leathal and the bone isn't too weak.
I agree with others saying that a .45 would be better, but if a .22LR is what you've got, then you want to be able to use it as
effectively as possible, and you're probably more likely to have one kickign about than a .45.
stickfigure September 2nd, 2003, 02:52 PM

.22lr has always been a Black Ops pistol caliber, a silenced pistol would be more effective in an urban enviroment than a .22
rifle. It would be a lot more concealable and semi-auto, I prefer semi's and wouldn't want to use a bolt action unless I had a
lot of distance between me and my target. I just killed a rabid skunk about 15 minutes ago, I shot it about 6 times with my
M-4, the M193 FMJ's just went right through it. Also I don't have a bipod to properly sight in the EO-tech I bought for it, so I
couldn't get a proper head shot and my shots went high into the body. Our ranch stinks to high heaven right now. That skunk
kept charging and even with a back bone shot, still crawled towards me until I took it's front leg off. Luckily our dogs didn't get
sprayed or biten, that is the second one today, I think we have a colony that is infected or something.
Back to the topic, now it should have been better to have my rifle sighted in and been using hollow points but, the semi
helped me make some rapid follow-up shots that weren't stoping a crazed target. A .223 should be able to kill a person but
using FMJ's it couldn't kill a shunk until I hit it behind the head in the neck. I guess always use more than enough, than just
enough. Use hollow points and always make sure your rifle is dead on.
DBSP September 2nd, 2003, 06:25 PM

22LR has got more power then most people seem to think and can be very accurate even at longer ranges.
Inspired from this thread I took one of my 22s (Brno 452 warmint) for a trip to the woods tonight.
I took one of my trinade targets and made a new head for it and put it on a stand 100m from my shooting position. I was out
of my regular ammo (CCI blazer) so I had to bring some CCI standard velocity ammo instead which wasn't zeroed in.
Anyway I began shooting at the target using a homemade bipod (very good one) and a Bushnell trophy 3-9x40 scope.
Because of the relatively low magnification it wasn't very easy to keep the sight where it should be but I had no problems
putting 10 rounds within 50-60mm(I'll meassure it tomorrow) even though I had to put the crosshair about 40mm to the right
and about 100-150mm high. Meaning I had no point at the target at which I could simply put the crosshair and fire making it
very hard to maintain a steady zero. The accuracy of the standard velocity isn't really great which might have contributed to the
size of the 10 shot group.
After that had been tested I though that I'd smack it with a couple of Remington yellow jacket hyper velocity round, and
allthough I have been using them as my standard hunting ammo for allmost two years now I was amazed by the difference in
power and trajecory. This ammo wasn't zeroed either and I had to aim about 50mm high and 30 right. But putting a couple of
these into the head of the target prooved to be far from hard. And even at that range a yellow will stir your brains up quite a
bit, I have tried a butload of different ammunition for my 22s and I have yet not seen any ammo that doesn as much
damage as the yellow does, shure the stinger has a bit more bite but still doesn't expand/fragment as much as the stingers
lighter bullet. About a year ago I tried sevaral bullets by shooting them into a pipe which I had stuffed with meat and fat. The
recovered bullets where examined and notes made. The Yellow jacket leaves most fragment of all bullets and has anly a
small plate of the bottom left intact after it has passed a target, the stinger allso leaves a lot of frags but not as many
because of the lack of things to leave, the pieace of the bottom that remaines "intact" in one pieace is larger and it has also
expanded unlike the yellows bottom which lookes like a hockey puck.
The best choise is the yellow after all because of it's good ability to both penetrate and slice it's target. It is also the beast
choise when it comes to accuracy, the yellow shoots well in most gunt whileas the stinger often doesn't because of it's odd
construction and higher speed.
Now to the part called noise. I always use ear protection when shooting, even when hunting. I recently bought a couple of
peltors newest electronic ear protectors, peltor protac. With these protectors you hear everything as normal only that when you
shoot the protectors shut the noise off at a certain level. So after shooting with them on for a while I remambered that I had
brought my shity silencer I made som etime ago but never got to reallt work. I put it on and shot a few shots and though that
it sounded like any other time shooting the rifle, but I figuered that I would try a shot without protection with the silencer on
and so I did. I was stunned by how silence the rifle now was, it doesn't make more noice than my .22 webley tracker air rifle.
The other times I had tried ut using my regular ammo it had been more quiet than normal but not very much. I now realiced
that it was the new standard ammo which probably is subsonic or at least close to subsonic that had been the thing that made
things so quiet. I have reas many times that subsonic ammo was needed in order to make the silencer fully functional but I
never thought it would make such a big difference as it did.
People in this thread has made it clear that they not quite fully understand the power of the 22LR. I shot 10 shots against
some wooden boards 150m away, I had to point the gun a bit above it to hit it of cource but that doesn't matter right now.
What matters is what the bullets did when they hit the 15mm hardwood board. The bullets easily penetrated the board after
some of the bullets tipped over and hit the other 15mm hardwood board 1.5m behind the first one fully penetration it
allthough the bullets hit it after rotating 90*. Thing is someones head isn't as restistant to these bullets as 30mm of
hardwood is. Point then is that there are no problems killing someone at a range of 150m if hit in the head. I also belive the
the bullet would have to hit the head at a place which has a very flat courve in order not to penetrate the skull. Thus if hit 2/3
up on the forehead you are not likely to survive and if you would survive you would at least be severly wounded.
As soon as I get my hand on some roedeer heads I can perform som e tests shootin them from different ranges and angels
with a whitness plate behind them to confirm shoot throughs.
Before I wen't home a shot 4 rounds of the new ammo with the silencer and then as a final a yellow unsupressed. Fuck what a
difference, I could hear the sound from the yellow rolling out the countryside for more than 2 seconds.
I've got some pics I'll get you of the test tomorrow because now I'm very tired and I'm now going to bead. Good night folks!
And please excuse my misspellings, I'm just not up to the task of reading through this post.:o

Anthony, I wasn't suggesting that an eye shot be attempted, I was just pointing out that NBK's idea of shooting in the eye to
blind would be lethal instead of just blinding the target.
I agree with DBSP about .22LR often being underestimated. I once saw a site with information about the 5 main rimfire
calibres (.22 Short, .22 Long, .22LR, .22 WMR, and .17 HMR) and according to their information, .22LR can still retain enough
energy to kill at ranges as far as a mile (it would be far too inaccurate and would drop far too much to be useful, but the
appropriate kinetic energy is still there), although I imagine that the rifle would have to be aimed very high to get those kind
of ranges.
THErAPIST September 4th, 2003, 11:03 PM

I personally know of 2 people who hunt dear with .22 LR's. They either shoot the dear in the eye, in the ear, or in the back of
the head and according to them the deer almost always instantly drop once they get hit. Even with open sites hitting someone
in the head at 50 yards can be done without too much trouble. I can anyway, and im sure anyone else whose had a couple
hours of practice could do the same. Also my .22 has a 50 rd clip so I can pop off quite a few well aimed shots in a short
amount of time.
I don't know if it would be of any interest to anyone here, But A friend and I did some testing of different .22LR hollow point
bullets by shooting a block of clay. Check the site in my sig if you care to see.

Unless your bullets reach velocities above 1500 fps, I wouldnt bother with HPs.
The other day, I picked up some of Federals .22LR 40 grain solid bullets. They are made from pure lead, and reach well over
1200 fps in my rifle. Knowing that lead is soft, I decided to do a test to see how much I could expect them to expand after
hitting a skull. I set up a 1/2 inch thick peice of plywood (representing the skull), and a milk jug filled with red colored water
(to represent brain matter). Behind that was a large foam target that would catch the bullets after going through the other
obsticles. I set up my rifle 50 yards away, and fired 5 times into the wood.
After digging the bullets out of the foam target, I discovered the bullets nearly flattened like a pancake, well over 3/8 inch
diameter.
The good thing is that the bullet doesnt expand until after hitting the skull. The increased frontal area keeps the bullet from
over penitrating, and at the same time it makes much more tissue damage. You can also expect the bullet to bounce around
inside the head, making the round much more deadly. Not to mention bone fragments from the skull will also contribute to
the damage.
xyz September 5th, 2003, 11:45 PM

NickSG, It would be best to keep the bullets below Mach 1 for reduced noise. Match grade .22LR is loaded to stay below the
speed of sound so that maximum accuracy can be acheived (the sonic crack can throw off accuracy very slightly, enough to
matter in important competitions). I would say that the best .22LR ammunition to use would be Match Grade 40 grain Solid
Point.

IMHO, I dont think there is too much of a difference between a sub and supersonic bullet, especially when comparing .22LR.
Even if the accuracy of the bullet is effected, a tumbling bullet would cuase much more damage than a straight flying bullet,
wouldnt it?
zaibatsu September 6th, 2003, 05:30 PM
Tumbling bullets are useful in more powerful rounds, but a tumbling .22LR would only further decrease the penetration. With
.22LR self-defense or offensive weapons the idea is to hopefully penetrate the body enough to hit a vital organ. This is why
.22LR hollowpoints are discouraged for use against people.
From "The Gun Digest book of Combat Handgunnery":
"The cartridges I consider too weak to justify the use of hollowpoint or expanding ammunition are: the .22 short, the .22 long
rifle, the .22 winmag rf in extremely short barrels, .25ACP, .32ACP and .32S&W long"
"The best analogy I can draw is that shooting a human with one of these weak cartridges is similar to shooting elephants with
a .30/06. It can be done, but there is only one reasonably effective way to do it. That is to use a maximum-penetration, non-
expanding bullet and deliver it accurately to the elephant's brain"
Similarly if these weak handgun cartridges are used against a determined human assailant, there is only one reasonably
effective way to do so. That is to use a maximum-penetration, non-expanding bullet, firing it accurately into the person's
brain. If the bullet penetrates the skull, an almost certain stop will be achieved. If the bullet fails to penetrate the skull - which
can happen, particularly with a glancing shot - there is still a high probability the assailant will be incapacitated. However .....
only skull penetration in the brain area is relatively certain to do so"
Hopefully this will add some info to this discussion, if anyone wants I can type a bit more out of here for you.

Like I said, shoot for the eyes.
If you get a good angle, it'll kill them. If it's a quartering shot, then it'll blind them in at least one eye. If you miss the occular
orbit, it'll still hit them in the face, with the resulting disfiguration/blood/screaming/etc. :)
Since you're aiming for the weakest point anyways, I'd suggest using the Trition Quik-Shok bullets. It's a bullet that's split
lengthwise into three sections, then swaged back into a solid bullet. On impact, it splits apart into three pieces again, which
would make for a very bloody facial wound, or very scrambled brain. :D
I've thought the idea of a suppressed .22 gatling gun very interesting. .22 is pretty weak, but if you're spitting out 6,000RPM
worth of .22, and suppressed to boot, than that changes things a bit. If a .22 can be equated with a bee sting, than a .22
gatling would be equivalant to being stung by a swarm of killer bees. :)

Just thought I'd put down a few figures.
From "Automatics - Fast Firepower, Tactial Superiority" by Duncan Long
.22LR HV 32 grain bullet fired from a 2" barrel
Speed
Muzzle - 1146 fps
50 Yds - 971 fps
100 Yds - 827 fps
Energy
Muzzle - 93fpe
50 Yds - 67fpe
100 Yds - 49fpe
Here's a link (http://www.tritonammo.com/products/QuikShok.shtml) to the Triton website although they don't seem to offer
any products in .22 LR, they do look effective in larger calibres though.
Cyclonite September 7th, 2003, 05:35 AM

The .223 rounds used in the M-16 tumble dont they? Anyways its pretty accurate and nice to shoot. The first time I picked one
up it was like a toy compared to hunting rifles iv used, recoil isnt much more than a 1100fps BB gun
zaibatsu September 7th, 2003, 07:44 AM

I always thought that those bullets tumble on impact rather than in flight? This is how I understand it - the bullet has its center
of gravity at the base of the bullet. It's stable in flight because it's being spun, but as soon as it hits flesh etc the bullet
moves so that it is flying base forwards, where the COG is. Therefore it flips 180 degrees, creating a larger wound channel, with
the bullet splitting into two or more pieces, usually at the cannellure (sp??). That's how I userstand it, a bullet tumbling
through the air just can't be accurate over larger distances.

I'm pretty sure that .223" isn't supposed to tumble in flight. It is apparently very sensitive in flight though, so that even
striking a blade of grass can cause it to tumble.
DBSP September 7th, 2003, 02:31 PM

One of the reasons to why the 5,56 mm bullets tilts so easily is that the bullet is so light and short. When I visited a military
shooting area on my vacation the roadsigns there was full of bullet holes. Both 5,56 mm and 7,62 mm, the number of hits by
tumbling bullets was quite high for the 5,56 mm. The number of 7,62s that had tilted was very low.
The reason for this is that the heavier 7,62mm bullet is more stable because it has it's COG closer to the tip and can thereby
endure physical abuse in flight a bit better than the 5,56.
I know of a guy at a swedish hunting forum that tried using the militay AK4 ammo (7,62x51) in his bolt action, the result was
that the bullet hit the target at a 90* angle at 80m. The reason for this is the different twist of the barrel, the bullet wasn't
given enaugh stability. The bullets ability to stay straight in fligt is affected by which twist the barrel in the gun has. The weight
of the bullet also matters. For instance most 222rem barrels are made to handle ~50gr bullets, if loaded with lets say a 60gr
bullet instead the average group might widen from perhaps 20mm@100m with the 50gr bullet to 40-50mm@100m with the
60gr bullet.
Logically the 22LR with it't light short bullet can't take much abuse while in flight. I'm not shure but I wouldn't be supprised if
the 22LR would be able to endure more abuse than a 5,56 NATO to some extent in certain situations because of the extreme
velocities of the 5,56.

It just depends on what kind of .223 you use. FMJs are designed to to tumble after hitting flesh, but will clip though wood and
not tumble.
After hittin flesh, the FMJ bullet tumbles, and when the bullet turns vertically while going forward, the incredible drag forces on
it cuase it to explode into fragments. But, if the bullet is travelling less than 2600 FPS, it is unlikely the bullet will fragment,
even though it still tumbles.
On the other hand, soft tips and hollow tips are designed to expand, not tumble. I dont remember ever seeing either one
tumble after hitting flesh.
There are several other rifle rounds that are designed to tumble. 7.62x39, I think, being one of them.

You can't say that a FMJ is made to tumble when it hits flesh and not when it hits a wooden plank for instance. If you shot a
FMJ through a block of balistic gelatine you would only get a clear straight channel through the gelatine. But if you would place
something like a bone or a brach in front of the gelatine and fire a bullet through it it is very likely that the bullet would
tumble inside the gelatine.
If the bullet hits something like a rib on the way into the chest of an animal or person the bullet might tumble because it's
path has been disturbed, however if it doesn't hit anything hard on the way in it will simply pass straight through without as
much as tilting a single degree.
The design of the bullet prevent that from happening. The pointy edge of the bullet keepes it straight by distributing the
pressure on the bullet even on alla sides of the bullet tip. Would the bullet not have the same angle at all the sides on the
front of the bullet it would make it allmost impossible to stabilize in flight alltough it would most certainly tumble upon impact.
It is possible that the military has made a compromise between accuracy and damage(I seriously doubt it though). They
might have designed the barrels so that it would just meraly stabilize the bullet making it possible to hit the target and then
when it impacts tumble to maximize the damage. I would be suprised of this turned out to be true though because the main
objective is to hit the target, not only one but repetedly shot after shot. The bullet has no affect on the target if it doesn't hit
it!! In other words it's better to have a bullet that hits the target and makes less damage than a bullet that may hit the target
making more damage.
And seriously how many people would still be standing shooting at you after you have shot him in the torso with a FMJ? Its
more likely that the person hit will be crowling around on the ground screaming from the pain letting you have a second
chance at killing/ hitting him again than him still standing shoooting at you.
You are correct about SPs and HPs not tumbling though, I have pulled hundreds of bullets out of animals and I can't
remamber noticing a bullet that has tumbeled through the body even after hitting some hard bones.
I think that I have pulled about 4-5 ~5,56mm out of the roedeers so far this season. Even though some of them has been
severly damages I can't remember any of them showing any tendensies to have tumlbed noticably. It has happened that the
bullets have been found in positions not straight with the bullet path This does however depend on the fact that when the
bullets are found they are found just beneath the skin on the exit side of the animal meaning the bullets have often sort of
hit the skin with insuficient force the penetrate the skin and have then been thrown back into the wound channel by the elastic
skin then moving them out of axis.

Most FMJs do not tumble until they hit a rib, or something similar, but a .223 (5.56) FMJ will naturally tumble. Im still unsure
exactly why they tumble, but there are a few theories posted above. For a reason unknown to me, the military outlawed (the
last time I heard) expanding bullets of any caliber, so becuase of this they use mostly FMJ, becuase like you said, an AP
round will clip right through you, leaving a small .22 caliber hole, and you will just lay there and suffer.
.223 AP (armor peirceing) rounds do not tumble, even when they hit flesh, and it is unlikely they will tumble even if the hit a
rib, the spinal cord, or any other bone. This might have to do with a different center of gravity.
A few years back, I used to hunt medium sized deer with .223 FMJ, but since then I have been using the .308x51 (it is now
illegal in most states to hunt with a .223). I cant remember ever seeing a whole bullet, but instead finding 5-15 small
fragments.
Check out this site below. It shows the ballistics for about a dozen different bullets, including the .223. It gives an idea of what
happens when these bullets hit flesh.
http://www.steyrscout.org/terminal.htm

I think the UN or some such outlawed the expanind/hollow points.

I haven't got time anaugh to thoroughly study that page right now but I will as soon as I get the chance to.
The only reason to why the bullet tumbles and fragments like the bullet on that page doeas is if the jacket is very thin,
otherwise a regular FMJ should pass straight through without tumbling and definately without fragmenting.
rjche September 7th, 2003, 07:06 PM

I'll try to answer all the flak in one shot since I don't get here often.
1. A-Bomb, you are dead wrong. The last inch of barrel controls where the bullet will go. The standard two barrel derringer
pistol, has about 2 inches from bolt face to barrel end. Clamp that pistol in a large vise tightly and it will put the bullets in a
half inch circle at 25 yards with over the counter ammo.
However the 2.25 inches gives about 850 Fps which is still quite lethal due to the small diameter. It is also well down on the
rising wind noise of a projectile getting close to mach one. If you can tolerate added noise, cut at 3.5 inches and get close to
1000 FPS and about ten db more noise.
As for locking the discussion, why not sit back and learn something from people who know something about things. Have you
EVER built a silent 22? IF not lay off the heavy hand.
2.Irish is in the same intellectual category as A bomb, as to knowledge of barrel lengths and such.
3. Tutara may be fearful of having a shot fired near him because of his general ignorance of weapons. At the 50 yard range, a
rifle will put all rounds in a 2 inch circle if its any good. If the bullet passes about 3 ft from you you are in less danger than if
you drive a car downtown. If fearful, stand behind a barrier, you will still hear the noise and learn what it sounds like. Its not
something you can imagine, and many people can be shot at and not realize it if there is no muzzle blast to alert them.
4. NBK2000, the 860 FPS bullet is down to about 810 fps at 50 yds, and will punch all but the hardest skulls and have enough
residual energy to spin around a dozen or so times inside the slick skull spherical surface. Ask the mafia how they work.
If you put a 4 power scope on the rifle only the most incompetent shooter could fail to hit a under chin shot of a fully armored
thug. That frontally causes lethal damage to the spinal cord attachment to the brain.
Of course the suggested targets are excellent. You may want to injure rather than kill, for injury takes out about 4 persons of
the opposition, in caring for the injured one.
5. Stickfigure raises a suggestion of using larger calibers. The noise a bullet makes at a given subsonic velocity is directly
related to its frontal area. If you can live with the noise you can use closer to mach 1 velocities. As for 22 skipping off skulls
that is true so you are supposed to shoot so the impact is close to 90 degrees. Easy to do. If not choose one of NB 2000's
suggested target areas.
A rifle that exceeds mach one muzzle velocity CAN NOT BE SILENCED period. It is not much better than the military rule to
never fire but one shot per location or they will nail you. There are web sources as to how well one can locate a muzzle blast
reduced high powered rifle.
6. XYZ underestimates the drop of subsonic projectiles. For example, a 950 muzzle velocity 22 LR, drops from bore-sight by
21 inches at 100 yards. One can, by zeroing the rifle around 65 yards, keep the up and down relative to a scope line of sight
thats 1.5 inches above bore, within about 6 inches or so. Use any freeware ballistics program (search Google for freeware
ballistics programs), to get the hang of it.
The rest of the comments were basically off thread, and need no further comment.
The information posted is not well known. There is a lot of crap being posted by persons not very familiar with the subject on
many forums. The posted data will let a novice construct a weapon that is very usable and do it first time off. That is what is
needed because the world is so full of novices, some of whom think they are experts apparently.

rjche,The drop info I posted was for standard .22LR, not subsonics, oops.
I would definitely want a barrel longer than 3.5", note how the topic is labelled "Sniper Rifle", not "Derringer". A 3.5" barrel is
going to be unneccessarily inaccurate at 100 yards. What is the point of a short barrel if you need a stock to be attached
anyway? If you are going for compactness and concealability just have a removeable barrel that is the same length as the
stock. You may say that this cannot be assembled in a hurry but then you could carry a short barreled version as well for those
close encounter situations.
Also, I would like to add that the amount of noise made by the bullet in flight really does not have much to do with the overall
noise of the weapon :rolleyes:, don't you think that the noise might just possibly be due to the large amount of highly
pressurized gas that suddenly erupts from the barrel? The only bullets that make a noticeable amount of noise in flight are
some hollowpoints that "scream" during flight due to the air whistling across the cavity in the front.
Silencing weapons that are over Mach 1 does make some difference, it eliminates the noise made by the escaping gases but
the sonic crack is still there. This means they are quieter, but not as quiet as they really need to be.
About the tumbling:

5.56mm does not tumble during flight, there is enough spin on it to stabilize it in air, once it hits something denser however,
the spin is no longer enough to stabilize it in the denser material and it tumbles.
How likely it is for bullets to tumble/shatter on impact and how much this occurs can vary a lot from make to make. If you look
at diagrams of the wound channels for 5.56mm and 7.62mm, some countries military bullets behave very differently to others.
For example, US 7.62mm usually tumbles round 180 and continues intact but travelling backwards, but another countries
7.62mm (can't remember whether it was Germany or Sweden) almost always shatters on impact even at low velocities (it still
shattered at ranges of 600m+ IIRC).

"What is the point of a short barrel if you need a stock to be attached anyway?"
The barrel is short, but the effective length of the weapon will still be rifle-like due to the suppressor. Obviously the stock is for
precise handling, although you could cut it down to just a pistol grip if you had a good rest.
Anyway, the barrel is that short to keep the bullet speed down. What could be done is to simply port (vent) the barrel at the
2.25" mark from the bolt face. This means the barrel wouldn't need to be cut down as the gas behind would simply escape
into the suppressor and not further accelerate the bullet. The suppressor could be mounted to the barrel giving a shrouded
silencer design, which I think would be more stable/rugged.
The barrel length would be maintained for all those who believe that hitting a dinner plate at 100yds requires a minimum
barrel length of 3 yards. Although it would slow the bullet due to friction.
Deburring the drill holes on the inside of the barrel would be a pain though.
I recall a study for of a .22 rifle that had its barrel progressively cut down and there was no loss of accuracy down to <2" barrel
length. IMO the quality of the barrel is more important than the length. Although there might be a reasonable difference if the
barrel was choked and a bit sloppy close to the breach.

Even with supersonic ammo, it is wise to use a suppressor. Even though the sonic crack is still audible, it is nearly impossible
to locate where the shot came from, since as long as the bullet is going supersonic speeds 100 yards away, it will be just as
loud down there as it is where the bullet was fired from.
Jager September 8th, 2003, 06:34 PM

forget all that 22lr crap, if you want a silent weapon buy a bolt action change the barrel and modify the action to shoot ssk's
wisper amunition * its designed to be subsonic* and instead of making a silencer, buy one.
http://www.sskindustries.com/
Here is some military amunition/wounds information for ya'll
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
Chemical_burn September 8th, 2003, 09:05 PM

Jager:
You miss the point of this thread. This thread is here to discuss the use of a .22 cal rifle as a sniper weapon and its
effectiveness. Also we don't want to "BUY" a scilencer as it will leave a big ass paper trail for the feds to follow.

If a person could buy a silencer, than they wouldn't have to make their own suppressed weapon, since they'd be able to buy
one, now wouldn't they? :rolleyes:
I also think that an occupational army wouldn't be allowing people to buy things like silencers and such, would they? I don't
think so.
This thread is about a home-made weapon, as is the whole Forum actually, since the vast majority of us don't have access to
manufactured weapons and explosives, hence the "Improvised" in the section title.
If we were able to buy weapons like this, then we could buy a SAW, throw a suppressor on that, and hose at full-auto. :)
Now get a clue. :p

xyz:
note how the topic is labelled "Sniper Rifle", not "Derringer".
We're not trying to talk about .5 MOA weapons here, we're talking about practical accuracy. In general terms, what's the point
of having a rifle capable of .25 MOA when only 4 or 5 MOA is necessary? Also, check the section - "Improvised Weapons", in
this case an improvised sniper rifle.
Anthony:
I agree that a "reflex" suppressor design, where the primary expansion chamber extends back over the barrel is a good idea,
allowing for longer barrels (assuming velocity can be kept down by some other means). However drilling the holes into the
barrel without them creating burrs on the inside is a simple matter. Just have your drill press set to a very high RPM, and it will
create metallic powder in the barrel rather than burrs I believe. If that doesn't work, just use a reamer to ream the hole after
drilling, that should remove any burrs.
Also, I believe what you are referring to when you talk about the minimum barrel length is not applicable to this situation. The
experiment I believe you are describing was conducted by Gerald Cardew and son, and was regarding maximum velocity in a
.22 calibre spring piston air rifle. It was found that after 6 inches there was no further increase in velocity. As far as I know, for
.22LR rifles there is little benefit to velocity with barrels over 16".
IMO the quality .... is more important than the length
Really? ;)
Jager:
Notice how the topic title isn't "IF u had $1,000,000 wpt hot-shit SnIpA Gun wud u use 2 sho of ur killa SkilZ?" This isn't a
pissing contest about the "best" type of weapon for sniper rifles, it's about adapting a common type of weapon to be a
*functional* tool for removing an invading force. Note the use of functional. Also, we need something firing relatively common
cartridges, so you don't need to dangerously rezero in the middle of an occupied city when your supa-dupa cartridges run out.
Chemical Burn:
I agree, apart from the UK, where you can buy a silencer legally. But at a couple of hundred pounds for a very good silencer,
I'd just make one.

If you are using standard velocity bullets, its best to use 16 inch or shorter barrels, but I found that when using high velocity
bullets such as Stingers and Velociters (sp? they are new, and made by CCI), it is actually best to use a 18-20 inch barrel for
highest speed and tighter groups.
BTW, heres a pretty simple design for a .22 silencer. It looks pretty easy to make, so I might give it a try sometime.
http://www.norcom2000.com/users/dcimper/assorted/duj38k2n.html (All credit goes to Bullwinkle8357).

...apart from the UK, where you can buy a silencer legally...
Um...you mean the AIR gun silencers, correct? Considering how you can't own a firearm in the UK now (without ungodly
restrictions), the ability to own a FIREARM suppressor seems highly unlikely.
Drilling holes in a barrel without burrs is usually accomplished by filling it with molten lead or aluminum, drilling the holes, then
using a hydralic press to push out the metal filling the barrel. The metal acts as a support for the barrel metal, since it's the
"pushing" of the drill bit that causes burring of the barrel into the interior.
Another means would be EDM (Electrical Discharge Machining) which is burr-free.
Velocity of a bullet is affected by barrel length up to the point at which the charge ceases combustion. Once the powder charge
is fully burnt, anything longer is just drag. ;)
BTW, it's the west german 7.62mm that fragments after breaking at the cannulare. :)
stickfigure September 9th, 2003, 02:27 AM

To clarify 5.56 tumbling questions the M193 FMJ was designed to tumble once it hits. The M855 or SS109 is an AP with a steel
penetrator made to defeat body armor and isn't supposed to tumble. These are the two offical rounds used by the US military
besides tracers. A new 75gr round is being tested but has not been adopted yet.
As for silencers they are legal to buy in 35 states in the US, fill out a few forms, sign in blood, promise your first born, and
jump through the hoop of fire in back and it's yours....

zaibatsu, even though only 4 or 5 MOA is really required, I think that better accuracy than this would be nice, especially if you
are going for the eyes like NBK suggested.
NBK, I am pretty sure that firearm silencers are avilable in the UK, it is only handguns that have ungodly restrictions on them
IIRC. I have seen a UK air rifle forum where they use rimfire rifle silencers on their air rifles because they are cheaper and
more effective than .22 air rifle silencers. So rimfire silencers are available at least.
Also, barrels that are longer than the powder's burn length are not just drag on the bullet, even though the powder is no
longer burning, there is still increased pressure inside the barrel that continues to accelerate the bullet. There is a chart on the
Remington website about how much extra velocity will be given by extra barrel lengths.

NBK:
Um...you mean the AIR gun silencers, correct?
No, I mean firearm silencers, as in from around .22LR to .50BMG. For an example of this, check this website (http://
www.soundmoderators.co.uk). Yes, it's rather strange that you can own any firearm silencer, and unlimited capacity magazines,
even make them yourself, but you cannot own a handgun, but laws rarely do make sense.
The method I described using a drill at a high RPM is preferable to filling the barrel with a molten metal, as it has the same
effect without changing the hardness of the barrel or the finish. Interestingly enough, you *can* make an EDM machine,
although they are not as good/safe/accurate as commercial models obviously. I believe HSM or some similar publication did
an article on it, I'm sure I've got a link to the file or article somewhere.
The cannelure represents a weakness on all bullets, as when the bullet begins to yaw, the stress is focussed on this point,
although some bullets are affected by it more than others. For example, examine these two wound profiles:
M855 5.56mm NATO cartridge (http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/wound1.gif)
7.62x39 round (http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/ak47.jpg)
xyz:
Of course, better accuracy is always preferable, as even if the rifle is 4-5 MOA the shot locations will still be represented by
standard deviation. However, it is not always possible, so trying to compare a weapon designed to do a job with a "make-do"
weapon isn't very fair.
Most Reflex Suppressors which are are suitable for use on full-bore rifles can also be used on rim-fire rifles and on air
weapons. If the suppressor is intended for use exclusively on a shot gun or air weapon, we can send it directly by mail order,
although we prefer to have the weapon here to ensure correct fitting.
Oh man...now I just need to find an airgun that has the same barrel size as an M-14. ;)
But, since they'll also mail them if used for shotguns, I don't think there'd be any problem with using sub-sonic saboted slugs
in a rifled barrel. Getting hit with a one ounce slug going 850fps would be more than adequate to do the job, right? :)
A suppressed Saiga-12 with sub-sonic slugs and buckshot would make for an unpleasant day for someone. :D

Do you see what the picture is on this page. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/sak22lr.htm
A product display full of silencers! Just wished I could get some :(

Unfortunately NBK that does not apply to the US, as removable airgun silencers are also illegal. From the page A-BOMB linked
to
We regret that we can not ship firearm or air weapon silencers to USA, Canada or other countries in which they are controlled or
prohibited
A-BOMB:
To misquote someone, "Where there's a member there's a way" ;)
rjche September 9th, 2003, 03:47 PM

I see several didn't bother to bone up on ballistics and stuff and came back with more wrong comments. I will try once more
and then let the reader believe whomever it desires.
xyz: "rjche,The drop info I posted was for standard .22LR, not subsonics, oops.
It was still ridiculously wrong, indicating a fundamental unfamiliarity with external ballistics of firearms.
At a typical 1250 fps for standard commercial high velocity 22 rim-fire long rifle ammo, the drop at 100 yards is 13.3 inches.
You probably are confusing mid range rise above line of sight of a rifle shooting the bullet upward to hit a distant target with a
much dropped bullet. Drop can be calculated by plugging the flight time of the bullet into the S=.5 A T squared standard
gravitational drop physics equation.
Again consult any ballistics program.
"I would definitely want a barrel longer than 3.5", note how the topic is labeled "Sniper Rifle", not "Derringer"
I mentioned derringer to demonstrate that a 2 inch bbl can shoot very accurately if it is aimed well. You were saying a 2 inch
barrel is inherently inaccurate, again demonstrating an unfamiliarity with guns.
" A 3.5" barrel is going to be unnecessarily inaccurate at 100 yards."

Again a statement contrary to fact. A 3.5 inch bbl can shoot as accurately as any length. It's your job to point it accurately. If
that short bbl is on a rifle stock with scope it will shoot as accurately as any length of bbl with identical bore statistics.
Remember that phrase in the original post "It uses burn termination technology". Did you understand what that means.
"What is the point of a short barrel if you need a stock to be attached anyway?"
If you understood ballistics you would realize that a bullet accelerates all the time the pressure behind it exceeds bore friction.
In a normal long barrel 22 rim-fire rifle they accelerate down to 16 inches length with normal ammo, then they slow down after,
in longer bbls. All smokeless rifle ammo used in 22 rim-fire rifles have about the same buildup of pressure versus the first few
inches of bbl. Therefore a bullet which would reach 1400 fps in a longer bbl, will be accelerated only to about 860 fps at the
2.25 inch bbl. length. IF thats the velocity you want you MUST cut the bbl off at that length OR drill large holes in the bore (1/
8th inch)both sides of the barrel to cut the pressure of the burning powder, which makes it go out. It accumulates in the
suppressor as a tan flake sand like material. Almost all 22 rim-fire ammo will come out of a 2.25 inch bbl at around 850 fps,
so you don't have to buy special subsonic ammo but can use anything you can find. The above describes burn termination
technology. It means you stop the powder burning at the velocity you want.
A scoped rifle using a very short bbl shoots with the same accuracy as the scope and rifle mounting is capable of regardless of
bbl length.
Have you noticed the 9mm sub machine guns thugs carry have only a 4 inch bbl. That's all you need to get the bullet up to
speed. More is a waste of space and material.
The only way you will ever appreciate how much noise a mach 2 bullet makes is to fire a well suppressed high powered rifle,
OR a suppressed 22 rim-fire that does not limit the bullet to below mach 1. Both make a noise comparable to the muzzle
blast, meaning the crack will wake the dead. It echos through mountain valleys same as does muzzle blast.
Also the smack of a subsonic bullet hitting anything makes a very loud pop. Have to hear it to appreciate how loud it is.
ANTHONY:
If you try porting it is very tricky. Things do not go as would seem obvious. Gas traveling close to mach in a down bore
direction has considerable difficulty going out ports to the side unless they are countersunk. Say 1/8 inch drilled through the
bore to give two holes at the desired distance, then those countersunk with .25 drill till only a thin segment of 1/8 hole is left.
Countersink against a #1 drill inside the bore to limit the depth. This will not be the same as cutting the bbl off at that
distance. Also the pressure in the suppressor will go out another hole later down, and alter the acceleration. It takes a lot of
experimenting with chronograph, and disassembly of suppressor to redesign to get a particular exit velocity. Minimum needed
equipment is shop equipment plus chronograph, plus a disassemblable suppressor to experiment with. Not something a
makeshift weapon would involve.
Deburring is done with 1/8 in carbide ball in dremel tool via a 1/8 inch hole in the bbl.
If you leave a lot of bbl in front of the gas ports you will run into the slow down of bore friction and exit velocity will be much
less than expected.
A comment on reaming to deburr would leave a very sharp edge for the bullet to pass. It would shave it as the lead is under
lots of pressure and would squeeze into the hole as it passed and cut come of the tail off. Big inaccuracy would likely result if
the holes were not symmetrical to save both sides equally. Best to use a ball cutter and round bore side of the hole enough
that no shaving occurs.
Building a silenced weapon in a hurry with no shop facilities is not easy. Most of them end up not silencing, as intuition does
not help one much. They "sort of work", but if you are going to shoot at a person with a full auto mil weapon you want to
make sure you are really quiet.
If you want to be a suicide shooter, don't bother with silencers, just sneak up and nail the target, and get nailed back, by his
buddies. If doing that, I recommend a full auto with 75 round drum mag. You would then be going for body count, to brag
about in the spirit world.

From what I read, it's OK if it's removable, as long as it's for shotgun or airgun use.
I also know that they won't send them to the US, but how many UK mods and members do we have? ;) :D
I could send a shotgun barrel that I buy through the mail to the UK, have it fitted for a silencer by a UK member (who gets
financial comp for the job), barrel gets sent back in one package, and silencer in another to a dead-drop where gofer picks it
up.
Silencer goes in the ground, barrel into the closet, and I'm ready for a time of need. :)
What would be a good disguise for a silencer? I would think that disguising it as a hydralic piston would be perfect and easy to
do. Put a piston down the barrel, put some gaskets in, fill with oil, lightly solder on some zerk fittings, and who could tell the
difference? :p

A .22LR bullet going 900 fps will NEVER be as accurate as the same bullet going 1400 FPS. As you know, all objects fall at the
same rate, and the slower a bullet is going, the more time gravity has to effect its trajectory.
After putting at least 5000 rounds through my old 10/22, I can tell you a 40 grain bullet or less will drop an absolute
maximum of 5 inches (as long as it is going 1200 FPS+). I dont see how you could say anything over 10 inches when Ive shot
air rifles that get less than 4 inch groups at 100 yards.
BTW, a true sniper will always use a bolt action. They seem more accurate, cheaper, and you can choose when you want the
casing ejected. The sound of the casing hitting the ground can be heard much farther than you think, and has got many
snipers killed.

I think you could disguise one of the smaller ones as a muffeler for a RC truck just put a 45 degree elbow in one of the ends
that is painted the same color as the unit, and put on a label saying (enter japanese RC manufacture name here) offroad RC
truck spark arrester/muffler. On in so even if its X-rayed/opened it going to look like a muffler that is if they don't look at it
that much.
User Name September 10th, 2003, 12:10 AM

bullet drop and bullet acuracy are two very different things. in the Marines (semfer fi !!!) a .308 match is used. that round is
horably slow at only 2500fps but maintains extreme accuracy at any range. so when my bullets drops 20 feet at 1500 yards
but drops right behind your neck into your upper back...you wont complain about bullet drop anymore. accuracy speaks!
berret .50 BMG's only travel at 2600 but are able to hit a coffe can or mans chest cavity at well over 1700 yards.
the bullet may break the sound barrier (mach 1) and still be supressed but you will need a reflex supresor. the shockwave
made from the bullet must stay inside the supresor. this makes for one long supressor though. think of a ballon. you pop
it....booom. you cover one spot with duct tape and poke it with a needle there....air is slowely and quietly let out. think of
supresors as the tape.
oh and btw people use semi autos in the Marine corps. berret 50's are semi auto. they cannot be supressed as well however.

User Name, Barretts can be suppressed if what you are trying to say is that they can't, Look Here (http://www.impactguns.com/
store/awc_turbodyne.com).
The sonic crack would still be there but the noise made by escaping gases wouldn't be, the weapon would be a hell of a lot
quieter than normal but it still wouldn't be "silent".
rjche, the figures I posted are accurate for standard .22LR, they are just the figures for .22LR fired from a rifle length barrel.
Another advantage to bolt action is that you can choose when the next round is chambered as well, an unfired round sitting in
a hot chamber for a while can produce erratic velocities and therefore be less accurate (you don't know how much it will drop).
With a bolt action rifle, you can choose to only chamber a new round when you are about to use it.
xyz:
I never even thought of that effect, interesting. But do you really think it matters much? I know machineguns tend to fire from
an open bolt because of this, for fear of leaving a round chambered in a hot chamber and it "cooking off". It might have a
large effect, I don't know anything on it so I'll be interested to find out. However, would you really be firing at so high a rate as
to heat up the chamber? I doubt it if it is supposed to be an improvised sniper rifle, rather than provide suppressing fire.
Cyclonite September 10th, 2003, 12:43 PM

Would the temp of the round really matter that much in respect to the amount and rate of gas produced by the propellant? Im
pretty sure its about the same, iv fired many weapons and havent noticed any difference after heating up the chamber quite a
bit.
Axt September 10th, 2003, 01:45 PM

Its not the gas production rather the burn rate thats effected. The hotter the faster resulting in higher pressures - change in
velocities and point of impact.
Id never actually thought of it either in regards to a chambered round, but if you shoot a cooled round over a chronograph you
will typically get lowered velocities (I have tried that), not much but its effect will be more on the position the bullet leaves the
barrel (barrel whip) rather then its trajectory.
So its not a super important factor, but still a factor.

A swedish hunting magazine zeroed a 6.5x55 swedish mauser at 100m at +20*-C and then shot at the same distance again
but at -20*-C the bullet then dropped about 20cm if I remember correctly. Thats more than enaugh to miss a roedeer or a pig
at 100m.
I have read that in the winter you should have tha cartidges in you pocket close to the body and load the rifle just prior to
shooting to minimize the bullet drop. I don't know what affect the cold barrel will have on the bullet and it's trajectoy though.

Thanks rjche, you've likely saved me quite ab it of time and frustration in the future :)
"A .22LR bullet going 900 fps will NEVER be as accurate as the same bullet going 1400 FPS. As you know, all objects fall at the
same rate, and the slower a bullet is going, the more time gravity has to effect its trajectory."
Bullet drop isn't really innacuracy as it's predictable and consistant. If all else was equal and both 900fps and 1400fps
weapons were zeroed the same then there should be no difference.
Paralax adjustable scopes aren't very expensive and will allow you to overcome bullet drop either with a graduated reticle or
just reckoning, or you could spend a little more and have a side wheel on your scope to dial in the elevation.

Faster bullets have better stabilization, translating to better accuracy. The speed that a bullet leaves the barrel at and how
quick the rifling twist is are the two factors that determine how fast a bullet will spin, if it spins too slowly or way too fast then it
will be unstable.
This means that if you want a barrel that is only a few inches long to limit the speed of the bullet, you need a really fast rifling
twist if you want the same sort of stability as a bullet going at 1400fps.
I think that the best solution is to use a short (but not really short, about 10 - 15") barrel with a slightly faster than normal
twist and match grade ammo. Like I said before, match ammo is the most accurate .22LR and is also subsonic, hence no
need to chop off the barrel to limit bullet speed.
My choice would be a bolt action with the above mentioned barrel and ammo and a 4x or 6x scope, sighted in for about 75m.
The thing about guns heating up the round in the chamber, it doesn't matter much for hunting etc. unless you are in extreme
temperature conditions. It does matter for sniping however and snipercountry has an article about (on a bolt action) leaving
the bolt open after ejecting a round and holding the barrel upwards at a slight angle to make a convection air current flow
through the barrel, cooling the chamber more quickly.
I think it would be easier however to just wait until you are ready to fire before chambering your next round, the snipercountry
method would be better if you needed to suddenly fire a shot without having to get ready.

Sniper country is a very good website. Why would you zero your combo at 75yards and use a 4x-6x scope? At those ranges I
wouldn't use something that high for a human-size object, maybe 4x but probably about 2.5x. You're reducing your field of
view doing that, and in a busy environment like a city that's to your detriment.
Jager September 12th, 2003, 04:10 AM

"Jager:
You miss the point of this thread. This thread is here to discuss the use of a .22 cal rifle as a sniper weapon and its
effectiveness. Also we don't want to "BUY" a scilencer as it will leave a big ass paper trail for the feds to follow."
You can buy a suppressor if you live in a state that allows them, all you have to do is pay some money/fill some forms and
get it from a class 3 dealer and the only way you would have a paper trail would be if you got caught, and then it really doesn't
matter anyway, plus you aren't going to be using it in america.
If you want accuracy you cant go and make a silenced gun with a sawed off barrel and some pipe, like others have said in this
thread.
And if you really want to kill someone silently, use a knife or a garrotte, something that everyone knows already.
Making a silenced weapon is such a pain in the ass, just make a "pipe bomb" instead and kill lots-o-peaple.
DBSP September 12th, 2003, 06:45 AM

Making a silenced weapon isn't that hard. I made a silencer in about 1 hour, it's really ugly and really large and there is no
attaching mekanism other than the hole in the bottom of the wooden plug that I push onto the barrel. Hell there are even
some small gaps between the barrel and the silencer and it's still just as silent as my Webley tracker .22 air rifle and still
shoots good enaugh to hit you in the head at 60m dispite all the hassle with the bullet drop.
Things doesn't have to be that hard.
And tell me, how would you go about killing someone with a knife witout getting killed by the guys three friends standing next
to him? Seemes a bit hard doesn't it? Unless of cource you would like to become a martyr(sp?)?

zaibatsu, those magnifications would be if you were going for the eyes etc. You would only be looking through the scope to
aim and fire, not to acquire targets. The 75m was just a range that I thought was a good range to sight in at (as most shots
would be at 50-100m)
The best scope would be a 2-6x40 or a 2-6x50 so that you could zoom in, but your field of view was still fairly large.
There are designs for some very simple but effective .22LR silencers out there. Look on HNIW's ftp (the address can be found
near the end of the thread called "Forum FTP" in Forum Matters) for books on this subject. Solid point .22LR fired at a
subsonic velocity doesn't make that much noise anyway. You would still want a suppressor if possible though.
rjche September 12th, 2003, 10:37 AM

"Even with subsonic ammo, .22LR won't drop by more than 5 or 6 inches at 100 Yards, High velocity ammo will only drop by
2.5 - 3 inches."
XYZ, I believe you are still not understanding what bullet drop refers to in exterior ballistics. It refers to the distance the bullet
drops from the muzzle to where it hits, expressed in inches usually. This drop can be concealed by pointing the muzzle
upwards which is what all sights on a gun do. That pointing does not change the drop however.
Your statement that subsonic ammo, 22lr won't drop more than 5 or 6 inches at 100 yards displays this confusion in your
thinking. As I explained before, it drops around 20 inches if at about 860 muzzle velocity, and all exterior ballistics programs
as well as experiments confirm this. Here is a chart of bullet drop versus range for a "high velocity" remington 22LR round,
with 1250 muzzle velocity:
To make this short, first number is range in yards, second is drop in inches:
0,0 30,-1,1 50,-3.1 70,-6.2 90,-10.6 100,-13.3 110,-16.3
130,-23.5 150,-32.2 170,-2.4 190,-54.3
Now for the same bullet on a rifle with scope center 1.5 inches above the bore center, zeroed for 100 yards here are the path
of the bullet versus the scope cross hairs at various ranges. Path means where the bullet will hit relative to the cross hair
location on the target at the range stated, if the scope is zeroed for 100 yds.
0,-1.5 30,1.8 50,2.8 70,2.6 90,1.2 100,0 110,-1.5 130,-5.7 150,-11.4 170,-18.7 190,-27.6
The above are for lead, 22lr 40 gr bullet with 1250 muzzle velocity, at 0 altitude, 60 deg F.
For this same bullet to drop only 6 inches in 100 yards it must have a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps. To drop only 4 inches it
must have a muzzle velocity of 2300 fps.
Of course no commercial 22LR rimfire ammo is made that can do this, nor would the lead bullet tolerate that speed without
soldering itself to the barrel, meaning extreme barrel leading, and terrible accuracy.
To better understand what happens to your bullets after they leave the barrel download any of the free ballistics programs.
One named PCB.exe is on the net here and there and its excellent (dos which windows will run) and takes up only 90K for the
entire program.
Also your second statement:

"rjche, the figures I posted are accurate for standard .22LR, they are just the figures for .22LR fired from a rifle length barrel."
ARe as shown above not accurate at all. Also you misunderstand the effect of barrel length. Length of barrel has zero effect on
a given bullet leaving the barrel at a certain muzzle velocity. Long ago when only iron sights existed, barrels up to 30 inches
long were used to increase the accuracy of pointing the iron sights. Double the barrel length and you double the accuracy of
aiming.
Today with optical sights barrel lengths can be very short.

I have seen the Russian Tokarev pistol, with a good pistol scope on it fire 7.65x25 ammo with 90 grain steel jacket war time
ammo, at 200 yards, HAND HELD by the shooter, hit a 5 gallon bucket at 200 yards, every shot.
Put it in a vise clamped well, and it shot in a 4 inch circle. Its barrel is about 4 inches long. The bullet exits at about 1450 fps.
That bullet does the same from a long barrel rifle at that range if the exit velocity is the same.
Get a ballistics program and play with it and many of your misconceptions about firearms will go away. When you post them on
this thread though you tend to cause those unfamiliar with firearms to doubt what I have posted, and you do them a severe
dis-service. Posting false information causes harm. It confuses those who are trying to learn. Thrice have I warned you of your
errors but you will not go check your self out, but persist in adding more errors with each post.
Please quit faking it on my threads... You and some other fakers cause so much mis-information that it triples my time to get
a point across, and clear up the BS.
Jager September 12th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by DBSP
And tell me, how would you go about killing someone with a knife witout getting killed by the guys three friends standing next
to him? Seemes a bit hard doesn't it? Unless of cource you would like to become a martyr(sp?)?
Well I wouldn't try and kill someone that had a couple of friends standing next to him. I don't think It would be too hard to
sneak up on someone from behind at night and cut their throat, or use us a garrotte on an unarmed person.
I was under the impression that making a silencer that actually works well was hard to make, but if you made one in an hour
and it works
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Bremse/Mundbremse.html
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Schalldaempfer.htm
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html

(Incorrect Post Removed)
Axt September 13th, 2003, 01:32 AM

Rjche is actually right xyz. Within the table you have refered to the figure represents the height the bullet must rise above the
line of sight, to hit a target centre at 100yd. It doesnt refer to bullet drop from the line of bore.

OK then, I was wrong, sorry about that rjche. I knew what bullet drop was (how much the bullet falls below the line of the bore)
but I thought those tables referred to that.
Please understand that I am not trying to spread misinformation or anything though.
DeviantSaint September 26th, 2003, 04:03 PM

Perhaps the question needs to be re-thought.
The post was about creating an effectively silenced .22 rifle.
The scenerio given however, is not really something that I would use a .22 rimfire for.
the after that things spiraled as they often do.
A silenced .22 lr has it's uses, now doubt, however even in ww2 other calibre's were preferred for silenced weapons. Silenced
versions of the sten are a good example, or even silenced versions of a luger po8 and similiar weapons, all used 9mm
subsonic.
Personally, if you are set on 22lr for whatever reason, a weapon similiar to a rugar mk2 would be your best choice for silencing.
especially with a reflex design. The draw back is that you would need to be able to place an effective shot to kill.
shooting in the ocular area is taught to swat and soldiers as a means to achieve a kill without any involuntary muscle
responses. However, it's a hard target to hit, due to body mechanics, not optics. Aiming with a scope IS easy... holding the
weapons stready is harder than it looks. Your muscles don't naturally contract smoothly, and when trying to sustain a
contraction... they will tremble. It' takes training and correct shooting technique to minimize that for consistantly good shots.
Add in the stress of combat, and now it's a hell of a task to pull off.
I advise going for center of mass.
With that option there are more factors involved as far as weapons choice. I've heard (though I have not directly witnessed)
that 7.62x39 rounds are damn effective in silenced semi-auto weapons. this is due to the mechanics of semi-auto weapons
cycling and the retained energy of the round even at sub-sonic speeds. A .45 pistol round is the natural choice since it is
already a subsonic round (850 fps standard ball round) and is very combat effective in center of mass shots with non-
expanding rounds.
However, range with one isn't all that great, even out of a 10 inch barrel.
A large part of wether to go with a rifle round or not will have to do with your anticipated ranges. will you be fighting in urban
areas or in rural areas? in doors or street to street?
Also, do not discount a suppressed weapon even if it fires a supersonic round. Suppressors not only quiet the boom of the
round but they also serve to mask the crack a bit. From personal experience a knights armament silencer makes a 5.56 round
hard to pick out with the ear. You have a hard time figuring out where the shot came from. The rest of the concealment of a
shooters position is part of snipercraft and is not a subject that I am that well versed in. I've picked up a bunch, but not
everything and a lot of it is hard to explain via text.
So.. in closing.. my advice is to re-determine your needs, determine the conditions that would be required to meet those, and
plan accordingly.
-DeviantSaint
DBSP October 14th, 2003, 11:47 AM

Klick the link below and sign in with:
id:theforum
pass:viewingpics
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288861785
THAT is what happens if a 22lr bullet happens to hit your head at 100m. DO NOT underestimate the power of a 22lr. If you
play the video frame by frame you will se that lots of brain matter is actually sprayed out of the bullets entrance hole due to
the overpressure in the brain that the bullet causes. The left eye allmost popped out as well. The bullet exited through the left
jaw, judging by the hole in the paper the bullet did not have any energy left when it exited but that doesn't matter since what
it hit is already ded. And the bullet exiting isn't the entire bullet but merely a small disc about 2,5x5,6mm. I know this since
I've shot this particular bullet in different materials, ranging from wet paper to meat with the same result, lots of fragments
and a small disc is allways the result.
If anyone misses some of the latest replies to this topic thay are no longer here, I have deleted all of the posts that had
anything to do with the kewl that got banned.
DeviantSaint October 14th, 2003, 05:05 PM

I think perhaps we are getting a little carried away here.
A silenced .22 is indeed possible.

it has been done before.
there are doubts to it's combat effectiveness.
I personally would not recommend it IF other alternatives are availible.

such as 9mm, .45, .380. 9mm mak, or other rifle calibers.
Have doubts? then test the theory. The only person that really has to be convinced is the user, after all it is his risk we are
talking about here.
Everything else is purely academic.
then again, this is an academic board, so I digress.
FragmentedSanity October 15th, 2003, 04:36 AM

Lo again, Ok if anyone was offended (tho I doubt anyone missed the sarcasm) by my suggestion that the former newb should
go out and shoot themself I apologise, his remarks rather annoyed me.
In an attempt to swing the thread back on track - Has anyone actually tried constructing a device based on rjche's description?
some pics of the weapon and it capabilities would greatly improve the thread. SWIM plans on converting a old single shot as
described - but SWIM tells me it wont be happening in the near future so Im hoping someone else might have some pic's,
pics of the damage at different ranges - pics of groups it can shoot - pics of the weapon itself.
SWIM has used a cut down .22 so he knows a bit about how they work. If I can track SWIM down I'll try and get some more
specifics - like the exact barrel lenght. The problem with the pistol SWIM had was that the barrel had been cut off too short
(maybe 1-1.5 inch)and the bullets tumbled. The solution to this was to cut the end off the bullet. It still tumbled in flight but
now resembled a ball more than a bullet which seemed to help accuracy marginally, from memory the bullet didnt drop as
quickly either. Now that I think about it Im assuming that the lighter bullet had a higher velocity... but Ive been wrong before.
So the result was a pistol - without enough barrel and half wieght projectiles. No it wasnt very accurate - but could still easily
manage a torso hit at 20 meters or so. It was also obviously underpowered - even as .22's go. The thing is even given
everything that was wrong with it, it still punched holes in the things it was fired at - like sheep skulls.
SWIM also made up a 2 minute supressor for it - consisting of an empty areosol tin with the top section where the valve is
removed so it fit over what was left of the barrel - this was packes with steel wool strapped on with some duct tape and a round
fired to open the end up - even with such shoddy construction it was quitened down alot.
If only SWIM had read this thread alll those years back he would have had a semi decent little weapon instead of the one
mentioned above.
Maybe in the US where you actually have rights to own guns all this seems a little silly - just wait till your government decides
that guns are bad and your constitution wasnt that important... maybe then people will realise how frustrating it is whenever
the topic of improvising your own guns comes up and the thread gets filled with comments like "why bother - just buy one" or
"thats stupid go and buy this" or "it wont be accurate - buy a _____" etc etc
So - a big thanks to rjche for providing some simple to follow instructions - actually backed up with theory and knowhow.
Lastly, sometihng I think we can all agree on - A gun is a gun - stick it in someones face and its not going to matter whether
its a zip gun or glock 9 its still a gun. If the need arises any gun is better than no gun.

Originally posted by rjche
[B]One can never tell when a situation like Iraq may visit America with its present wild government bent on bankruptcy and
pissing off all other nations.
Iraqis are fighting an invading army that invaded them just for the hell of it and to see what they could pillage. All the reasons
for them being there have been proven false, yet they stay. So the citizens are beginning to kill them to make the rest leave.
I thik you mean Sadam's militia. Please dont be an ass-hat and show your ignorance. We have found NBC equipment,
paperwork, the scientists who worked on the stuff etc etc. We KNOW it is or was there. Oh and yeah, out armed forces are
SOOOOooo terrible giving these people the right to choose leaders and not be sent to death camps for not liking Sadam. How
many hundreds of thousands did he kill again??? We could have just as easily flattened the whole damn city but spared the
hospitals and schools where Sadams forces were using civvies to shield them selves....Jee they're manly men, besides I
thought allah was on their side and would ensure victory. So, when the "big fight" comes to home are you going to use women
and children to shield your pansy ass too?
Christ all mighty, they are getting new roads, power plants, hospital equipment, schools and equipment...were bringing them
into the damn 21st century, were they should have been if Sadam wasn't keeping the countries wealth for himself and
spending insane amounts of the country's GNP on NBC weapons and research.
You want a bolt fed 22-cal rifle and about 5000 rounds of solid tip ammo. For very quiet use you need standard velocity, but
for normal silent use any high speed type will work BECAUSE THE RIFLE USES PROPELLANT BURN LIMIT TECHNOLOGY to keep
even high speed ammo from exceeding mach 1.
The rifle should be bolt fed to get rid of the rather loud noise of the action working on self-loading rifles. However, an auto still
makes a very quiet weapon. Let someone clack the action to slip in another round while you listen from 50 yards. If you could
nail the shooter from what you hear, then be wary of that rifle.
To convert it, cut the barrel off 2.25 inches from the bolt face with the bolt closed. This kills the powder acceleration before the
bullet reaches mach 1. IF you use a hacksaw, then file the end flat, and de-burr the bore end so no stickers are going to
scratch the bullet as it leaves.
Use 1.5-inch ID brass under sink drainpipe at least 12 inches long, for the muffler. Support it by a washer bored to fit the
barrel OD and to fit the ID of the pipe. Put one washer on the bbl as close to the breech end as possible and solder it there.
Put one on the very end of the barrel. Solder it there. Leave good fillets of solder.
Sand clean the inside of the brass pipe where the washers are going to rest, and wet them with acid solder flux. Slip the pipe
over the washers allowing the pipe to slip past the breech washer about a sixteenth inch to give a good solder fillet.
Heat the pipe outside with a torch, till it flows the solder of the rear most washer. Hold it so the washer is horizontal and add
enough solder to leave a good fillet to the outer pipe.
Now using a washer that fits the ID of the brass pipe with a 3/8 hole in the center, put it at the 6 inch point (center) if he pipe
and solder it there as above.
Now using a similar washer solder it 2 inches from the open end.
Now put crazy glue around the rim of the open end of the pipe, and press it against a clean piece of inner tube rubber till it
sets up. Then take scissors and cut the inner tube flush with the OD of the brass pipe.
Next fire a round through the gun with the rubber against a flat board to mark the center of it. Then take a hot nail or
soldering iron and burn out a circle around that hole to a diameter of about 5/16-inch.
Next, choose a bicycle inner tube that will slip over the OD of the brass pipe with slight stretching. Put a piece over the entire
brass pipe, with about sixteenth inch overlapping the front rubber washer. Crazy glue the front of the outer tube to the edge of
the end rubber washer.
Now test fire the gun to see if the noise level is suitable for your taste. Adjust your tactics according to the noise. This is a very
quiet design.
Do you have ANY gunsmithing experience at all???? The above is a joke right? Its a great way to destroy a rifle and wate your
time.
You can mount a visible laser under the scope, attached to the front scope lens outer metal. Set it to hit at about 25 yards
d e a d on. It s for panic defens e shooting u p close, when you an d the target are moving. You won t use it m uch. Not m uch
point using an IR laser for the enemy will have Night Vision and can see both with that.
You have a bolt action 22 with a laser site mounted to hit at 25 yards for "panic defense shooting" when BOTH you and the
target are moving????? 1st off the laser is be damn near worthless in 90% of daylight hours unless the target is within a
couple yards. This means any hits with this "rifle" and pissant round will just piss off the person IF you even hit them.
Meanwhile your cycling the gun while you get cut down in a hail of 5.56mm/ 7.62/50 cal/ or 40mm rounds.
You can do all the things to make the weapon small, like bull pup it, etc. for all that does not affect its silence or accuracy.
If the Iraqis had this type of weapon you would see a ten-fold casualty rate over there. There is almost no way to tell from
where the bullet came, except by trying to reconstruct how the target was standing and judging from the bullet wound. If no
exit hole that is of no use. With one it is not accurate because bullets change direction upon impact.
Yeah right, after all a 22 with a 2.5" barrel at 50 yards is so much more effective than an RPG from 200yds...Plus you get the
benefit of doing REAL damage!!
YOU MUST let a friend fire the rifle from about 50 yds at a target at 75 yds, and so the bullet passes with 3 ft of you so you
can judge what the target hears if you miss. Adjust your tactics according to what you learn. A bullet below mach 1 makes
considerable air noise up clo se. Pe ople can figure out wha t it is but a nimals typically think it s a n insect and ignore it.
You MUST take all gun safety and throw it out the window and allow someone to shoot a rifle to within feet of you with a piss
poor weapon of questionable build! Just block the thought that shitty suppressors mounted on shittily modded guns can throw
the zero WAY off. Just think you may even be able to evaluate the damage done by the round...by your OWN body! Yippeeee!
This technology is illegal to construct while our cowboy government is chasing US hired terrorists, but if they fall flat, you may
have to make such a weapon out of desperation, as your only defense against all sorts of armed people who will be roaming
around and pillaging or conquering. Such weapons are legal in many countries, and even mandatory in some same as are
mufflers on vehicles. They are not legal in free America because the government is playing so many scams that it fears
someone would start shooting at them if such weapons existed. Not so, anymore than someone shooting at them with noisy
weapons, but government types are not expected to be logical nor intelligent.
Try different brands of ammo. One or two will usually shoot much more accurately in such a rifle. You want to strive for putting
them all inside a 1-inch circle at 50 yds, under all shooting conditions. You want the 1st bullet to do the job, then you move,
or lay low for a while. A bolt action disciplines you to make the first be the only one needed. You never engage superior
fire power up close like this and pick targets to be one or two persons, away from the cro wds. Remember modern soldiers
with an ammo wagon following them tend to hose down all directions when excited. [/quote]
Your right US soldiers are a bunch of poorly trained conscripts like Sadams forces. They'll just shoot everything in sight. maybe
they will even take some women and children as human shields like Sadams forces did! I think when they see the 22 rounds
hitting they kevlar vests, helmets and vehicles and falling to the ground they will have a good idea of what they're dealing with
and where.
Remember the statistics. Your body represents an area of about 8 sq ft. At 50 yards and possible shooter between 0 and 30 ft
above ground, the area of the circle fence 30 ft high with diameter of 100 yards is about 30,000 sq ft. With one wild shot into
that possible enemy location, your probability of being hit is 8/30,000, or rounded off 1 in 3500. That is a very low chance.
Even if they cut loose with a spray gun and burn 100 rounds, that is still only one in 35 chance which is getting of concern,
except the shooter usually guesses at the enemy location and pours them all in that general direction. His guess is wrong
almost all the time against this weapon.
What the abo ve me ans is your chance of gettin g shot is low, s o don t pan ic. Take what cover you can, without attracting
attention, and your safety is better than driving a car downtown.
The difference between a skilled shooter and a soon to be dead novice is fear of things that really are trivial dangers. IF you
have to, to shut u p a panicked comp anion to the downed ta rget nail him but don t be in a hu rry, ta ke your time , ignore the
incoming wild shots, and nail him first shot.
Did you not say you should be within about 50 yards though? I like the "still only 1 in 35 chance" part!! Are you saying those
are NOT good odds???? Imagine if the lottery system was set up to make winning the jackpot 1 in 35... EVERYONE would play
because the odds are INCREDEBLY good!
For fully armored enemy soldiers, you must hit throat area, uncovered fact, armpits, groin area; ass is nice, etc. Once down
more unarmored areas will be exposed and you can often make a pincushion of the target.
Modern flak vests and helmets can stop hypervelocity 22LRs from a full length barrel at point blank range and often cover
much of the throat area. Not to mention there are ballistic shields that can clip on to them to protect the face. Even with out
the vest the average soldiers LBV will stop all but the luckiest shot form your sold called weapon.
The weapon can be made out of PVC piping as well and you can do it all with washers and epoxy or bondo, same as with the
brass pipe. With epoxy mount the scope on the receiver and NOT on the PVC. At the rate of fire you will be using heat is not a
problem.
You have a poor understanding of weapons and tactics. My advice quit watching saturday morning cartoons, reading comic
books, and watching hollywood movies for the info on weapons and tactics.
JDAM
DBSP October 26th, 2003, 04:49 PM

What the fuck, couldn't you have posted the entire thread while you where at it????:mad:
Couldn't you just have replied to what you wanted without quoting his entire fucking post??
DON'T do that again!!!
DropNazi October 28th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Now I happen to have just gotten new body armor at work so.. I have some old body armor that seems rather lonely...So if
anyone is in the Los Angeles area I will let some one shoot me point blank in the chest wearing the vest 5 times with your
2.5in bolt action rifle with the epoxy and pve silencer if i can take 1 shot at them with a practical rifle like an ar15 as theyre
running away with their hacked .22 whith the epoxied and plastic silencer at around 100 yards or so. any takers?
The pictures of the deers heads are nice but as a fair comparison you must also do the same test with other calibers as well
dont you think? fairs fair. 7.62x39, .223, .308, .375H&H? 12 gauge slugs?
::Be Carefull JDAM though you are 100% correct that being only your 6th post they will assume you dont know anything. And
this being my first post with this username they'll probably block me again oh well... ::
DeviantSaint October 28th, 2003, 11:53 AM

Again I think we are getting carried away with this a bit.
We know that silenced .22 weapons can be useful in certain situations.

we know that they HAVE been used before with some success.
Most of us seem to have doubts as to the combat effectiveness of such a round.
just about all of us agree that a 3 inch or so barrel is a bit to short on a rifle.
though, a lot of revolvers have short barrels like that to be fair. However, I dont recommend chopping a rifle.
Either way, my personal opinion is that the problem is being approached bass-ackwards. Although it's good to be able to
improvise weapons when neccessary, you shouldn't get carried away with "wouldn't it be cool if..." type of thinking.
Ask yourself what the problem/scenerio is most likely to be, and then determine the most efficient way to solve that problem.
IMO anyway.
Right now we are seeing an insurgency war getting fought in Iraq. I'm sure there are other people besides me who are taking
notes from this board. There's no sense in letting yourself get lost in the fantastic possibilities when you have a real world
situation that you can learn from.

I beleive that there is not much point in sawing off a .22 rifle below about a 10" - 15" barrel unless you are going for
maximum concealability.
Cutting the barrel real short may limit the velocity, but it also creates a much larger muzzle flash/blast that is harder to
silence. It also SEVERELY impairs accuracy because the rifling is only in contact with the bullet for a very short amount of time
and because of this the bullet is not stabilised. You may say that pistols are accurate with short barrels, but rifle barrels are
made with much slower twists than pistol barrels, and a pistol will never be as accurate as a rifle of similar quality.
Use subsonics if you want low velocities :rolleyes: .
And BTW, if you have any concerns about stopping power, go for a cowboy rifle chambered in .357 Mag. You can fire .357 for
maximum stopping power in nasty situations, or you can fire .38 Special (already subsonic and works fine in .357 weapons)
with a silencer for those situations where stealth is required. The downside is that although they have a high rate of fire,
cowboy rifles are not as accurate at bolt action rifles, but it would be very difficult to find a bolt action chambered for .357,
unless you had it custom made.
DeviantSaint October 28th, 2003, 08:03 PM

by cowboy rifle, do you mean a lever action rifle?
*ponders*
I don't see how (unless it's all you have access to) that would be a good choice.
Could you explain your reasons for it's suitability?
xyz December 5th, 2003, 11:59 PM

Sorry about the late reply, I haven't read this thread in ages.
All I meant was any rifle chambered in .357Mag that has a tubular magazine. This is so that it can feed .38 Special (a normal
box magazine can't do this).
MP5Guy December 6th, 2003, 04:56 AM

Your a thinker with regard to weapons and their function, I like that... XYZ there is a difference between a "Clip" and a
"Magazine" see insert and judge for yourself.
MP
xyz December 6th, 2003, 09:03 AM

Yeah, I knew that (doh...), what I really meant to say was a box magazine (or drum :) ), as a tubular magazine is still a
magazine.
I have edited my post to correct it, calling a magazine a "clip" is a bad habit that I have picked up from PC games and movies
:( .

Just as a thought for the board:
All those people worried about the reduction in velocity from the cut-down barrel, there is a simple and obvious way round that
problem.
Eley, amongst others, make ammo in .22 specifically for short barrelled pistols and revolvers. The powder charge is designed
to burn completely before the round exits the muzzle.
If you shoot this stuff out of a rifle, the report is a lot less than normal, as the powder is very cool, and there are fewer sparks,
etc.
This will mean that your silencer won't get full of unburnt powder and shit, and the flash will be lower, and you should get
better accuracy.
For what it is worth, pistols are not less accurate than rifles. I have seen video of wheelguns being used to hit targets at 300+
meters, and seen a 7.62mm "pistol" that hits targets at 1000 yards+ every time. Compared to a .22 rifle or a BP rifle or
musket, they are certainly more accurate at these ranges.
With a good load, pistols can be very repeatable. It is just that semi-auto pistols hide this very well!

He was actually cutting the barrel to a ridiculous length to try to reduce the velocity to subsonic levels, I have no idea why he
seemed to be ignoring the obvious, subsonic ammo.
The trouble with shortening rifle barrels is that they no longer stabilise the bullet (they have a much slower rifling twist than
pistol barrels and need to be a lot longer), if the bullet is not properly stabilised, then accuracy will go to shit after about 25m.
The only way that I can see around this problem is to get a specialty .22 rifle barrel with a twist that is twice the normal rate
(they make these for target shooting with Aguila SSS ammo, which is 60grain). In this way, you could have a barrel that is half
the length but still stabilises .22LR properly. Even then, you would only be able to cut the barrel down to 8" or 9" before
stabilisation became a problem.
A 7.62mm pistol may be able to hit a target at 1000+ yards, but there are 7.62mm precision rifles that will manage 0.2MOA
and could theoretically hit a 2" circle at that distance, in practice, it is closer to 3" or 4" but much better than you would ever
get from a pistol.
EDIT: Go here to have a look at some precision rifles http://users.bigpond.com/pdunnprs/faqs/products/products.html
We exported some 7.62 Sniping Equipment a while ago. The first three shot group that rifle fired during testing was measured
at one fifth of an inch at 200 yards. That is less than one tenth of M.O.A. - and about usual for our MilSpec rifles in this
calibre.
Now lets see you get that kind of accuracy with a pistol :)
ossassin December 6th, 2003, 09:33 PM

Keep in mind that as you shorten the barrel, you increase the flash. For example, an M4A1 with a standard 14" barrel has a
HUGE flash. It's 20" counterpart, the M16, has a much smaller one. Also, make sure that you're using a caliber that can
function well with slow bullets. The .223, for example, is useless unless the bullet is going 2500-2700 fps. The same goes for
the .22, which is pretty useless at a distance, anyway. I realize that the main topic is the .22, but the quote about the .30 cal
rounds confused me. :D
Also, 1/10 MOA is unheard of. No rifle is capable of that.

I have already mentioned that short barrels will increase the flash, and like Jack's Complete has said, the use of pistol
ammunition (.22LR with faster burning powders) should reduce this.
Yes, this topic is concerned mostly with .22LR, the quote about the .30cal rifles was just to show that pistols will never be
capable of the same accuracy as rifles of similar quality. It is my participation in the short barrel vs. long barrel debate.
Look at the link and some of those groups and you'll see what I mean. The rifles normally can't make 1/10th of a MOA, it is
usually closer to 0.2 or 0.25 MOA. They are VERY carefully made bolt action rifles that are designed for the absolute maximum
in long range accuracy.
NickSG December 7th, 2003, 12:20 AM

I can hit a one gallon milk jug with my 2 inch M85...at 100 yards. Rifles arent that much more accurate than pistols, since the
rifling spins much tighter with short barrels. Although the trajectory for short barreled guns is often lower, they will always be
the same vertically. Not to mention it takes much more talent to hit with a handgun then rifle.

I know that pistols have a much faster twist, read the last 5 - 10 posts I have made in this thread.
Yeah, you can hit a one gallon milk jug with your pistol, but you could hit the lid from the jug with a decent rifle (not even a
precision rifle, any scoped rifle that will manage 1MOA, which most do).
Anyway, lets stop this argumant about pistols and rifles, a pistol may be all that is needed in the situation that this thread is
talking about. A pistol can also be concealed much more easily. I would still much prefer a rifle if I had to depend on it to kill/
disable an armoured soldier at 100m using only subsonic .22LR. Each to his own I suppose...
ossassin December 7th, 2003, 02:30 AM

xyz, I didn't see that you'd already addressed the barrel flash problem, and I apologize. .25 MOA is considered excellent for a
sniper rifle, and even .5 is fairly good. To be considered "sniper quality," they usually just have to be under 1 MOA.
NickSG, the longer the barrel is, the more accurate the rifle is (assuming the construction is the same), because a: rifle
calibers have more power, which increases the effective range, b: rifling does make a difference, but barrel length matters
more, and c: the longer the barrel is, the more power the projectile has, which increases the effective range.
Explanations:
A: High-powered rifle calibers obviously have more muzzle energy and a higher velocity. This makes them flatter shooters,
which increases accuracy, unless you're from Kentucky. (seasoned American shooters should get this one :).)
B: Tighter rifling does, in many cases, mean more accuracy. However, rifling can be too tight. It is crucual that you choose an
appropriate rifling for your bullet weight and length. For example, the M16A1, which shot 55 grain short bullets, had 1:12
rifling, while the M16A2, which shoots longer 62 grain bullets, has 1:7 rifling. The tighter rifling is necessary to stablize the
larger bullets. However, assuming that the rifling is appropriate for your caliber and loads, the barrel length makes a huge
difference. For example, the M4A1 with a 14" barrel is not nearly as accurate as the M16A2 with a 20" barrel. They have the
same cartridge and rifling, but the difference in accuracy is like night and day.
NOTE: Tighter rifling in the M4 would NOT increase accuracy! It would not be able to handle a projectile of that size, and it
would simply burn up the barrel. The 1:7 wears out easily already.
C: Longer barrels have much more power. I'll use the M16 and M4 for examples again. The M4 has had take-down problems
at medium ranges. At those ranges, the bullet cannot properly yaw and fragment, so it is basically like being shot with a
.22LR. The M16, however, has had no such problems, and as long as the ranges aren't past 600-800m or so, it should be
fine.
The difference in power also means a difference in effective ranges, not just in the field of terminal ballistics, but in flatness of
trajectory. All things drop with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. The faster the bullet gets to the target, the less it drops on the
way; it's that simple.
EDIT: xyz, you must have been typing yours while I was typing mine. Anyway, I'll have to disagree with you when you said that
any reasonable scoped rifle would be able to hit, or even graze, a milk cap at 200 yards. If the milk cap is 1" wide, and it is
200 yards away, the rifle would have to be .25 MOA or less. This means it would have to be an EXTREMELY accurate sniper
rifle.
I do agree with you when you said that you'd rather use a rifle than .22 LR subsonic ammo against an armored soldier. That
wouldn't even get through a flak jacket. It would only work in hit-and-run with one or two people attacking.

It was 100 yards, not 200... I understand 1MOA to mean 1" group diameter at 100 yards. With the top to the milk jug being
ever so slightly over 1" in diameter, I think you should hit it with 1 MOA.
I think you misunderstood my comment about preferring a rifle, while I would definitely prefer a decent centrefire, what I
meant was: If I had to use a subsonic .22LR to put down an armoured soldier at 100m, then I would much prefer a .22 rifle
than a .22 pistol to stand a better chance of hitting somewhere where it counts.
Like I said, I would much prefer a centrefire to .22LR
NickSG December 7th, 2003, 02:51 PM

You guys are comparing two completely different things.
First of all, I did not use a scope. I was also using a low powered pistol round, so comparing a .38 snub with a high tech fancy
pants .223 with a scope wont get you anywhere. Put that .223 in a pistol barrel and add a decent scope and you will get just as
tight of groups with about the same trajectory.
I know the longer the barrel is, the more power you get, but the last couple of inches of barrel wont make too much of a
difference. Look at the .22. Out of a 6 1/2 inch barrel, a 40 grain solid gets 1100 FPS, while out of a 18 inch barrel, it only gets
1250 FPS. The same goes with just about every other bullet out there. I witnessed one of my good friends get a 2 inch 5 shot
group with his .30-06 pistol at 150 yards.
Comparing rifles with handguns is like comparing bikes and automobiles. With a rifle, even with a 10 inch barrel, you have
many more advantages than with a pistol of the same barrel length.

xyz,
The pistol I was talking about was a match grade action, long barrelled pistol, and it is a definate piss-take. However, it is a
pistol, and it shot (shoots?) better than 1MOA, rested. I only refered to it to make a point that you cannot just say "This is
more accurate than that, because this is a rifle, and that is a pistol".
The average AK is only good for 2-5 MOA, depending where it was made. There are souped up 1911 pistols that can beat that
easily.
I didn't realise the OP was talking about cutting a rifle barrel down to quite such stupidly short lengths. At two or three inches,
you are going to get a lot of inaccuracy as the muzzle blast continues to burn, and pushes randomly on the base and sides of
the bullet.
Besides, anyone cutting the barrel that short is bound to screw up the crown, which wrecks accuracy anyway!
I would use a decent potato gun as my primary weapon before a .22 cut down to those barrel lengths, unless it was a damned
good weapon, rather than a dodgy homemade one. At least the 'tater would have some knockdown on a slightly hardened
target.

NickSG and everyone else, let's stop this short barrel/long barrel debate before it gets like the "Does Flash detonate?" one.
All it really boils down to is whether you would depend on your weapon of choice to take out an armoured soldier at 100yards,
knowing that if you miss you'll probably be dead. If you are happy to try this with a pistol then that's your choice, but let's stop
arguing about it.
PHAID December 7th, 2003, 07:42 PM

There is no pistol made that will ever compare to a rifle.
It is simple ballistics, you need to get velocity to get the range you need and a short barrel of a pistol will never do it no mater
how hot the load is.
Most "sniper rifles" of a larger caliber still have at least 100+ inches of drop at 1000 meters so to get that from a pistol you
may as well aim for the moon and hope that it drops on target.
It is pointless to get 1MOA groups if your round has the stopping power of a bb at range.
90% of normal shooters couldnt hit a man sized target past 500 meters with a rifle and scope let alone a pistol.
Pace off 500 meters and show me a good group with enough power to do fatal damage with a pistol or short barrel rifle to
prove me wrong

You do know that most target pistols have 10 inch + barrels. You need to stop thinking we are comparing .38 special snubbies
with .30-06s with 26 inch barrels. I was just showing that a 2 inch barrel is more accurate than most people think.
Also, like I said earlier, the trajectories of a pistol and rifle are different, but vertically there is no difference.

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I realize that we're talking about pistol calibers and not rifle calibers, but my .223
example was simply to make a point about barrel length. Barrel length makes a huge difference in muzzle velocity, energy,
and bullet stability. Nick, I don't know how you can say that barrel length doesn't affect bullet drop. I basically proved that it
does in my last post.
To sum-up what I said, since the acceleration of gravity is equal for all falling bodies, the only thing that affects a bullet's drop
is its velocity. Since a longer barrel increases bullet velocity, it would decrease bullet drop.
Also, a 2-inch barrel would be the quivalent of a little snub-nose, so I think that's EXACTLY what we're talking about.
As far as the milk cap situation goes, it was late, and I thought it was 200 :). Regardless, the rifle would have to be .5 MOA,
which is still sniper-quality. (MOA refers to radius, not diameter.)

Ok, I will say this one more time.
The barrels length does not effect accuracy, only trajectory. This means if you set a twenty foot long 2x4 200 yards away, and
aim for the top, both a pistol and rifle will hit it, only the pistol would hit a little lower.

The barrel length does affect accuracy. A sniper rifle with a barrel under 24" is unheard of. We'll use the 9mm as an example.
Are you really trying to convince people that an M9 pistol is as accurate as an MP5 SMG? Sniper rifles with barrels shorter than
24" are unheard of, and with good reason.

Osassin, NickSG has posted some useful stuff but right now I'm getting that "wall" feeling too...
NickSG, Of course barrel length affects accuracy, I thought you were actually fairly knowledgeable when it came to firearms but
that statement was the kind of thing that could have gotten you banned if you were a n00b...
Here is a simple experiment for you to try, take a drinking straw and a tissue, take a piece of tissue and wet it and then use
the straw as a "pea shooter" to blow the tissue out at something. Observe the accuracy that you get. Now cut the straw down to
2cm and try again. See what we're talking about?
A longer barrel means that the projectile spends a longer time period being persuaded to go in as straight a line as possible.
If barrel length doesn't affect accuracy, then can you show us a 3-4MOA group from your .38 snubnose? ...didn't think so, and
there are plenty of rifles that will fire .38 special to 1-2MOA so don't blame the calibre. Don't blame the "pistols are harder to
aim" thing either, clamp it in a vice for shooting the groups.

Guys, please!
If you clamp a 2" barrel, and work up a nice load for it, you will get plenty of accuracy. You will need to play with charge, rate of
twist of the rifleing, etc. but you will get there. You will have no problem shooting super groups for your pistol.
Now, take that two inch barrel, and put it on a pistol grip, and shoot it. You won't be able to come close to the actual ability of
your barrel and load. This is because your sight radius is too short! Stick a scope on it, and you will be so put off by the
lightweight thing jumping up and down and swaying (due to heartbeat and wind) that you will find it hard to shoot at all well.
Now, turn your "pistol" into a "rifle" by adding a shoulder stock. Instantly, your stability will get ~5 times better!
The only difference between a single shot 9mm pistol, and an MP5, is that one has a shoulder stock, and the other doesn't! In
the hands of a pro, the pistol will be more accurate!
In 9mm, for example, a fair shot with a glock pistol will find that they get a group with half the vertical and horizontal
dispersion with an MP5. That is some improvement! However, the barrel length is very similar (although the MP5 has delayed
blowback, so is naturally more accurate) BUT the big difference is, the shoulder stock lets you sight better, and stay on target
better.
Barrel length has nothing to do with the distinction (though the law may say otherwise, but we all know the law is an ass!)
REMEMBER! The only difference between a rifle and a pistol is whether there is a shoulder stock or not!
Edit: To address a few other things:
You might be very surprised if you clamped the snub nosed revolver, and shot it next to the underlever. However, this isn't
fair, as the snub nose will lose a lot of gas through the cylinder/barrel join, so it will be less accurate. Use a single shot pistol,
and see the difference almost disappear.
Now cut your rifle barrel down to the same two inch length, and they will be almost impossible to tell apart.
Basically, you are all argueing the same thing, but from different veiwpoints.

The accuracy issue is kind of a waste of time.
First off it depends what you want to shoot at and at what ranges, then what you want to use.
If i am going for a tank at 100 meters i dont need 1MOA then if i happen to go for a mans eye at the same range then i want
the most accurate weapon i can get.
Pistols can and are very accurate as well as rifles so the main concern is application.
Now in the concept of a supressed sniper weapon you need to know what your target will be and what ranges you plan to
engage, to get the right load that has the terminal energy to take the target out. And of course the amount of sound
reduction you need need will also make a big differance in your choice.

Jack's Complete hit the nail on the head! Like I said already, there are many, many more advantages using a rifle over a
pistol. As long as the barrel and gun is well made the difference in accuracy will be minute.
No, I can not print 4 inch groups at 100 yards with my snub, but there are pistols than can easily print 1 inch groups at 100
yards.

Corrections on Jack's post:
1. He seems to think that semi-automatic pistols are single-shot pistols. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
2. "In the hands of a pro, the pistol will be more accurate!" PLEASE! What would a pyro be able to do? A gunsmith is what you
need.
3. "REMEMBER! The only difference between a rifle and a pistol is whether there is a shoulder stock or not!" I was so shocked
by this statement that I hardly know where to begin. Combat pistols do not usually have barrels longer than 5". This is a hell
of alot different than a rifle.
There is a reason why most military and SWAT squads use MP5's, rather than something like a MAC-10. Although the caliber is
the same, and a folding stock and a supressor make the MAC-10 just as stable as the MP5, the latter is significantly more
accurate, because it has a longer barrel. I hope that's the last example I'll have to give.
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that there is no such thing as a .22 sniper rifle. This thread is about .22's, so we should
really stick that that, but to say that the field of sniper rifles is even related to .22's is grossly inaccurate. Sniper rifles are sub-
MOA high-powered rifles that have an effective range of 800m+.
In response to PHAID's comment about application over accuracy, I'd like to say that pistols are pretty much worthless in most
cases unless in the hands of a Delta Force operator. There is a saying that says that Spec Ops groups would never use a pistol
in a rifle fight, but they would use a pistol to prevent one. Pistols are not extremely accurate, they are not very powerful, and
they are harder to control than rifles or SMG's. They are meant for use as a defensive weapon. Their only advantages are that
they are compact and that they are easily supressed (although SMG's are just as easy.)
Charlie Workman December 9th, 2003, 03:35 AM

The folks who build these things for a living generally like 9-10 inch barrels for pistol caliber rifles. Ossassin, I have to
disagree with you on a couple of points. The MAC-10 is not equally as accurate as the MP-5. The MAC has a flimsy wire stock
and a 5 inch barrel. The MP-5 has a good, solid stock and about an 8 inch barrel. The MAC fires from an open bolt, while the
MP-5 fires from a closed bolt. This last factor alone makes the MP-5 a more accurate weapon. I've fired both, and I have to
admit I liked the MP-5 better. Easier to keep on target in bursts and more solid feeling. The MAC was designed, according to
its designer, to "take out a room full of very surprised colonels". It's advantages for its role is concealabilty and high rate of
fire, about almost 50% faster than the MP-5. The Russians build a .22 caliber sniper rifle, the SV-99. It has a 14" barrel and
silencer. Breaks down into a nice, compact little package. They do consider the maximum range to be about 100-150 meters.
Do a websearch on SV-99 + rifle and you should find more about it. I have to agree with you about pistols being primarily
defensive weapons, in most instances. If you know trouble is coming, you would pick up something with a bit more oomph and
range.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Gidget
Charlie, I know which rifle you mean, and many such rifles are incorrectly labeled "sniper rifles." One example is the SVD. It
was meant to "extend the range of the average rifleman." A true sniper rifle is a sub-MOA rifle that is meant for long-range
one-shot kills. There is currently a debate going on as to if the M82 is a true sniper rifle. Since it is so heavy, it is hard for
sniper teams to carry them for extended amounts of time. It is also only 1 MOA.
As far as the .22 is concerned, it would only work well in ideal conditions. .22 bullets are blown off course VERY easily.

IIRC, The M82 is classed as an anti-material rifle, not a sniper rifle. Sniper rifles are designed primarily for anti-personnel use.
Anti-material rifles are designed primarily for use against vehicles, equipment, and personnel who are behind cover.
Charlie Workman December 12th, 2003, 03:33 AM

XYZ, your comment on the M-82 being an antimaterial rifle brought to mind my army days. The instructor told us that the fifty
cal M-2 HMG was considered to be too big to legally shoot at people. Therefore, if anyone was to ask us after the fact we were
to say they were riding in a truck when we opened fire!
Ossassin, your definition of sniper is pretty narrow. It is generally used for anyone firing a rifle from a concealed position to a
definite target. Police snipers shoot from an average range of 90 meters (FBI stats). The slimeballs in Maryland used a .223
"assault rifle", but few would argue that they were not snipers. Not the best or highly trained snipers, but you can't argue their
effectiveness. The Russians found out that the .22 can be very effective in urban warfare. The Chechens used scoped TOZ-17
training rifles with homemade silencers to good effect against them. Your comments on the range limitations are true, but in
this case, irrelevant. It all depends on your viewpoint. The Marines have a saying- "The Army sniper is the Marine Expert
Rifleman".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Gidget
Chemical_burn December 12th, 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by ossassin
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that there is no such thing as a .22 sniper rifle. This thread is about .22's, so we should
really stick that that, but to say that the field of sniper rifles is even related to .22's is grossly inaccurate.
Are you so apsolutly sure there is no .22cal sniper rifles in the world we take a look here at the SV-99 extreamly small light
weight and very good for close range fire 100m or less.
Also on a personaly note I have seen white tail deer(180lb large buck) hit in the head with a .22 mag at 80 to 90m and drop
like they were hit with a 183grain .30cal round.
I believe a .22cal lr or Mag would make an effective close range sniper weapon.
I personally would use a .45cal or 9mm carbine for the same ranges a lot more punch for roughly the same size and weight
also .45 cal and 9mm ammo is very abundent in most areas.
In a pintch if all i had was a small cal weapon I would perfer a reliable weapon like a .22cal its small light weight and
extreamly accurate little to no kick wich alows for extreamly radid accurate fire.

Chemical, there is no such thing as a close range sniper rifle. Just because someone is concealed, doesn't make them a
sniper. All true sniper rifles are meant for long range shooting; I still stand by what I said before. I've also already addressed
the SV-99. Take a look at some of my previous posts.

The definition of "sniper rifle" depends on your definition of a sniper. The media seems to define a sniper as anyone who
shoots people from a range of more than about 50m.
Anyway, it is pointless to argue about what a sniper rifle is. It doesn't really matter so long as people can understand what you
are talking about.
FragmentedSanity December 13th, 2003, 01:13 AM

I tihnk people are missing the point to this thread. It started off with a novel method of converting a .22 for use in built up
areas. Given calling it an urban sniper rifle is a bit of a stretch - but it appears IMO to be a nifty way of improving the
effectiveness of an otherwise ordinary rifle.
using the example of an old single shot .22 rifle - you have a weapon that is fairly loud (loud enough for a built up area
anyway) even when using sub soincs. If you put a silencer on the end of the rifle it becomes quite cumbersom due to the
added lenght. If the rifle was converted as described you now have a compact , relatively quiet rifle. Sure you'll loose some
accuracy and some power but it would still be effective, the old barrell was probably fairly worn to begin with and your effective
range on a .22 isnt that great at the best of times - a little practice witht he converted rifle will show you exactly what its
capable of and then you work within its capabilities.
This isnt something Id do to a decent .22 rifle tho - it would be a waste to chop the barrel of a highly accurate target rifle off -
IMO such a weapon would be more effective as is. That to me is the most important idea behind the thread - using whatever
is at hand most effectivley. Sure if youve got a bunch of nice guns you never need to think about converting a measly .22 as
described origionally - but if that .22 is all you had access too then its in your best interest to make it as effective as possible
for your situation. Take the idea and adjust it to your preferences - if you need a 10" barrel - then leave it on and use sub
sonics - which are far less common than .22 lr - that being the only reason I can see for using the lenght of the barrel to
decrease the speeds to sub sonic - if the shit hit the fan you might not be able to get subsonic rounds - therefor knowing how
to utilize .22lr's in their place becomes quite handy.
IMO Making the best of whats available should be the direction for this thread takes - not comparing the .22 to your flashy
assult rifle or you .25 MOA sniper rifle. Or arguing over the effects the barrel lenght has on accuracy. Sure its important to note
the deficiencies of the rifle described - but thats been covered already.
Im still hoping that someone does a conversion as described and posts pics and results so we could all look at proof instead
of conjecture. SWIM is working on it but its taking a damn long time - rifle acquisition down under can be problematic -
hopesfully someone else comes through in the meantime.

I agree that this thread has gone for a bit of a wander around since the original topic. The thing about the assault rifles and
the sniper rifles all came out of the debate about how short to cut the barrel, but it is off topic and we should try to get this
thread back on track again.
Anyway, good luck with finding a rifle, check garage sales and stuff, or simply find a barrel and build your own .22 from that.
The barrel is the only part of the gun that really needs to be commercially produced, the rest can be made.
Do you have those F@(%$# annoying magpie crows in your part of Australia? The ones that swoop down to peck people's
heads if they are too close to the nest? Anyway, one of my friends told me a story about the old man that lives next door to
him. Some magpie crows had taken up residence in the trees on the old man's property and were greatly annoying him. The
old man spent several days in his shed during which welding and metalworking could be heard, and then he emerged with a
homemade single-shot .22LR and shot all the crows. It turned out that he had made every part of the rifle except for the
barrel, which had been sitting in his shed for years.

Your right about finding a rifle, Im lucky in that I live in a rural area and lots of farms have old .22's - the hard part is
convincing them to part with it.
Yeah - Ive got magpies here too - nasty little bastards arent they - apparently its hormonal and they cant help it - they are
just nuts in that season!
Making your own guns is probably the easiest way to get them in Australia - unless youve got a decent bankroll and the right
contacts. Making the barrel is the hardest part - unlike a lot of people tho I dont have a problem using smooth bore barrels
on improvised guns, I dont expect a whole lot of accuracy out of a home built weapon to begin with - but a propper rifeled
barrel would be handy if you can get it.
Do you happen to know if you can buy those .22 barrle liners without a licence? If you can get them they would really be the
best way to improvise a barrel.
But SWIM is still going to try and aquire a real .22 and do the conversion just so we get some accurate information on it and
what such a set up is capable of - if it could reliably give a head shot a 50m then Id consider it quite functional. If it cant
manage a torso hit at 50m then Id agree with those who say its a useless idea - but I expect it would be ok - not fantastic,
but a handy little gun.

I would do my best to try and find a commercially made barrel if possible, don't expect much accuracy otherwise.
A 6mm smoothbore barrel made from drilled out bar stock is OK for close range, but you want a commercial barrel for reaching
out and touching things.
walbern December 14th, 2003, 01:32 AM

I found the following article addressing the subject of shortening the barrel to 2.5 in
The entire article can be found at
http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/wildlife.html
Excerpt follows.........................
The Use of Firearm Sound Suppressors for Wildlife Management
by Mark White
we own a small company called Sound Technology, which has supplied municipalities and private contractors with firearm
s o u n d s u ppressors over the pas t twenty years. For the most part, we s upply sound reduction devices for small caliber a rms
primarily .22 LR rifles, a few pistols, and an occasional .308 rifle.
In the firearm sound suppression industry a tremendous amount of effort has been expended toward limiting the velocity of
common high-speed .22 LR projectiles. Typically this is done by shortening barrels by either cutting them off, or by drilling
holes (ports). For a combination of reasons we have found that barrels shorter than four inches are not particularly accurate,
while barrels between six and seven inches long are as accurate or are more accurate than .22 LR barrels up to thirty inches
long.
irish December 14th, 2003, 06:34 AM

FragmentedSanity, you can buy and own barrels here (any barrels) without a licence, the only part you need to have a licence
to own and a permit to buy is the action or recever (sp?). If you go to a gun show you will be able to get barrels is most
calibers you could want :D .
I have seen gun parts and even complete guns at markets and clearing sales too.

That's nice to know irish. BTW, do you (or anyone else) know what gunsmiths in Australia have to do to a firearm to certify it
as deactivated?
I know that the barrel and chamber are welded closed, but what else? Do they remove the entire action?
irish December 14th, 2003, 05:59 PM
xyz,
I think they also have to grind the firing pin flat with the bolt face and I presume that they weld it too, otherwise it's easy to
replace a firing pin on most guns.
I have never tried to reactivate a welded gun but to save the barrel you would need to grind out all the welded bit (after cutting
it open) and then re-ream the chamber, this would be ok with a .22lr or any strait wall cartridge but a pain in the youknowhats
for anything else. They do sell chamber reamers in some gunshops.
You will probably have to make your own bolt to reactivate a gun but a lot of "bits" would be saveable.

Barrels are completely un-registered in Oz? Wow, then I suggest stocking up on a few in the calibers you want.
The UK says that every part that bears pressure, like barrel, bolt, silencer, etc. is classed as a "part of a firearm" and is
restricted.
Weirdly, air rifle silencers are legal, but the second you put one on a firearm, it becomes a restricted part. What's really weird
is that air rifles over 12ftlbs/16 joules are classed as firearms too, and are subject to the same laws as firearms.
Uk gun law is fucked. Oz laws are nearly as bad.
xyz, Oz isn't the only country suffering from "tyranny of the majority". At least the Iraqis can tell the bad guys.
In the UK and Oz, they often have the same accent and skin colour...
FragmentedSanity December 14th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Nice to know barrels arent restricted - I thought seeing as the laws were so strict about everything else gun related I wouldnt
stand a chance - hence the question about the liners. I'll have to get to a gun show sometime soon. Then all I need to do is
to come up with a way of buying ammo - someone friendly with a licence is about my only hope - can t buy primers - cant buy
powder - hell you cant even buy air rifle pellets anymore and I used to be able to walk into a gunshop when I was 11 and buy
them...
walbern - that was a damn nice article you pointed us to. Maybe now we can all just agree on using 6inch barrels as a
compromise.

I c ouldnt handle a place where your restricted to the level you are.
For here in the USA the only parts restrictions are on recievers for non FFL holders.
I remember Shotgun News advertising silencer kits several years ago but those have been taken off the market.
Here is a link to their site, you may find suppliers for your country listed.
https://store.primediamags.com/subscribe/shotgunnews/4078
Here is their direct link.

http://www.shotgunnews.com/knox/

restricted
I think you'll find you are incorrect. Barrels are not illegal in the uk for the common man to own, unless they have been
chambered for a cartridge, after which they become illegal. Firearm silencers aren't restricted either.

Irish, why would I bother grinding out the barrel welds when I could just buy a new barrel?
Re-activating a de-activated firearm would be easier than building one from scratch. BTW, you can buy chamber reamers fairly
cheaply online and as far as I know they are not restricted in any way in Australia. I have seen .22LR chamber reamers for
around $35USD.

I'm not sure how much easier it would be to reactivate a deactivated firearm - current EU specs require a lot of metal removal,
and it's always a lot harder to put it back on than take it away. Check this page for info on what's done to UK deacts http://
www.rusmilitary.com/html/c-deact_ak74m.htm
I wonder does anyone know what it's like for chamber reamers in the UK? Would it be legal to import them?

zaibatsu,
both barrels and silencers are illegal or legal, depending on circumstance.
A silencer is legal, unless you put it on a firearm, without a legal slot on your FAC, on which it states that you may have a
firearm silencer. At the point of attachment, you have have committed an offence, which, on summary conviction, can get you
up to ten years inside. However, if you have an air rifle (or even if you don't) you can buy one off-ticket. Once it is put onto
your FAC, it is classed as part of a firearm, and has to be kept locked up in the same way as your bolt, ammo, etc. Yes, it is
stupid, but it is the law.
As for barrels, good luck argueing with the judge. The moment you cut rifleing into it, you are probably in trouble. Hell, even
before that, you could get done, since it COULD be a shotgun barrel, or a smoothbore slug gun barrel. Basically, get caught
with machine tools and anything approching a set of instructions, along with a barrel, or even just a chamber reamer, and you
could well be looking at jail time. Once you have fired something though it, like a proof round, then it is certainly a barrel, and
you are definately in trouble if it isn't in a valid slot on your ticket. If you don't have a ticket, you will go to jail. If you do, you
won't for much longer, and you still might go to jail.
An example of this is the fact that if you own a BP pistol, you need a full slot for another pistol, if you want to own a second
cylinder for it!
In fact, there are just two parts that are definately not going to get you into trouble, one is a magazine, and the other is a
telescopic sight. Anything else can be used to build a case against you, and, needless to say, they would then use the sight
and the magazine against you as well!
Reactivation of a modern, legally de-activated gun in the UK is a lost cause, really. The bolt face is generally cut away, and the
barrel is blocked, the rod welded in place, then a hole drilled, which is often then refilled and drilled again, so that there is a
big weak area with the small pressure hole in it, meaning the whole barrel needs to be swapped out. The action is sometimes
welded shut, too.
The UK has the strictest de-act standards in the world, afaik. There was a massive stink back in 1988, or something like that,
and they tightened up the law a lot in this area. For all the good it did.
zaibatsu December 15th, 2003, 09:53 PM

restricted
A silencer is legal, unless you put it on a firearm, without a legal slot on your FAC
Those two statements are contradictory. They either are restricted, or they aren't. Yes, when you apply for a FAC you do need
to state you will be using a moderator, but it's not so strict if you don't, although you do need to pay a fee to modify your
licence if you decide to use one later on. Firearm silencers aren't restricted.
The fact that you can buy an unchambered barrel is just that, a fact, as people that regularly read "Gun Mart" will have noticed
a company called Sabre Defence offering barrel blanks in quite a few calibres about a year ago.

Yes, the law is contradictory. So what is new?
Ask the local firearms licensing department for guidance. I'm not a lawyer, and nor are they, but they are the ones who will
arrest you. Take it from me, you put a silencer on anything capable of more than 12ftlbs, and you are breaking the law.
Once you put it on a firearm, it becomes a restricted part.
A way around the law is to buy a firearm or shotgun that has a non-detachable built-in silencer.
As an example of the screwed up nature of the UK firearms law:
The 1997 Act prohibits all handguns except:

< snip >
* firearms which are regarded as antique under the Home Departments' guidelines, provided that they are held as a curiosity
or ornament.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/gunlaw.html
I know for a fact that if you wish to shoot your antique firearm, even for one shot, you need to apply for, or have varied, an
FAC to cover it. You may then use it. At the end of that time, you may have it removed from your certificate, and not use it
EVEN THOUGH it is exactly the SAME gun!
See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/antfiar.html for more BS from the home office.
To the best of my knowledge, the exact same is true of silencers. I can't find chapter and verse online, but I can find out for
you if you really want it.
As for buying barrels, were they not banned that under "parts of a firearm" in the 1997/8 Acts?
Certainly I haven't seen any recently, and google comes up dry...
Again, I know what I said about the extra cylinders for a .44 BP pistol is true, too. Some police forces won't allow extra BP
pistol cylinders at all!
lamar pye January 4th, 2004, 02:08 PM

Mark white is a pro in the manufacturing of .22 suppressed rifles. What he says about barrel length and accuracy is right on
the money, a barrel thats 6.5 inches and ported to drop the velocity is incredibly accurate. 5 shots inside a bottlecap at
55yards is the norm useing bulk federal ammo from walmart. The problem that most folks have is lining the bore to the
baffels. The barrel has to be turned down on a lathe with a live center and have a 2 point mount.....single point mounts are
susceptable to damage very easily if they are bumped. The .22 is very lethal if proper shot placement is made, but I would
prefer a silenced .45 carbine or a 9mm firing 147 grain subsonic FMJ.
ossassin January 19th, 2004, 02:15 PM

Accuracy is important, but so is bullet drop. With that little 6.5 inch ported barrel, if your target is a few hundred yards away,
it'll become an indirect-fire weapon. :)
lamar pye January 19th, 2004, 09:04 PM

If your intended target is a few hundred yards away a .22 is not the rifle to use. There is an old saying about using the right
tool for the job and knowing the limitations of each. A suppressed .22 is a 100 yard weapon plain and simple, mind you it
depends what you're shooting at as well.
FragmentedSanity January 19th, 2004, 10:22 PM

Why would anyone one be shooting at at a trget a "few hundred yards away" with a .22lr that has a 6 inch barrel?
Of course bullet drop is important. So is shot placement - target acquisition -and any number of factors you care to name.
The most important thing is knowing the capabilities of your gun/round and working within them - Ive shot a lot of .22lr's over
the years - but I wouldt try and hit anything other than a target at over 150meters - range on .22s is always limited.

The .22LR will kill pretty easily within about 500 yards, so if you can adjust your scope to shoot high, aim several feet above
the target. Ammo choice is also important. A 30 grain bullet @ 1750 FPS will have a flatter trajectory than a 38 grain bullet @
1050.
irish January 20th, 2004, 04:33 AM

A .22lr will kill what pretty easily within 500 yards? even if you push them up to 2000 fps a slug of 40 grains much less 30, will
have bugger all killing power past 200 meters at the most.
To get that sort of range and do something usefull when it gets there a bullet has to go very fast (think 3000 fps range) or be
a lot heavyer than a .22 can fire.
The .22lr is an exellent caliber but I think some people give it a bit more credit than it's due, it may well be a very good
snipeing round in some situations but 100 meters is going to be about the maximum range for human sized targets.
Narkar January 20th, 2004, 05:25 AM

If you can shoot it accurately, and if it penetrates the skull then it can kill. Like FragmentedSanity said: you need to work
within the limits of this weapon. That means not try to shoot someone over 100m. You usually dont need to shoot much
farther in urban enviroment anyway.
Ammonal January 20th, 2004, 06:46 AM

Yes but the point being that this is the concept of a suppressed urban sniper rifle, small calibre, .22LR is to develop a weapon
that is useful in urban situations which means you wouldnt be shooting several hundred yards only a hundred at most. This is
more like fifty yards for the distance I would use this weapon against human targets because it is only intentioned for close
range. If you wanted to hit something at 500 yards use a suppressed .308 (by this I mean muzzle flash and blast suppressor)
around buildings you would have enough time for the sound to disperse and be redirected to disguise the firing point. But that
isnt the question being asked it is about a small calibre (.22LR) sniper rifle. I am guessing it might be a weapon for picking
off sentries (ie 2 people max) anything bigger than that well...<RANT> a .50BMG vulcan and a few thousand rounds ammo
and a MBT and ... </RANT>
But dont get me wrong here I am certainly not questioning the capabilities of the .22LR but it just seems that this topic has
taken on a lot bigger scope than was originally intended. This may have something to do with availability of .22LR pretty much
anywhere or maybe it was the thread starter's preference to use .22LR I dont really know but maybe some realignment of this
thread could be useful.

Irish- I said that the .22LR can kill out to 500 yards, not blow their head off and knock them off their feet. ;)
It only takes about 20 FPE to kill a grown man, and some .22 loads can have about three times that amount at 500 yards. Its
all about shot placement. A good hit to the neck or head will easily proove fatal, even at 500 yards.
However, do know that I am not suggesting anyone try to take anything at 500 yards. I just stated that it will have enough
energy to kill.
ossassin January 20th, 2004, 09:43 PM

Gosh, guys, I was just making a point. I realize that no one is going to use this at several hundred yards, but the fact that
you'd have to use indirect fire tactics with it at that range shows that the bullet drop with such a rifle is huge. Going back to
what I said quite a while ago, I'd rather lengthen the barrel to get some extra power.
Miller January 21st, 2004, 12:28 AM

I think that you all are forgetting that in most situations that a civilian would be in, a kill is not essential. If any bullet hits
some one it is human nature for that person to hit the deck. Even if you missed and only hit your target in the hand it would
still take them out of commision for a couple of seconds, posibly enough time to get another shot off before they take cover.
No one here would ever use a low powered rifle such as the .22 for an assasination unless one had a handgun to the targets
head.
In a resistance situation, as described in the original post, a silenced .22 would be very practical just becaue of the volume of
shots a shooter could get off before the target knew where they were coming from. In an organized attack, a group could keep
a steady volly of shots into a group of exposed occupation forces.
At the end of the day each weapon has its porpose and each individual needs to look at thier own situation and determine for
themselves which weapon would be the best.
Narkar January 21st, 2004, 08:21 AM

But maybe it would be better to build urban suppresed sniper rifle out of a semi-auto .22lr target pistol by putting a
suppressor and a stock for it and attaching a scope? If you cut the rifle short, its rifling doesnt do its work anymore, but
pistol's rifling is more tight so no accuracy is lost. You could also hide it better since you can take off the suppressor, optics
and stock.
Jacks Complete January 21st, 2004, 03:22 PM

Narker,
that is a good plan, but pistols are generally more highly regulated than rifles.
Plus, with the cut-off barrel parts, you can make at least one more improvised weapon.
You are wrong about the rifling too, as the twist is dependant on the bullet weight, but not the velocity or barrel length.
xyz January 21st, 2004, 09:10 PM

Jacks Complete, I think he meant that the rifling is tighter, not that it has a faster twist rate.
To continue Narkar's idea, you could build your design on a rifle that had been modified to accept a pistol barrel. This is easy
with the TC Contender/Encore because both rifle and pistol versions are available that take the same size barrels (but not the
same length of course). Unfortunately, these are single shot, you would need to do a bit of modification to get a pistol barrel
onto a boltaction or semi auto rifle.
PHAID January 22nd, 2004, 08:42 AM

You can also do that with the AR-7 if you can find the pistol barrels Charter Arms used to have.
The lug on the barrel is 180 out on them so you need to notch them to fit.
I believe the barrels were 9" long and once you took the front sight off they were 1/2" in dia. which is perfect for threading .
ossassin January 22nd, 2004, 09:13 AM

Miller, I think you are forgetting that a second shot is much riskier than the first. In an urban setting, it will give away your
position almost every time (depending on the situation). Also, remind me why this thing needs to have a short barrel. A few
extra inches would make a world of difference with accuracy and bullet drop, but it wouldn't be much harder to handle. If
anything, a longer barrel makes the rifle steadier.
(By the way, I guess no one else thought that the indirect-fire .22 thing was funny. I was rolling.) :)
FragmentedSanity January 23rd, 2004, 10:02 AM

The idea behind the short barrel was to make regualr .22lr ammo fire at subsonic velocities, making a very quiet weapon when
combined with a suppressor.
The whole short/long barrel debate started because the original concept called for a 2 inch barrel, which most people instantly
dismissed as being too short to fire accurately - It has since been shown that a barrel of 4 - 6 inches will do much the same
while retaining much greater accuracy. Different ammo fires at different speeds, I believe the idea behind the extremely short
barrel was so ANY ammo would be sub-sonic.
A removeable stock for a .22 pistol would obviously make for a superior weapon than a cut down rifle, IMO it would be a very
nice weapon indeed - but if you can get a .22 pistol you wouldnt be looking at making something effectively the same, but of
lesser quality. Remember we are talking about "improvising" things - trying to make the best out of whats on hand, so while a
good idea, its not practical in this situation.
xyz January 23rd, 2004, 09:31 PM

Because pistols can be hard to obtain, that's why I suggested obtaining just the pistol barrel and fitting it to a rifle
A barrel of 4 - 6 inches will push a lot of ammo over the speed of sound. The only real answer is to use subsonic ammunition
or port the barrel. Porting will create excessive muzzle flash if the ports are not covered by the suppressor, if they are covered
then it will create problems with unburnt powder building up inside the suppressor. This would mean that the suppressor had to
be fully dismantled and cleaned much more often than normal. You can't port a barrel properly without machine tools,
attempts to do so with a drill will make the barrel extremely inaccurate.
As I have said several times earlier in this thread, just get some subsonic ammunition. It is usually about the same price as
regular ammo and it will save a lot of hassle. Most gun shops should have it.
As a sidenote, I was thinking how effective it would be to add a supressor, scope, and stock to one of the 10" barreled desert
eagles and use 310 grain subsonic .44 mag loads :) . Unfortunately this can't exactly be improvised :p .
atr January 23rd, 2004, 11:38 PM

Well i totally disagree with the bolt gun theory for a close range urban enviroment . Most shots will probably be under 100
yards and quick followup shots may be necessary or it maybe necessary to engage multiple targets . Manipulateing a bolt is
much slower than a semi-automatic , it requires the shooter to take your finger off the trigger and the motion necessary will
contribute to giveing your position away . I have several 10/22s outfitted with Volquartsen parts and they are totally reliable .
Necks , knees and nuts present no problem and if the victim has friends along rapid target aquistion is very easy with a semi-
automatic .22 . From a concealed , ambush position out to 100 yards i'd put my money on me as opposed to half a dozen
soldiers walking at the ready . Stick a bolt buffer in your 10/22 and you don't get any action clack . Radius the back of your
bolt or buy one already radiused and there is no reliability issue useing standard velocity ammo . If it's absolutely necessary
to kill your target , use something bigger but if incapacitation and terrorism are the object a .22 will do just fine . I have a
Sionics intigrated full length suppressed barrel and it would work just fine for close range assassination but i see no need for a
suppressor in a well planned , close range , fast gunfight . The idea is to avoid the fight by shooting fast and straight and then
exfiltrateing very quickly . I"ve killed deer with a .22 and had a buddy shot with a .22 a few years ago . The bullet hit him just
below the collarbone , hit the back of a shoulderblade and bounced forward takeing out a lung then bounced off his sernum
and snapped his spine . From the spine it bounced forward and down and came to rest inside his large intestine . He'll be in a
wheelchair forever . When bullets are flying and people are going down no one is listening for .22 brass hitting the floor so
that is a non-issue . Next time the Palistinians are rampageing in the streets by the hundreds or thousands watch the news
footage very closely . In the second rank you'll see people going down and being dragged off . The Isrealis are useing 10/22s
and shooting them in the knees . Once that starts the rioting is usually over pretty quickly . It's terrorism and it works .
Someone mentioned the Quick-shok ammo . I've used it on critters and tested it on wood and a prefragmented bullets leaves
vicious wounds . With the PMC Moderators you don't need a suppressor . A single motivated individual with a .22 rifle and
quiet ammo can strike fear into the hearts of a whole city and never have to shoot anyone . Just drive around to the electrical
substations and distribution sites and shoot out the inline fuses , insulators and transformers . No power , no lights , no water
, no sewer , no heat .
lamar pye January 24th, 2004, 11:05 AM

A barrel can be ported with a drill press and a cross slide vise. The ports have to be deburred by using a dremel tool with a 1/
8" ball tip grinding bit. The accuracy using this technique is very good from what I've heard. The ports must be covered by the
suppressor tube or else it would be like trying to suppress a revolver......just doesn't work. The can can be cleaned every 1500
rounds or so which is not bad as far as I'm concerned. Subsonic ammo is expensive and porting eliminates the need for it so
why spend more money if you dont have to?

Originally posted by atr
Well i totally disagree with the bolt gun theory for a close range urban enviroment . Most shots will probably be under 100
yards and quick followup shots may be necessary or it maybe necessary to engage multiple targets . Manipulateing a bolt is
much slower than a semi-automatic , it requires the shooter to take your finger off the trigger and the motion necessary will
contribute to giveing your position away . I have several 10/22s outfitted with Volquartsen parts and they are totally reliable .
Yes, with a 10/22 there is no problem, the recoill and the weigth of the moving parts are compensed by the length and weigth
of the barrel and stock, but on an gas operated 7.62 FAL, how will you compensate the recoill of the shot ? And the counter
weitgh of the gas piston and bolt going backwards, plus the inerent bad habit of the upwards movement after each shot ? And
the leakage of gas through the recoill system, will not give an audible signature, maybe rendering the supressor useless ?
I think that a good bolt action 7.62 rifle, with an heavy barrel, epoxi bed, good sigth and even standard ammunition can
cause more casualtyes than an gas opered rifle.
Besides, when on deadly ground, you will not have the chance to shoot twice while hidden in the same position, when your 1st
hit drops, anyone near will take cover and look for your signature, you will be forced to move to the next cover, then shoot
again.
A single motivated individual with a .22 rifle and quiet ammo can strike fear into the hearts of a whole city and never have to
shoot anyone . Just drive around to the electrical substations and distribution sites and shoot out the inline fuses , insulators
and transformers . No power , no lights , no water , no sewer , no heat .
Ok, Thats a big yes. BUT quite a shooter !
Beethoven_1983 January 25th, 2004, 03:05 PM

The barrel must be laminated, I've tried with just two layers(glued the smallest and inserted into the biggest) Thank God I
rigged it for remotely trigged testfiring before I tested self-handed,
After this accident, I took a copper-plate and carved the linings precisely to make the projectile spin around its own centre of
gravity, providing a stabile, straight course, and folded the carved copperplate around a steel-rod. Then I coated the
coppertube with epoxy, and carefully wrapped a single sheet of glassfiber-net around my "barrel" and slide it into another thin-
walled steelpipe. After hardening, I coated the steelpipe with another layer of "marine-epoxy" and wrapped a double sheet of
aluminium-netting, soaking it once more in the epoxy, and slide it into a desired barrel-designed pipe. I always use this
procedure with barrels, whatever the caliber is.- the last accident scared the shit out of me!

Sorry beethoven but what are you talking about ? Wrong topic, maybe ???

Oh you mean something like this?
http://hosting.skadi.net/feebullet/priceless.JPG
Oh semi autos, Silencers and probably the eureka flag are illegal in this country...



The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > 20m m Recoilless Launcher?
Log in
View Full Version : 20mm Recoilless Launcher?
john_smith S e p t e m b e r 1 st, 2003, 07:22 AM

Just a weird idea I ha d...I recently cam e a c r o s s s o m e rifled 12 g a u g e s l u g s c o n s i s t i n g o f a r o u n d n o s e l e a d s l u g e m b e d d e d
into a rifled plastic jacket or sabot (non-discard ing). I couldn't find a larger caliber version of those b u t a 1 0 g a u g e ( s a i d t o b e
the largest shotgun calibre that am mo is serial-produced for) wo u l d b e a b o u t 2 0 m m AFAIK.
W ould it be possible to construct a larger explo sive shell from a section of pipe of slightly smaller diameter than the gun
barrel, supported on 2 or m ore of such drilled out sabots and launch it from a recoilless type weapon? What I'm actually
aim ing at is a version of Germ an W W II Fliegerfaust anti-aircraft rocket launcher (a num ber of barrels in a pepperpo t type
configuration , firing standard 20m m shells propelled by rocket m otors) using recoilless instead of rocket principle.
DBSP S e p t e m b e r 1 st, 2003, 09:55 AM

To tell you the truth I don't know what you are talking a bout, I know what launcher you are referrin g to but I haven't got a clue
to what you are wanting to build.
"Would it be possible to construct a larger explosive shell from a section of pipe of slightly sm aller diam eter than the gun
barrel, supported on 2 or m ore of such drilled out sabots and launch it from a recoilless type weapon?"
Do you wan't to m ake a new casing for the sabots and fire it from a recoilless laucher or what?
I don't know if it's only m e, but I can't make out what you you h ave actually written.
john_smith S e p t e m b e r 1 st, 2003, 11:32 AM

A 4-6" piece of pipe filled with explosives, with those rifled sabots on both ends to make the thing spin...th is fired from an
open barrel or with some sort of countershot.
James S e p t e m b e r 1 st, 2003, 06:16 PM

I think what's being proposed is a 20m m recoilless pistol with a 4 to 6 inch barrel. The round would be
plastic jacketed. Possibly some rounds would even be explosive.
FragmentedSanity S e p t e m b e r 2 nd, 2003, 02:12 AM

John - To better illustrate your idea try including a sm all pic - it dosent have to be fancy or to scale - just som ething to give us
an idea of what your trying to achieve.
Right now it sounds like you want a 20m m p i p e b o m b launcher. But I could be wrong too.
Sounds too me like what your proposing is 1) constructing a 20m m recoilless launching device, which is designed to fire a 2)
shell - 4-6 in ches in length - that is filed with explosives and capped at each end with rifled sabots. Im a s s u m ing th e s e s h e l l s
have a rocke t motor of sufficient power to actually launch your round attached som ehow.
So basically as BDSP said "...you wan't to m ake a new casing for the sabots and fire it from a recoilless laucher..."
As for if it wo uld work - well probably.. if you tin ker with it long enough, But I doubt youll e ver get enough p ower out of it to be
worthwhile. But - feel free to p rove me wrong :p
FS
SMA G 12B/E5 S e p t e m b e r 3 rd, 2003, 01:34 AM

I beleive that the system that you are speculating on is im practical. The short barrel that you wish to use will not allow you to
acheive much im pulse from your propellent. Th e use of countermass is not very versatile and is dangerous in m any situations.
The use of rifled sabots is not as reliable as other systems such as fin-spin stabilized. The system m ay be much more
applicable to a larger bore system and only in a narrowly-defined application.
cmbtengr S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 12:34 PM

T h e s a b b o t s a r e d e a d l y e n o u g h ! I f y o u a r e t r y i n g t o m ake a recoiless rifle there is plenty of inform ation on line to find.
ANYThHING that obstructs the barrel of any sho t g u n n e e d s t o b e well thought out, it is very easy to m a k e a barrel explode with
ANY type of obstuction.I agree by mak ing the barrel shorter that your accuracy will suffer. I would not attem pt this project with a
m etal pipe!!! Ther are projectiles that you can m ake that would fit your need. There are also comercial products ava ilable. I will
n o t a d v e r t i s e f o r a n y o n e b u t u s e y o u r h e a d a n d l o o k i n m o s t g u n publications and you m ay find what you need.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Home-made cannons, howitzers and
mortars
Log in
View Full Version : Home-made cannons, howitzers and mortars
User Name September 8th, 2003, 10:45 PM

I have recently made a 40mm steel cannon. it is 4 feet long and weights 35lbs without the carage. I use 100grams of
blackpowder as a propellant and a steel 35mm by 35mm cylinder with a cotton sobot. the main barrel is made from 1/4" DOM
(drawn over mandrel) tubing that has a psi rating of 45,000psi.
has anyone ever made and tested their own cannon, howitzer, or mortar? if so...give some specs about it and your results.

Never made anything too fantastic, just a small golf ball cannon made from PVC pipe. Just 2 or 3 seconds worth of propane
shot them well over 200 feet. Not that great though.
How much does you projectiles weigh? I image with 100 grams of BP any weight projectile would be damn powerful.

the projectile weighed um.........
i dont know but ill weigh it soon and post it. i would imagin about 7oz. and yes it was powerful as.......um......damn im tired
sorry. i shot it at a huge boulder that was 300 yards away and i saw the impact. i missed the boulder by about 200 feet to the
high right (i guess the cannon isnt acurate) but extremely powerful.
i would like to figure out how many joules of energy my projectiles have...anyone know the formula? ill just ask my chem.
teacher. (shes retarded though i swear)
i have a chronograph and i chronoed the first shots out of the cannon...the average velocity was 782 feet per second (fps)
figure the weight of projectile at 7oz.
thx
Nihilist September 9th, 2003, 01:48 AM

that's quite impressive, 782 fps, for a 7 oz projectile is quite a bit of energy. However, you should have searched before
posting, as i'm quite sure information on this subject has been posted before.
Axt September 9th, 2003, 04:25 AM

Foot-pounds of energy is still the standard measurement for projectile weapons, therefore probably more relevant then joules
(1 joule = 0.737562149 fp). 7oz at 782 = 4159fp
comparisons -
.22 = around 130fp
.308 = around 2625fp
Formula - Bullet weight (grains) x velocity (feet per second) squared / 450240 (constant)
Flake2m September 9th, 2003, 05:09 AM

I have managed to aquire a length of 50mm metal pipe. Since the walls are about 5mm thick, It shouldn't have a problem
handling BP and perchlorate charges provided they aren't too large. To use this effectively I would want well designed ammo. I
was think of using 40mm PVC pipe with an endcap that would be able to hold an HE charge but for blank firing/range testing it
could just hold cement.
As you know the most difficult part of using an improvised cannon/mortar is loading them. You have to figure how much LE to
use to make your projectile go so far or fast. My idea uses premade charges that are contained in toilet rolls. That way you
can simply drop the charge into the barrel, then the ammo before aiming and firing it. This would reduce the reload time alot.

5mm walls are very thin. and your tube is pretty wide (50mm) be careful when testing. thankyou Axt for that formula and
thankyou for complimenting my howitzer. the best thing about it, is that it isnt muzzle loading. i made a breach in the back
out of a solid cylinder of hi tensil steel.
dont ever use PVC lol
Sch. 40 PVC psi rating = 300psi
DOM 1/4 wall steel (same size) = 45,000psi

5mm thick walls should be ok for a mortar/grenade launcher. It doesn't require a very high chamber pressure to lob an object
a few hundred yards.
Yep. It only takes 1/2 teaspoon of black powder to launch a 1 pound object several hundred feet high.
BTW, there are about 7000 grains per pound, and about 450 per ounce. Your cannon is not far away (energy wise) from a .50
BMG, so I imagine it would be fun to shoot.
I made a 20mm cannon, but I forgot to add it in my first reply. It shot CO2 cannisters (18 or 19 mm), and its lift charge was
20 grams of black powder. I never shot it way out in the middle of nowwhere, but becuase it drove a CO2 cannister through a
16 guage steel plate, I think it could shoot at least 300 yards.
User Name September 9th, 2003, 11:21 PM

my cannon is based apon Robars main display .50 Mcbros is teamed up with robar to make .50's the coolest thing about my
cannon (howitzer) is its double baffel muzzle break. it takes away probably 40% of the total recoil. at night its awsome!!
my next howitzer is going to be only a 32mm but shoot aluminum rounds at more than 2000fps. and oh yes, i will acheive
2000pfs! not with black powder obviouly.
ive been doing this for about 10 years now.

anyone can blow the living shit outa something, but it takes a real man to control that power and shoot a projectile acuratly at
his neighbors BMW
(*ooops did i say that outloud*)
NickSG September 10th, 2003, 12:04 AM

I might try using NC as the lift charge in my cannon. I know its much more powerful than black powder, and I cant wait to see
how it does in my cannon.
FCUK September 10th, 2003, 07:18 AM

If your looking for a source of pipes at whatever length/thickness. I suggest following site: http://www.pipelocater.com/
filter.asp

Always use seamless Drawn Over Mandrel high carbon steel, or DOM seamless for short. This is the strongest tube of steel in
the world and ANY size can be made for a reasonable price. (I see $90 as reasonable)
NC is great propellant if you have a strong cannon. nothing beats AN though. i used to have a mortar with only a 12" barrel but
extremely thick walled. and i used to shoot huge 1gallon coffe cans full of cement hella far using APAN. Cool shit!

user name, you can't read this because zaibatsu has banned you for crimes in another thread. but just incase you can read it,
i would have banned you for talking bullshit ;)

Before any newbies decide to try APAN as a propellant, DON'T use anything that detonates as a propellant unless you have
designed the weapon to be disposable and will not be near it when it goes off.
Efraim_barkbit September 11th, 2003, 09:39 AM

The formula for calculating kinetic energy using SI units is: E = (m*v^2)/2
where E=kinetic energy (J), m=mass (kg), v=velocity (m/s)
For user name, his readings would first have to be changed to SI units:
7 oz=7*0,02835~0,198kg
782fps=782*0,3048~238,4m/s
E = (0,198*238,4^2)/2 ~ 5,63kJ
keith December 8th, 2003, 02:18 AM

No one has posted anything on this topic in a while and my post is similar to teh thread.....I am curently making a 2 foot long
"cannon" (not really a cannon but w/e) that can fire a projectile at a speed>4000fps. Most rifles ie. (30-06) shoots a 165gr
projectile at about 2800fps using smokeless gun powder containing nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin (very little amounts) and other
stuff(not important). The closest Ive come to reaching my goal of 4000fps was with a small pistol sized cannon using acetone
peroxide and ammonium nitrate for a propellant. As you can imagin, the gun broke. The barrel walls were only 1/4 inches
thick BUT they didnt fully break! They only expanded from .65" to almost .73".
My next "cannon" will have twice as long of a barrel and a wall thickness of 1 inch. The bullet diameter will be .5". I am buying
440 stainless steel solid bars then machining them to my specs. I will use the same weight charge and ratios as before so I
dont ruin this cannon as well.
If anyone has any idea of a propellant that has a VOD fast enough to acheive my goal yet will not damage the weapon it
would be greatly appreciated.
Blackhawk December 8th, 2003, 04:36 AM

I would try something imilar to flash, but you simply can-not use anything that detonates, you will not be able to contain that
kind of power. If you wan't to increase velocity use a slower burning LE charge with a large gas output and make the barrel
VERY long, as burn velocities increase so does the stress on the gun, but you can make better use of the gas already being
genarated.
irish December 8th, 2003, 04:51 AM
Keith,
Your APAN detonates, that is going to destroy your barrel no matter what it's made of or how thick it is. You can get rounds to
4000 fps with smokeless powder (you can get them up to at least 6000 fps if you go about it right, not easy but it's been
done, I can't remember the caliber that was used) .
To get a .50 slug up to 4000 fps in a 4 foot barrel you will probably be best to go with a lot of whatever the fastest burning
powder is you can get, pressure is obviously going to be massive. If you can make a longer barrel and use a slower powder (ie
a long push up the barrel rather than a short shove) it would probably be better.
Whatever you end up doing I recommend you stick to nitrocellulose based powders.

I disagree with what you said abou APAN completely destroying my barel due to the fact that it detonates. I can machine a
barell that would withstand any where from 500,000psi to 1,000,000psi...anything I want. the possibilities are endless. Even
though HE's detonate, they are still simply expanding gasses that can be contained resonably.I have done many tests with AP
and APAn as a propellant and beleive me when I say it is possible (anything is possible given the will and materials)
4000fps isn't really my goal, its more of a steping stone. If you knew me youd know how crazy of an additude I have towards
things that I do. I take everything very seriously and never fail ounce I set a goal. I firmly beleive ANYTHING is possible.
I am very aware of 50BMG sabot rounds that shoot .30 cal bullets at well over 4000fps. thats all fine and dandy but I want a
bit more. As I said, 4000fps is a steping stone. After this step I will leap towards my goal of 5,000MPH which is somewhere
around 10,000fps, +or- 1000fps. The X-15 made by NASA reach a speed of 4,628MPH so why couldnt a little bullet? Im using
either tungsten carbide or stainless steel for my main projectiles and either brass or AL fo a sabot. Railguns use tungsten
projectiles inside an AL sabot. The world record set by a huge railgun is far past my goal so it IS possible with commercial
materials. I hope to get 10 shots with my weapon before it destroys itself.
Although nitrocellulose is fast enough I dont like it. Ive used it before and found that without perfect conditions, only rifle
speed velocities can be acheived. Rifle bullets cannot freely travel down the barrel and neither will mine but I dont know how
much pressure I should make it require to travel down the bore. Any suggestions? Tomarow Id like to make a trip to the metal
store cause it's my fathers day off. Wish me luck. Thx

I thought railguns had to use a magnetic projectile to work? Tungsten and aluminum aren't magnetic...
Anyway, the reason you can't use anything that detonates is because at those kinds of pressures and temperaures, the steel
will simply bulge or crack no matter how thick it is.
It won't necessarily bulge the outside of the steel either, it will make the ID of the cannon a bit wider each time until it breaks.
As a sidenote, I have recently made a very small BP cannon from stainless steel. It is 30mm OD with a 13mm bore diameter
(perfect fit for half inch ball bearings or fishing sinkers), and it is about 20cm long.
Blackhawk December 9th, 2003, 06:29 AM

No, coilguns need a magnetc projectile, railguns work on a different principal involoving induced fields in the round or
something like that (I am unsure) But the powerlabs projectile was made of Al and I have heard that you can also use
graphite.
keith December 9th, 2003, 08:08 PM

Im not disaggreeing with you because I know how knoledgable you all are and I'm envyous of it but I have to disagree.
The steel I use isnt even scratchable! when a barrel with one inch thick walls is made out of this steel......I cant imagin it being
damaged. The time the Explosive is detonating and decomposing isnt long enough to melt anything or make the steel loose
its heat treating. like a gun barrel stays pretty cool after only one shot. SWAT has a bomb containment crue that uses a big
globe type thing made from kevlar and stainless steel. It is only about 4'x4' and the walls are less than 2 inches thick even
with the kevlar. They said it can withstand 25 pounds of c-4!!! thats near to 20 pounds of RDX!!!!!!! come on now
no, railguns do not need magnets. yes, they cah use graphite(dont know why though)
Nice cannon xyz. Im getting sick of spending $$$ on materials to build huge heavy one use cannons. My next cannon will be
smaller like yours. Still powerful though huh!!! shoot a ball bearing through a damn cement wall
Blackhawk December 9th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Yes but you can be guaranteed that the bomb tub swat has would only NOT FRAGMENT with 25lb of C4, that isn't to say that it
wouldn't shatter, it is most likely just the kevlar holding the bits together at that point (very high tensile strength per fibre)
The same thing was done with the lugage compartments in comerical airliners, if a bomb goes off in the hold the metal
container ruptures but thick kevlar netting holds the container together and vents the combustion gasses slowly after they
have expanded inside the box. High explosives are quite powerful enough to total most things, that is not to say that your
cannon may not work, there is no harm in trying as long as anything is WELL away from fragments, and if it works first time it
is likely to blow on a second or third shot, so be wary.
If you want to learn about railguns go to the powerlabs site, they explain the theory behind it.

Yes I wil be very careful. I got my steel for my main barrel today and Phoenix Metal Supermarkets for only $22.00!(I'm friends
with them. I will turn it in the lathe tomarow at school and make my bore. The diameter will be 3/8" then polished out to an
even .50. The proccess should take a few hours for the first drill then I'll leave it for about 7 hours while it's polishing the bore.
The bore will be drilled only 20" down the Steel bar(oh by the way my entire cannon is made from one solid bar of stainless
steel) the entire peice is 24" long so that leaves 4" in the back of the cannon in which the fuse hole will be drilled. I didnt want
a hole in then walls of the cannon so the hole will be drilled through the rear 4 inches of steel.
My first charge will be 1g of AP along with 2g of smokeless powder (NC+other shit) I will CAREFULLY pack the charge in the
back so when the AP detonates the wave front doesnt SLAM the walls but simply pushes on them. I have alot of expirience
with AP so please dont warn me about it. My projectile will be a .45 cal steel ball bearing for my first "light" shot. I will use a
cotton sabot to ensure the Bearing is secure in the bore. I know a bearing isnt the most aerodynamic projectile I could use but
until I turn some bullets with the lathe it will have to do.
Yes I've seen powerlabs railgun. It is a very impressive website made by an even more imprssive young man.
Oh yea the wall thickness of the cannon will be 1" as I said before......man it's heavy and beautiful!

Two things...
1. If your propellant is one that detonates then don't stand too close to the cannon no matter how strong it is.
2. You say that you can't scratch the steel that you are using, that means it is very hard. Very hard steel is avoided where
possible in modern firearms, due to the fact that it can eventually shatter due to it's hardness. The shattering problem will be
greatly increased if you use a HE as a propellant, as shockwaves love to shatter things. If I was going to make a HE powered
cannon, I would use a softer steel that I knew would bulge instead of shatter if it were to fail.
Just stand well back.
Flake2m December 11th, 2003, 06:36 AM

The other problem with cannon is that you have to make sure that the breech is fairly secure because if the charge is too
powerful or the projectile gets jammed the beech will blow and the cannon will misfire.
I would stick to BP, perchlorate or BC compositions, because they have been proven to work and are generally more stable
and reliable.
Also since my length of pipe is open ended, what would be the best way to make a secure breech without needing complex
equipment?
The only idea I currently have is to drill several holes about 3cm from one end and then use them to secure a large block of
cement/wood with bolts.

There is no breach.... read my last posts.
The steel is damn near un-scratchable but feels softer then cold rold (go-figure)
I started machining it today and it was painstakingly slow. I'll need another day to finish.
Flak2m, I cant use black powder or anything because I want muzzle velocities around 10,000fps
And as bad luck would have it, the only energetic materials I can think of with high enough velocities all detonate.
When unconfined and in low quantity, AP deflagurates alot like NC. The expanding gasses will gently put pressure on the walls
of the cannon like NC does just before it(the AP) detonates.
You say dont use propellants that detonate yet at the same time you praise NC for being a great propellant..............it
detonates. Nitroglycerin is in smokeless powder............it detonates
apathyboy December 12th, 2003, 02:17 AM

Nitrocellulose does not detonate when used as a propellant, it burns. It needs a blasting cap to get it to detonate, and if it was
to detonate in the chamber of a gun, it would blow the barrel apart, and maybe shear the lugs on the bolt and send it through
your head.
Frankly, there's a reason the military doesnt use any HE's as propellants (it's not like cost is a problem with the US military):
they don't work. You need something that will give a steady high pressure from gas being generated, not a millisecond long
pulse of a couple hundred thousand PSI from a detonation. If you're set on using high explosives to propel something, build
a claymore or an EFP.
In fact, larger caliber weapons use a specially made coarse powder to allow it to burn for a longer period of time, and if long
burn times are needed, HE's are not what you want.

Yeah, the nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine used in smokeless powder don't detonate, they both just burn rapidly. Try reloading
a bullet with AP instead of smokeless powder and seeing what happens to the gun (stand far away behind solid cover, pull the
trigger with a string).
Smokeless powder can create 80,000 PSI, stuff that detonates can create several million PSI along with a very high
temperature and a shockwave.
AsylumSeaker December 12th, 2003, 07:35 AM

Has anyone tried creating self proppeled projectiles for there cannons? It would not be too difficult to manufacture them,
provided you had access to some machinery.

Self propelled projectiles? Do you mean rocket type things or a projectile with a powder casing?
And Flake2m, it is much better to make cannons from a single piece of steel bar stock. However, there are ways of safely
blocking one end.
The way that comes to mind is taking a piece of steel bar that is a perfect fit in your cannon, then cutting off a piece several
times as long as the width of the bore. Then you drill lots of holes in the sides of the cannon at the breech end. You then slide
in the piece of steel bar until it covers all the holes from the inside, and then weld into the holes to fill them up with steel.
Or there is the old kewlish method of crushing one end closed in a vice and then folding it over...
kvitekrist December 12th, 2003, 11:54 AM
I guess a bigger powder chamber would work?
Just drill a bigger hole from the back end and make a heavy breach plugg.

If you are going for high power, then you want your cannon to be made from a single piece of steel and not have a breech
plug.
Instead of using a larger powder chamber, you just have to fill a longer length of the bore with powder. This is fine with
cannons but can't be used in rifles because excessively long cartidges are difficult to make actions for, one of the reasons that
the military now uses .308 instead of .30-06
Over a certain amount however, you will be adding large amounts of extra powder and seeing little extra effect on projectile
velocity. This problem persists in any firearm, not just cannons, and it is why there are only a tiny handful of rifle cartrdges
that are capapble of exceeding 5000fps. Still, I have always wondered what would happen if someone necked a .50BMG down
to .17 :D .
Ammonal December 12th, 2003, 09:11 PM

XYZ: Do you remember Elmer Fudd and his shotgun (cartoon) bugs bunny puts his finger in the end of the barrel, Elmer fires
and BOOM his shotgun explodes and Elmer ends up with a blasted, black face.
Nice suggestion though, might shorten up the ranks of kewls that have been about and posting lately if they try it ;)

It was mostly just a joke, but I still wonder what velocities you would get if you ever did do that and had a weapon strong
enough to fire it. The barrel would burn out after 10 or so shots though.
udtst December 13th, 2003, 09:56 AM

a really good mortar/plans can be seen here: http://www.angelfire.com/ar3/udtst/mortar.txt
Me and a friend built one for fun and it did pretty good. The projectile ranged about 400-700 yards, and caused a fairly large
blast radius.
The hardest part about it really was makeing the fireing pin. It has to be dead center or the projectile will not fire.
12-gauge propellant cartridges can be prepared ahead of time. Remove the shot and shot-cup from the cartridge and then
push a thumb-tip-sized piece of cotton as wadding over the powder and secure it in place with a bit of glue.
Propellant should be 30 to 60 grains of Bullseye or Herco shotgun powder or a shotshell full of Hodgins' Pyrodex CTG. Exact
loading will depend on the weight of the projectile, the distance the shooter wishes to fire and the quality of the tubing used
for the mortar tube.
Rhadon December 13th, 2003, 11:10 AM

udtst, please change the extension from "mortar.txt" to "mortar.htm". Else we have to read HTML code. Usually one should try
out things like that before posting them.
udtst December 13th, 2003, 06:55 PM

weird, I can't get the edit link to work. anyway the link is now http://www.angelfire.com/ar3/udtst/mortar.html
Sorry about the mess-up.

Also, you all have probabaly seen it before. I just saw the same type of weapon in "nbk2000 pdf" though I have a diagram of
the mortar that it didn't. I did not get it from there though I found it in a guerilla warfare manual. I'll load the manual to web
and post it later for you all (as well as some other manuals.)

Sounds good udtst.
I have a bunch of drawings of what I meant by self proppeled projectiles and I got it up on my page: http://
destroy.100megsfree5.com

Ok I see what your after now, an rpg. In the "Rocket proppelant for horizontal launch" topic I said some things about
funneling the gasses to produce more thrust. of course that will depend on what type of metal you use becasue each one has
diffrent pressure limits. anyway tell me how it does.
By looking at your pics it should do good good :)

udtst - Or anyone else interested - for a more complete writeup of your mortar search out, and download the NBK200.pdf file.
The pic's you used and some more are there along with written instructions. NBK sayas in the PDF that the article was OCR'd
from "Ragnars Big Book of Homemade Weapons" so thats prolly another place you could look. Your cutaway pics make a nice
addition tho.
NBK's pdf is something everyone here should have - download it from here (http://gibbonet.hostrocket.com/Nbk2000.pdf) or
just look under his signature.
Ak.... I didnt see your second post about it... Which manual are you refering too - I thought I seen most of them but I cant
remember another off hand with that... hmm I have vague memories of something else now that I think about it.
Anyway I wasnt trying to diss you or anything - just point you to more info - even if it was redundant :)

The file I got it from was one called WMR(White Resistance Manual). Just to let it be known I am not a racist. I just liked
some of the info in it and wanted to learn more. I'm posting alot of the files I have to the FTP and might/will make links on a
web page to get info on weapons, device's explosives and more.
FragmentedSanity
it's cool. if you can add to or see any mistakes I make feel free to correct them(this goes for everyone). Our toys won't get
beeter unless we modify and correct them :)

Would concrete effectivly plug the end of a pipe so it could be used as a cannon? Or does it need to be stronger than that?

yes, it will work but after many shots it will be more likely to crack.

Are you talking about concrete and an endcap that screws on - effectively using the concrete as the lead is used int the Pics
udtst posted? or just plugging up one end with concrete? The former might work - but lead would be easier to deal with IMO,
and the concrete would weaken with each shot - the latter might work once or twice but Id think it likley that the charge would
just throw the concrete back out like a projectile - I spose you could fill it up fairly deeply - like a 6inches to a foot of concrete
in the bottom of the pipe - but I still wouldnt trust it - better to get a good endcap - or even better to mill it out of a single
piece of steel.
Concrete might work if you used a relatively slow burning propellant - to lob you projectile with a low pressure, but I think it
generally a bad idea - best to build someting properly if at all - cannons arent toys ;)
@udtst - I thought it may have been that one. The WRM is a pretty decent manual all told - regardless of the politics, quite
similar in many ways to NBK's file - well worth a read, as you said - you dont have to agree with the views, there is valuable
information to be had - as is the case with many of Aqualiefer's files - incase anyone hasnt seen his download page yet its
here (http://www.varkoume.com/shared/index.php?usr=Aquilifer88)

I went to that page signed up and everything but I can't download anything. what do I have to do to get some of those? a
special program or something?

Ok, all those people who want to use an exploding charge, of whatever HE they choose, please stand well the fuck away from
me!
If you are immensely dumb, go ahead and prove that high explosive will cut steel, destroy concrete, rock, etc. no matter how
thick. The blasting and mining industry already know.
For anyone undecided, consider a handgrenade, filled with just 4oz. of explosive, surrounded by about 4oz. of cast iron, or, in
more modern designs, high tensile steel that just happens to form razor sharp bits when BLOWN TO BITS by HE.
Further, consider the modern rifle which fires smokeless powder-powered cartridges. Normally, it isn't a problem. Increase the
load far enough, and you start to show signs of pressure, but in a modern target rifle, you will need to hammer the bolt open
before you get the action to fail. Reduce the load far enough, though, and you get flashover, which means that your powder
charge burns all at once, effectively detonating itself. This has, on more than one occassion, blown these same rifles to bits,
using less than a tenth of the load that wouldn't damage the rifle even though it were 10% over maximum.
The brissance is the key. That shockwave cuts steel, by simply exceeding the yield strength of the steel (or anything) by
orders of magnitude, blowing it to bits. Small charges that are allowed to expand and cool/slow slightly mean that thick steel
will yield rather than fail, but repeated shockwaves will still make the steel, no matter how thick, fail. How do you think craters
are formed?
Exceeding the tensile yield strength means the steel never returns to the original size. Below the yield strength, it bounces
back, and so can be used again. You see this every day in plastic carrier bags. Too much load and they stretch and never
recover. Beyond a certain stretch, they become useless, as they suddenly and rapidly fail. The danger is, they fail even if you
reduce the loading! They have already lost all their strength.
The bomb disposal shields are mostly to stop the blast fragments, by the way. They are also spaced off by a fair way,
massively increasing the time over which the force of the explosion has an effect. This stops the cutting action, and simply
becomes a large pushing force.

I wasn't talking about the pics udst posted. Iwas talking about filling the end of the pipe with maybe 1 foot of concrete. The
conrete being smashed by the proppelant is what worried me. Perhaps cement can be mixed with something else to make it
work better? Or perhaps if the problem is that rather than the cement being smashed apart, it gets fired out in a solid lump
then you can screw an end cap onto the end keeping the conrete in?
Also- in the nbk2000.pdf the mortar section includes a description by the author of how they tested the mortar. The projectiles
were fired into a field. The cases didn't rupture or anything and worked fine. What about a concrete or other hard surface?
Somehow I don't think the projectile would withstand that kind of impact.
udtst : The links are for the edonkey P2P network, I prefer Overnet - so just download either program and then click the links
- Some of the files can take a while but they get there eventually. Check around the site there should be some links - and
more info.

FragmentedSanity
Thanks, I got Overnet and it's working now. a little slower then kazaa which I am used to but good. Some of the files that I
been looking at on Overnet were NEVER found on kazaa though :)
AsylumSeaker
If you want to keep the concrete in there your going to have to reinforce it some how. An Idea off the top of me head is to put
rods through the pipe. example:
=======================
| | |
| | |
=======================
= pipe
| rod
step 1
Drill a hole in the pipe and place rod/rebarb(think thats how you spell it) trough. cut off with a little overhang on both sides.
step 2
Get a arc/mig welder. if you don't have a welder try using JB cool weld ,which you can by at walmart. weld the overhang of the
rod to the pipe itself. this way you don't have a concrete and metal "lump" being fired out.
Step 3
If you used the jb weld pray it holds
AsylumSeaker December 22nd, 2003, 01:14 AM

It probably sounds a bit kewlish, but wouldn't it be actually stronger to just bend the rods over on the outside of the pipe than
to actually weld them? Won't look as good, but its easier.
Blackhawk December 22nd, 2003, 03:25 AM

I suppose that would depend on the quality of the welds, if you do a good job they will be as strong as the metal itself and it
should be stronger. However if you did bend the rods they could be pulled back through the holes/elongate the holes as the
cannon if fired, making it more likely to blow. Also the concrete may not seal the holes properly and you would get massive
power loses.
Ammonal December 22nd, 2003, 08:40 AM

If you are not going to weld the rod in place how about using some 'brooker' rod (threaded rod), drill your holes through the
pipe, place the rod through; cut to length and put a nut on each end of the rod. Bending the rod over would be very
ineffective, but may work for a couple of shots.
About the concrete dont use the regular mix for 25 MPa, Add extra cement (like double the normal amount), the concrete will
dry quicker and if you can leave it a week to harden it will withstand alot more impulse and pressure. This higher cement/
sand/gravel mix gives a higher MPa rating for the concrete, they use it for anything that will have a high load ie > 5 metric
tonnes in runways, highways, bunkers, etc.
Hope this makes the person who suggested using concrete live abit longer by not having poor workmanship on a device that
DOES require some decent standards. Not just 'bending the rod'
Lurking_Shadows December 29th, 2003, 12:01 AM

I've been working on a PVC hand held mortar thing, so far the first test was a flop the trigger system messed up on me and I
need more fuse.
Until I get more tests are on hold for me.
I'm also trying to use AP as a primary lifting charge why I don't know but the projectile is well wadded to absorb the
impact.(hopefully)
http://www.geocities.com/taipan526/Mortar-Gun.html
SMAG 12B/E5 December 30th, 2003, 03:39 AM

I have enjoyed this thread, but would like to interject several observations. Stop trying to use a Class A explosive as a
propellant or get good insurance. Weapons designers arn't ignorant of the forces necessary to launch a projectile safely. A
weapon should be more dangerous to the enemy standing in front of a weapon than its operator.
Concrete is a poor material to be used as closure for a barrel of any sorts. It might serve as a remotely-fired one-shot
ambush device. Consider a machine-threaded alloy cap or a welded closure with sufficient post welding heat treatment. Cast
iron pipe caps have poor strength.
The homemade mortar mentioned is similiar to the one I fabricated while in high School (am 57 yrs old). Mine was barreled
with 2 inch black pipe and fired a projectile fabricated from 1.5 or 1.25 fittings. The rear of the projectile was of 3/8 inch pipe
closed with a brazed plug, cross-drilled (12 holes .25), primed with a shortened 45 cal long colt cartridge. The cartridge was
primed with 2 toy pistol caps and BP. This ignited the propelling charge (contents of one 30.06 rifle cartridge) contained in a
tissure paper and wrapped around the tail of the round. Almost killed our milk cow on my first shot (100+ yards, elevation
approx 80 degrees).
Those interested in extreme mv might want to research Hitler's long range artillery project that was destroyed by Allied
bombers before it could be used. Another method might be by the use of saboted light weight projectiles with reasonable
propellant charges.
The self-propelled projectile will work, but not efficently. You might consider opening the breech of your barrel, changing your
powder configuration ( for complete in-barrel burn ) and produce a workable recoiless weapon. The combustion of all propellant
while in the barrel will allow user to hold and sight weapon (only after thourough remote testing). It will still sound like a
cannon but will be more managable. Apologies for length of reply...
keith December 30th, 2003, 08:26 PM

I'm very sorry for my absence these last couple weeks. My idiot neighbor was using my computer without my knowing and
crashed it. As you can see, it's fixed now.
I finished my cannon and have tested it many times now. It's been fired 11 times now without rupturing or cracking. My
charges are composed of 2g of AP,5g AANo.7,1gNc. Apon test firing my cronograph failed to give me a reading. I figured my
battery was near dead so I replaced it. Apon second testing still no reading, same for the third fourth and fifth. I stoped
testing because its pointless without a cronograph. I was reading my manuel for the crono and noticed its maximum velocity
reading is 5500fps. My crono is either broken or I've passed it's limit. I fired it 6 more times then checked for stres cracks or
buldges, there were none. The cannon is unharmed.
keith December 31st, 2003, 02:50 PM

On Cival-War-type(conventional) cannons, how much do you think the fuse hole takes away from the strength of the barrel.
I bought a new barrel for my next cannon (its DOM seamless high carbon 4130 steel, 1/2inch walls thickness, I.D.=1.5,
O.D.=2.5) The fuse hole can either be drilled through the barrel wall or through the breach plug with is many inches thicker
than the barrel walls. The PSI limit of my barrel is around 65,000psi so it's no weak lil pipe. I'm going to be using excessively
powerful charges in this cannon so Im worried that if the fuse hole is drilled in the barell wall, it will rupsure. Any thoughts on
this???
Anthony January 1st, 2004, 08:49 AM

Lurking_Shadows, AP propellent in a PVC (handheld!) mortar - you are going to die!
Everybody using closed breach canon, what are you going to do if you get a missfire? I.e. how are you going to empty the
canon to reload?
Blackhawk January 1st, 2004, 08:21 PM

With the quality of construction of the closed breach cannons proposed it would probably be easier (and safer) to chuck it out,
just stick a large HE charge or SC to the side of the barrel over the powder and detonate so you can insure the powder has
been destroyed and the cannon will no longer go off.
keith January 1st, 2004, 10:25 PM

Sorry about the double post, after posting once, it failed to show up on the web page so I figured something went wrong and it
didn't post for whatever reason and I reposted something else I wanted to mention.
I always use breaches on my cannons unless I'm worried about the pressures being too high.
I don't really like "what-if" questions. IF a cannon failed to go off, there are projectile removal rods you can buy or make for
under $20. What would make a cannon not go off when lit by a fuse? Missfires arent a problem in the world of cannons and
mortars. The odds are that it will go off and if by some freak chance it doesn't, you can remove the powder and projectile
without strapping a brick of RDX to your $$$$$ cannon. Real cival war replica cannons cost anywhere from $5,000 to $45,000
and do not have breaches......
Why do old cannons have such thick walls. Most cannons youll see have atleast 2 inch thick walls and are made from brass,
steel, iron, or copper. The powder charges used arent much more than what I use in my small cannon that has only 1/4" walls.
Does anyone know who came up with the idea to use such thick walls? think of how many cannons one cival war cannon could
make if it were melted down and re-molded into thinner walled cannons. Doesnt seem very cost effective during wartime does
it?
xyz January 2nd, 2004, 06:42 AM

Anthony, that was a problem that troubled me for several days until I finally thought of a good solution.
Whenever my closed breech cannon has a misfire, I take a glue stick (you know, the ones used for hot glue guns), attach a
stick to the back of it so it will reach down the barrel, and then heat the end of the glue stick for a few seconds with a lighter. I
then quickly push it down the barrel and hold it for a few seconds while the glue solidifies again. Then I pull it out with the
projectile attached and then pour the powder out of the cannon.
After use, you can simply take a knife and cut the end off the glue stick and use it again. Any glue that get stuck to the bore
of the cannon (which won't happen if you are quick/careful enough) can be removed with a piece of stiff wire (the glue comes
off easily because it doesn't adhere very well to smooth metal).
Obviously, at 13mm bore diameter my cannon is very small, but this idea could be adapted for larger cannons

The projectile removers that were used during the hay-days of cannon use were very similar to easy-outs. Those things used
to remove a stripped bolt or screw. The tips were very sharp and easily dug into the lead balls they used (I use steel :()
The tip of the long rod would screw into the lead ball with little effort from its operator then youd simply pull it out.
XYZ, if you can remove your projectiles with hot-glue then they are not very tightly in you barrel right? 13mm....thats about a
half inch. Glue sticks are a half inch....... If your cannon is 13mm it is the same size as many blackpowder muzzle loaders. A
good idea might be to shoot muzzle loading projectiles out of it which would not only give you improved performance but
would enable you to use a romoval rod.
I use FFFFG in my mortars and FFG in my heavy walled cannons. I use simple cannon fuse ignition. What about you all?
Anthony January 2nd, 2004, 02:36 PM
I suspected something like an easy-out, but what if you're not using lead or other soft projectiles?
Keith, I think the difference between wall thickness is that ye olde canon were cast, and yours is made from drawn, high
strength alloy steel!

Yes that seems the only explenation that makes sence but is cast iron really that week? On Mythbusters(TV show in teh US)
they made a black powder cannon from a tree trunk. it shot a 3" diameter ball of cement out of sight using 6oz!!!!!!!!! of black
powder. The wall thickness of the tree cannon was only like 4 inches. So I guess a tree trunk is as strong as cast iron.
I use steel cylinders or ball bearings for my projectiles so I cannot use th easy-out rod method but since I always use
breaches on my cannons misfires have never worried me(plus Ive never had one and cannot understand how one would have
one)
Does anyone know where one might aquire a Feild Howitzer barrel from the Marines? The barrels must get damaged every
once and a while and I doubt the Marines have an Acme howitzer melt down and remold plant at the base so they must send
it away to be melted down and the steel recycled. Maybe one could just buy the howitzer barrel from facility before they melted
it. Theres only about 300 dollars wourth of steel that makes up the barrel so 600 bux waved infront of the steel plants owners
face might intrigue him.
Oh yea, any word from that Lurking_Shadows guy that planned to use AP as a lift charge in his PVC HANDHELD cannon? I hope
hes alive.....
NickSG January 2nd, 2004, 06:24 PM

The treecannons walls were more like 8-12 inches thick, and they had steel reinforments.
One of the reasons why the walls of the older cannons were so thick was to add weight. The smaller cannons would have so
much recoil it would take much too long to reaim. With the heavier walled cannons, the cannons didnt move as much resulting
in quicker follow up shots, along with allowing the cannons to be set up on ships.
BTW I use Visco to light my cannons, although I occasionally use Ematch.

Why didnt they use thiner walls to save material and have 100 cannons on the front lines instead of 30? As for the recoil, just
equip each cannon with a muzzle break. As for rate of fire, with 3 times as many light cannons on the line you'd get alot more
shots than with 1/3 as many heavy cannons. Can you imagin 100 cannons shooting grapeshot at your front lines from 200
yards???? 100 cannons plus 25 grapes(balls of lead) per shot @ aboput 3 shots per min 200 meters away........it would take
about 2 min for a group of soldiers to run cloeenough to the cannons to get off some shots at them and finaly take out one or
two cannon operators. By then the cannons would have sent.....25x100x3x2=15,000 half inch lead balls hurlled down range in
2 min. Seems alot more hazerdous to your enemy than the normal 30 cannons used shooting big solid balls. Plus both side
would have about 300 infantry soldiers there returning cover fire for the cannon operators. It woudl be a seige with fire from
cannons doing all the damage. Both sides given the same resources and quantities of raw materials(lead,iron,cotton) the side
with 3x as many cannons would win no?
Ammonal January 2nd, 2004, 08:04 PM

First, I am hoping that the AP mentioned earlier was short for ammonium perchlorate not the common acetone peroxide.
Keith, a few ignorant corrections: we have known about muzzle brakes for the life of brass cartridges for breech loading
weapons. As for having three times as many cannons, you would need three times as many men, huge supply lines, and a
very big area to spread out your '100 cannons; raining down 15000 shots'. As for normal armies and artillery they did not
occupy huge areas and they didnt unleash rains of innaccurate and basically wasted ammunition. They tried to cause as much
damage and inflict as much pain as possible per round fired. I also presume you are thinking of the massive old cannons
from centuries ago. There is also another thing called resources which an army must have to be able to supply 100 cannons to
a particular front.
Can we stop talking about the old massive cast cannons and get this thread back on the topic of making "Home made
cannons, Howitzers and mortors" not 16th century lead shot?

kieth, the projectiles aren't exceptionally tight, just tight enough that they won't move around in the barrel if the cannon is
tilted or bumped.

Formula - Bullet weight (grains) x velocity (feet per second) squared / 450240 (constant)
Using that formula, my new cannon (1.5"IDx2.5"ODx48") shoots a 1pound projectile at an average of 700fps. Whats the
formula for converting oz to grains?
Rhadon January 2nd, 2004, 11:20 PM

Keith,
check your mail.

xyz, Have you ever considered using muzzle loading sabot bullets with it? They make a bunch of different calibers ranging
from .45 to .85 I think. What length is the barrel?
Rhadon, I dont use my email because it doesn't work.

I'm sorry for my last post. I know senceless posts are frowned apon and it won't happen again.
Does anyone have any designs or plans for sabot projectiles? I normaly just use cloth wrapped around the bullet but I'd like to
start using a solid and more reliable sabot like plastic or maybe even aluminum. Any ideas for a shotgun type wad?
Depending on the bore diameter, you could use plastic soda bottles with slits going down the sides.
NickSG January 3rd, 2004, 07:45 PM

There are about 7000 grains in a pound, and about 15 in a gram.
A design for a homemade sabot I thought up several nights ago consists of a peice of dowel and the projectile. A peice of
wooden dowel (at least 1 1/2 times the length of the diameter of the barrel) is cut off. A hole is drilled all the way through the
center of the dowel. The hole must be large enough to fit the projectile inside, but not large enough to where the projectile will
slide through too easily. The projectile is taken out and the dowel is cut through the middle (lengthwise) so there are two
separate halves. When loading, the two halfs are put together, the projectile is put in the middle, and the sabot it to be
loaded through the muzzle.
Unless you can find the perfect ratio to rifle the barrel, do not make the projectile and longer than .75 times the diameter,
becuase the projectile will tumble, decreasing accuracy and penitration.

Yea I've thought of that it's a pretty good idea. I'll give it a try and post results. I wont have a chance to test my new cannon
out for a couple weeks :( It's barrel diameter is 1.5 inches and my projectiles are normaly 1.25 with a cotton sabot. I think 1
inch would work betetr with the wooden sabot you talked about rather than 1.25 like I normaly use. I dont understand what
you said about the projectile not being more than .75 times longer than the diameter. So your saying the projectile should be
short and real wide? My projectile will be 1"x4"(like a bullet kinda) and made out of brass.
One flaw with your design though is the hole for the projectile cannot allow the projectile to slide through. You said "A hole is
drilled all the way through the center of the dowel. The hole must be large enough to fit the projectile inside, but not large
enough to where the projectile will slide through too easily." Well the projectile must not be able to physicaly fit through the
sabot. There will be about 10,000lbs of pressure pushing the projectile forward apon ignition and about 20,000 on the sabot.
Say your projectile is 1 inch in diameter at its widest point, the hole in front of the sabot may not ecxeed .75 inch. Remember
also that wood can compress alot(espescialy pine)

Good point. I was thinking about changing the design to where you drill to about 1/4 inch from the other side. That way, when
the cannon is fired, the gases wont touch the projectile. Also, when wood is used, the projectile will compress front to back,
cuasing the sabot to expand to the sides of the barrel, improving accuracy and velocity.
What I meant by no longer than .75 times the diameter is if your projectile is .5 inch diameter, dont make it any longer than
.75 inch. There will be no rifling to stablize the projectile, which will cause it to tumble. A little tumbling is ok, especially in
flesh, but when the projectile is too long there will be too much material resistance on the bullet, lowering velocity and
penitration.
Perhaps if you can get the sabot going fast enough, a cast lead bullet will have enough energy to fragment while tumbling,
much like the .223 FMJ? With a solid lead core I dont think the velocity would need to be any more than 1500 FPS, if that, and
since the projectile will be tumbling anyway, you can use a solid cylinder, which will allow the projectile to weigh more.

Any ideas on a rifled sabot?
I normaly make muzzle breaks for my cannons but on this one I'm not so That I can play around with shotgun (grapeshot)
type ammo. I wanna try a wad of some sort with like 5000 BB's infront of it. Shoot it at a close target......WOW

kieth, a word of advice, never attempt to fire a saboted projectile through a muzzle brake unless you are sure it won't open up
until well after leaving the barrel (like a tank sabot round). Otherwise the sabot can open up inside the brake and then exit
through the front of the brake taking half the brake with it.

I hadn't planned on making a muzzle break for this cannon. I always make sure nothing is in the way of my sabots or wads.
I think the cannon weight will keep its masive recoil at bay.
I will post pics as soon as I figure out how to. I dont have a camera but my friend has a real nice one. His camera isnt capable
of being loaded onto my comp so I'll set up an account to the E&W forum on his comp and load them that way. Any mods
mind if I do that? I'm on the second stage of many in making this cannon and I have already spent $150
IF I do decide to adapt a muzzle break on this cannon due to it tremendous recoil it will be more of a pepper pot esign than a
single or double baffle as used by the military.
With a pepper pot desin, not sabot could get caught because the holes will be small. google search for pepper pot muzzle
break if you atre unfamiliar with what they look like. I put the utmost care anbd effort into my cannons, it's guna be amazing.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go do EIGHT hours of milling.Im begining work on my breach. One wrong move and I wasted
40 bucks.

Just for info:
Yes, cast iron is that weak. Cannons used to burst quite often in the early days. A slightly wrong mix of stuff in the crucible or
furnace, and you got a big bomb. A slightly over-sized charge, you got a big bomb. A slightly off-round ball and you got a big
bomb.
Not good when it is in your ship, and it has just taken out half the gunnery crew, and made a big hole in the side...
As time went by, and machining cast iron became possible, and steel got more common, and the processes became more
scientific, the charge size went up a long way, as did the calibre. However, it still didn't take much to have a problem, and so
caution was applied. Indeed, it still is, as we "proof" all our guns to 30% more than the standard to ensure they are safe,
without some fatal defect in the steel.
An example of the size vs. wall thickness trade-off can be seen in "Mons Meg" the huge cannon in Edinburgh castle, used
many years ago (1457). It split, and its twin has been lost forever. It weighs over 6 tons! http://www.rampantscotland.com/
know/blknow_monsmeg.htm They stopped using it as it was still too heavy, even though it failed due to the walls being too
thin!
Anyway, hope the milling went well.

No it's not going well I broke my $35 bit. I have more obvioulsy but it'll take longer now. I could have avoided milling all
together by just welding two .5"x1.5"x6" steel plates onto the square breach bars but I want it to look real good and be
extremely strong. Youll see when I post teh pics...can't wait.
Yea that cannon was big but have you seen Hitlers mountian cannon? I dont know alot about it but it has like 15 different
chambers full of powder along the barrel so they would ignite at different times so there isnt a pressure spike. And it's on the
side of a mountian :)
BTW, when I have my pics can I just email them to a mod and have him doit? That way it will be set up as you mods see fit.
Dont want me, the noobi messing it up right:)
Just some cheapy mill my dad bought me for my cannons/mortars/guns.

cost like 1500 so its cheap. works though. I broke the bit by going too fast while talking on the phone with my girlfriend. It just
chipped it but now its ruined.

Yes, but this was 1457, not 1943!
Shame about the bit breaking. Too much chatter or what? The milled block will be so much stronger, you are right about that.
What mill have you got?
Rhadon January 4th, 2004, 05:54 PM

keith, I think you already guessed what my email was about. But you should get a new, working email address.

This (http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar.html) looks pretty fun. Anyone else thinking of making one? :)
I have plans for a new cannon I plan on making sometime before next summer. The cannons bore will be 20mm diameter (3/
4 inch), the barrel would be about 5 feet long, and will fire mini N2O (8 gram) cartridges filled with lead. The lift charge will be
100 grams of black powder per shot, and the barrel will be rifled. I will have to use a smooth barreled pipe before actually
building it, since I will have to run a few test shots using the full power loads. I will chrony the results, and by knowing how fast
the projectile will be moving I can figure out how fast I need to rifle the barrel. I will have to find a pipe that can stand about
20K PPSI or else the cannon will blow up.
The cannon will be mounted on a three square foot cart with four wheels attached, and I will have weld some solid steel dowels
running from the cart up to the barrel connecting the two. I will be using Christmas tree ignitors (yeah, it sounds kind of kewl,
but hey, it works! ;) ) connected to about 100 feet of wire.
I will have to weigh the cannisters filled with lead before I can figure out how much energy the cannon will spit out, although I
estimate it could throw the cannister as fast as 1500 + FPS.

Sounds fun NickSG.20,000psi may not be enough. 100 grams.... thats about 2000 grains which is 20 times more than
muzzleloaders use yet you have the same barrel diameter as a muzzle loader. Whats the maximum deflaguration rate of
black powder? I think its about 1300fps. 1500+ might be hard to acheive.
If you had acces to a lathe, turning out improvised brass bullets would be best.
Rhadon, no I hadnt guessed what the email was about and hadn't given it much thought. I assumed off the top of my head
that it had something to do with my ignorant post that was above it. I'm very sorry for that and I edited it ASAP. Again sorry.

Well, im not going to use only black powder. I found that mixing in about 40 percent by weight DBSP to black powder increases
the power considerably, while still being cheap enough to fire 100 grams at a time. (This isnt going to be a little .22 zip gun :)
)
Im pretty sure the maximum pressure BP can give off is around 17K PPSI, although I dont know how much the smokeless
powder would change that. I might just look around for a used 20mm cannon barrel, although im not sure if the rifling would
be good enough to stablize the projectile. Otherwise, I might just forget about the 20K barrel and skip to a 40K.

Why not just buy a peice of DOM tubing. Holds around 65,000psi with half inch thick walls. Get an inside diameter of 1.5" or
2". It would cost about $140 which is how much a cheap used 20mm barrel will cost.
I dissagree about teh maximum pressure black powder can give off. What if you had a sealed air tight chamber the size of a
baseball that could withstand 100,000psi then you ignited 10grams of blackpowder in it? BOOM. Smokelss powder will produce
much higher pressures. The SAAMI maximum pressure rating for rifle loads is 85,000psi I believe. Rifle loads will have 40-
250grains of DBSP powder. Can you take some pics when you finish it?
PHAID January 4th, 2004, 10:24 PM

Here is a link to cannons that might be of interest to you.
http://www.wildimports.com/index.htm

Originally posted by keith
I dissagree about teh maximum pressure black powder can give off. What if you had a sealed air tight chamber the size of a
baseball that could withstand 100,000psi then you ignited 10grams of blackpowder in it? BOOM. Smokelss powder will produce
much higher pressures. The SAAMI maximum pressure rating for rifle loads is 85,000psi I believe. Rifle loads will have 40-
250grains of DBSP powder. Can you take some pics when you finish it?
This will be sort of a "budget cannon". Im not looking to spend too much on it, since I do have bills and insurance to still pay
off.
If you ever get the chance, empty out a .38 special cartridge. The cartridge is long, although there is rarely any more than 3-5
grains of powder in them. Look at an older .38 special cartridge, and the case will be nearly full. Anything with NC in it will burn
with much higher pressures than black powder. This is why (even with the weak metals of the day) you could fill a .38 special
cartridge full of black powder, but not fill it any more than 1/8 full of DBSP. Im 99.9 percent sure the maximum pressure BP
can give off is just under 20K, but if you want to further investigate im sure any reloading site will have the info. I dont have
too much time right now, though, sorry.
If I buy a quality digital camera sometime before its done, then yes, I will take and post pictures. Or I might just borrow a
friends camera.

So if you did have that airtight sphere with a 100k psi limit full of black powder in it you believe it wouldnt explode? You think
it would just withstand the pressure? How can there be a pressure limit on an explosive? The more you add, the more pressure
you can get. And If there is a maximum pressure that black powder can acheive it is one hell of alot higher than 20k. I am
well aware of DBSP being much more powerful than BP due to it's ingreidants(kinda obviouse)
The powder in .38 specials is anywhere from 3grains to 12.5grains. All smokeless powders are not alike. I would be willing to
put my knowledge of reloading equipment and anything at all to do with firearms up against that of anyone here. I know you
take me for a noobi because of my age or the fact that I only have like 35 posts here but just because I am new to your
forum(which is far better than any other I have seen) please do not treat me like one. I hope your cannon comes out nicely.
My cannon will be done soon and I cannot wait to post the movies and pics. I'm going to buy 10,000 BBs from walmart and
shoot them all at once at a big plywood target at about 40 yards!!! I have several sabot designs to test and of course my
normal cylinders I shoot. It will all be on tape.
I just remembered a friend of mines dad owns a black powder rifle that blew up in his face with only 100 grains in it(6grams i
believe) because the barrel got clogged with dirt/mud. The max psi limit on those barrels is somewhere around 50k.

NickSG, the "pressure limit", as you put it, is much higher than 20kPSI.
As the pressure and heat increases, the powder burns faster, further increasing the pressure and heat, and so it burns even
faster, and so on.
Unless there is a way to releive some of the pressure (such as a bullet being pushed along a barrel) then it will continue to
rise until all the powder has been consumed.

Im aware that different powders burn with different pressures, since I used to reload some of my own cartridges. When I was
refering to the .38 special, I was using the standard pressure rounds as an example. But still, you can use a lot more black
powder without going over a pressure limit than any NC. As I said before, this is why back before NC was commonly used, they
had many large cases filled completely with black powder, even when the metals they used were nowhere near as strong as
the modern day steels.
BTW, I dont not think that you are at all inexperienced in this hobby just becuase you have 35 or so posts. Also, what brand of
powder will a .38 special allow 12.5 grains of powder? As far as I know, the maximum for .357 magnum cartridges is around 10
grains of the good powder (I could be wrong on this though). I assume that would be a reload, and you would have to shoot it
out of a .357 magnum?
Anyway, good luck on your cannon too. 10,000 BBs is a lot, so unless you dont want the BBs to take up the whole length of the
barrel, you might have to use a barrel of at least two inches in diameter.
I agree though, that unless there is something to let the BPs gases expand, pressures will run higher.

IMR4227 12.5grains going an average of 1011fps. case is about 72% full w/this charge. This is my competition load for my
peice_0_shit revolver(I hate revolvers!)
Yes 10,000 BBs is alot but it will handle it. The bore diameter is 1.5" so there will be about 7" of barrel volume full of BBs.
That kinda scares me....my barrel alone cost $110. If this thing blows I pissed away about 150 bux.
I have decided to use my old carrage for this new cannon. My old cannon broke so the old carrage will be wasted if I dont use
it anyways. This will save me time and most of all about $60 which I may use to buy some fun ammo types.
It is in good shape and should handle the bigger barrel and heavyer recoil produced. This means the pics are closer to being
posted. I'm still waiting for a mod to volunteer to post them for me. I could just email them to you and you then post them. If
not I'll have to wait 2 weeks or more for my friend who has the camera to get a membership here which he will never use.

Why not have him email you the pictures, then you post them?
I agree with keith about the BP issue. There is a theoretical limit to the pressure, but the container would have failed long
before it was ever reached, if it was full and airtight. As for the .38 special, modern reloads tend to use less of a faster powder,
as it is cheaper than lots of a slower powder. 4 grains of one powder will spit a bullet out nicely, while four grains of one that
looks the same might get the bullet stuck halfway down the barrel, or even (unlikely with 4 grains) blow it up.

I use alot of slow burning powder in my .38 loads cause my barrel is very long at 8".(long for a pistol) It's a peice of shit. I
dont even know what kind it is.
When ever I make something nice I care about and welding is involved I use epoxy to cover the welds and smoothen them
out. I then lightly sand and smoot the epoxy before painting. Makes it look like the multible parts of steel are one whole
peice, or atleast looks more professional. Just some advice.
Has anyone ever seen a real claymor get triped by a live animal? Ive seen a clymor detonated near a military dumby for a
demonstration. Cannons are like long range claymors with twice the power. I'm going to make a shorter cannon with the same
inside diameter and set it up out in the desert with a trip wire strung along aboput 20 feet in front of teh barrel. Fill it with teh
charge and about 500 steel ball bearings. Put a steak infront of it.......wait........
.........BOOM! There are tons of coyotes, bobcats, bears, mountian lions, cooons, and skunks. Somethign would trip,it within
one hour if it was left out at night.(everything in Az is nocturnal)
PHAID January 6th, 2004, 06:58 PM

You can't compare a cannon to a claymore, The claymore uses high explosives and a cannon uses BP.
I have fired several claymores and at closer ranges (10-20m) you will be nothing but hamburger.

I know one uses BP and one HEs but the outcome is the same...a lot of steel balls flying through the air at hypersonic speed.
A small cannon is more conveinient though for multiple uses and is just as deadly.
My new cannon is almost done. I have only to finish milling the breach bars, weld them on, grind, sand, brush, polish, and
paint. 4 more hours. I'll finish this weekend.

keith,
er... shouldn't your welds be filled with weld (steel), and then filed/ground back, rather than touched up with epoxy (noddy
plastic)??

The welds are very strong. I weld with high heat, grind down flush with surface, and reweld. After that there is a perfect bead of
weld along the surface. Instead of leaving it like that I smoothen everything out with epoxy and sand it when it dries. This is
for looks only, it surves no structural purpose at all. What do you mean filled with steel?

I think he is talking about where you build up the weld higher than the surface, then grind it back until it is flush with the
surface and it all looks like a single piece of metal instead of two pieces that have been joined.

I hate milling!
It's ready to fire.
I'm not done though. I'm going to do some more work on it to make it look better and be alightly stronger. The totaly weight
is 104lbs. Another full day of work and it will be finished. Ill have pics soon.
Ill give it's dimentions again: barrel is DOM seamless 2.5 inch outside diameter, 1.5 inch inside diameter, 48 inches long.
Carrage is 19 inches long, 14 inches high, and 14 inches wide. Carrage is made from 2"x1.25" heavy walled rectangular
structeral tubing. Tomarow it gets grainded, sanded and painted.
Sunday it will be tested.

I had to double post cause my last post was more than 14400 min old or what ever. I got this idea from another thread that
was closed because the idea for the weapon was stupid and not well discribed.
For faster firing rates, you could take your projectiles(mine are 1.5"x4" Al or steel cylinders) and put some sort of NC based
putty on the back of it either just stuck behind the projectile or inlayed into a dimple in the bullets rear. The putty would have
to be strong and not fall off the projectile during storage.
There isnt much need for high fire rates when you and I are out shooting our toys but this isnt a bad idea for those of you that
use NC. Instead of fuses which take up time you could use one of the things from a party popper(the thing that has a string
coming out of the back of it and when you pull it, it shoots confetti).Just jam the lil thing connected to the string down into
your enlarged fuse hole, pullBOOOM, and reload. Fireing would take about 8 seconds per shot and would make your cannon
look more saphyticated infront of your spectators.
I have everything sanded and ready to paint, and I just bought the paint. It will be done in a couple hours and I'm shooting it
tomarow with 40grams of pyrodex per shot.
bigshoe January 15th, 2004, 08:55 PM

as we have seen in WW1 & WW2 the most effective artillary is that that is permenatally postioned. i would suggest using a 30-
40mm metal tubing about 1m long (like normal mortars) and welding two bracing arms 2/3 of the way up the barrel, and
having the end of the barrel into the ground with a footing of rocks and concrete that would be dug-in onder the ground and a
metal plate (to just cover the end). this would give a reliable weapon (because it holds less moving parts) and the accuracy
would be very low (but its not like we are out to kill ppl). the only other problem would be cleaning the weapon out.
a small hole would need to be drilled into the base and metal tubing welded in (for detonation)
and then loaded with explosive divice and the armament.
give it a go it should work!
also a concelled OP would be need for the weapon as it is fairly inmovable
---------------------
Sixty-four thousand dollar question: Do you know what this useless key above the CTRL key is for?
Rhadon

Mercyless stolen from Mp5guys last post, at 40mm topic:
From what I understod, its some kind of truck part, like an suspension part, with an bore of 40mm, and as he sugested, it
can hold a helluva of pressure buildup.
The idea is, with some minor modification it can be turned on an improvised Carl Gustaf Recoiless rifle like this:
http://www.urban-armory.com/images/82mm.jpg
And can shoot, as you can see, a shaped charge that looks like a RPG7 round.
I think that, if we take of that spring and add, internaly, another steel tube with the same diameter, welded at its back, the
beastie can held an self-proppeled recoiless warhead.
Another design can be seen here:
http://www.inert-ord.net/atrkts/57mm/rifle2.jpg
The diference over those two weapons, as far as I know its that the Carls is more like an rocket launcher, and the 57mm is
realy an recoiless cannon, where the proppelent is held inside of an breakable package and an perfurated shell to alow
expansion fo the gases and proper counter recoill to the gun.
Both systems can be replicated with an fairly suplied workshop.
The self-proppeled round can be made with a steel tube to house the lifting charge, that can be made of gross sized BP, like
the panzerfaust, and an coper plate homemade warhead.
The 57mm can have its shell made out of an plumbing copper tube, perfurated with an dremmell and with some PVC tubing
to hold the proppelent. And both the ideas can use an non elletric cap to be set of.
What are your comments ? I think that it can be easily done, but do you have any idea ?

Actually in his post he said it was the barrel of a 40mm 'pom pom' gun, ie 40mm exploding flak AA barrel. I knew I saw it
somehwere, when I was in London I had great fun sitting in and wheeling the AA cannons around on a Battleship/museum on
the Thames, although they made it impossible to lower the guns more than ~45 degrees so you couldn't scare the people in
buildings :(. I didn't think a truck part would have such a nicely flared muzzle end.
MP5Guy February 14th, 2004, 03:09 AM

Fully Rifled 40mm AA Pom Pom Barrel. No Truck Suspension Part. Dave do you really think I would post a Pic of a Truck Part??
? ;) Note Recoil Spring Still Attached.
MP

Nay... Youre rigth, youve said that it was an gun barrel but, due to my lack of english, I understood that it was some
automotive part. It really looks like an suspension of a kind of truck fabricated in Brazil, the "Gurgel". It haves an internal gas
piston and also haves an spring, just like the recoil spring at your barrel.
Sorry if I ofended you, I was not saying (sp ?) that youve posted an truck part pretending that was an gun part, but rather
that youve posted some truck part to make an gun part...
Efraim_barkbit April 17th, 2004, 07:54 AM
I have some time over in a "workshop technics" class, and Im thinking of makeing a simple cannon.
It wont be something big, Ill make it as long as the drill bit permits, and drill from both ends, probably 40-50cm, and
probably 15mm ID, and 30mm OD.
That would give me 7,5mm walls, that should be enough.
Ill thread it 5-6cm in one end, and make a threaded endplug.
If you have any opinions about it, lets hear them.
Its probably be done on the lesson next tuesday, and I might have some time in two weeks If I dont finish. I have a three
hour lesson, so I have enough time, if not my teacher figures out something else I must do.
Narkar April 17th, 2004, 05:09 PM

Do you REALLY expect to drill accurate enough for the 2 holes to meet exaclty? I dont think so. What you need is a deep
drilling machine, and i dont think you would get access to that one too easy.
Better find some pipe
Efraim_barkbit April 18th, 2004, 08:05 AM

Ever heard of a lathe?
By the way, I just realised that the 15mm drill isnt that long, so the cannon will be shorter if I dont scale up the bore a bit...
anyway, Ill make it as long as the drill permits.

Sounds like a plan!
Oh, the joys of school - free access to all sorts of goodies and equipment, plus knowledge, if you knew the right questions to
ask.
Are you going to cut a square section thread? You might want the extra strength.
Hope you get it all sorted!
Efraim_barkbit April 18th, 2004, 04:56 PM

A sqare section thread?
Im sorry, but I have no Idea about what you mean. Explanation please.
I plan on just threading about 5cm in one end of the "pipe", and then make a threaded "plug" for it.
Efraim_barkbit April 20th, 2004, 12:10 PM

Theres not going to be any cannon, Im just home from a disappointing class :(
My teacher didnt like the plan, or more correct, he didnt like me making it in school, because if anything happened and
someone got hurt, it wouldnlook very good if the school had allowed a pupil to make a cannon and blah blah blah...
and to be honest, I can understand him, but that doesnt make me less disappointed.
Why cant things go as planned? Then I would have a lovely little 18mm cannon by my side right now
I must admit I hadnt had a thought about the possibility that it might be stopped by him, more likely that he had something
else for me that I must do.
So now Im back in the neverending search for a good piece of pipe.
knoddas April 20th, 2004, 12:59 PM

Here is a picture of my cannon.
Only 12.8 mm in diameter, but oh so powerful!
38 SPL in barrel (http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/knoddas/38SPLin505Gibbs.jpg)
Just kiddin', here (http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/knoddas/KynochAmmo.jpg) is the real ammo for it.
+++++++++++++++
That's not a cannon, but a large caliber rifle, and professionally manufactured to boot. :rolleyes:
Know the difference.
NBK

Sorry for bringing up an old topic.
Do you watch mythbusters on Discovery channel. The guys are very entertaining and quite informative :)
Sorry again if this post seems kewl as you refer to it.

Anyway today I watched an episode involving a Hungarian myth which is related to a tree cannon (a cannon whose barrel is
made of a hollowed out tree log).
According to that myth the Hungarian villagers constructed a tree cannon overnight and used it. But they used too much gun
powder and it exploded.
They actually tried it. First they constructed the tree cannon. They first took a large diameter log and attached three iron belts
at the breech and three iron belts muzzle section of the cannon using old fashioned methods. Then they drilled the bore of
the barrel (first by old tools that Hungarian villagers are claimed to use, but since they failed they used a power drill).
One of the guys carved a cannon ball out of a granite block by using chisel and hammer.
They hired a licensed explosive expert and tested their cannon with a gunpowder charge and it standed.
After the successful test, they took their tree cannon to the field and tested it first with a tennis ball and then the granit
cannon ball.
The tennis ball flew a length of footbal pitch. The granite cannon ball flew so away that they could not find it. Finally they used
two pounds of powder and plugged the muzzle with an aluminum plug and made it explode and shatter apart.
I mean it is very interesting to convert a (large diameter) tree log which is secured by means of iron hoops into a cannon.
Regards.
deathpickle88 December 16th, 2004, 06:12 AM

i saw that show, it was great.
Ive made quite a few pneumatic cannons. One had a 1" ball valve and it shot marbles. lol
I have found making the air chamber about 1:3 ratio larger than the barrel, it produces better results. This is because there is
alot more air being forced through the ball valve. so naturally their is a lower psi pressure rating and it is alot safer. always use
pressure rated pipe.
THAT Dude December 21st, 2004, 12:45 PM

I think that if you are making a home made mortar you are allready putting what amouts to a zip gun barrel on the back end
of your shells.
So it should simplify the mortar to attach a firing pin to the shells zip gun style.
That way you do not need to center a firing pin in the mortar (eliminating the "hard part" of bilding a mortar).
FUTI December 21st, 2004, 03:40 PM

to akinrog: I didn't watch that episode of Mythbusters but it is very common and true story...in this part of the world the rebels
against the conqueror(or ruler) often used this "wooden canon technology" in order to have at least some kind of artillery for a
combat. It does work but the range of projectile is shorter due to lower charge that can be used safely, and you must use
projectile that do not damage barrel (soft material is better). As I remember it is cherry tree trunk that is used since it is "soft
wood" that can be easilly bored to make a nice barrel . And also little material elasticity on charge detonation doesn't hurt I
think and keep that "canon" little "safer" .
FrankRizzo December 22nd, 2004, 09:25 PM

Did anyone see "Artillery Games" on the History Channel last Friday night? It was a damn cool show where various homemade
cannons and mortars competed for distance, accuracy, efficacy, etc. They showed the effects of various types of ammunition
(grape-shot, cannon balls, bar shot, etc.) against "human" targets, which was pretty impressive.
At the end, the winner of the accuracy competition pits their cannon against modern US-Military artillery @ 1000'. It's actually
quite impressive. Although the modern cannon has HE rounds, it fails to hit the target even once (looked to be a 4'X8' sheet
of plywood with target painted on). The replica cannon hits it 4-of-5 times within the bull's eye.

That's probably because the range was too short! Modern military artillery is very accurate, right out past the 5 mile mark. At
1000', it must have been near vertical, and hence wind affected lots, or else it was direct fire, at a flat target, which it should
have been fine with, since they shoot tanks like that.
Vinci September 17th, 2005, 05:32 PM

Im sorry for posting in such an old thread, but I have problems finding a good pipe. Even Austrias biggest metall-concern
didnt had anything above 5mm wall thickness...
I just found rods in any thinkable size, but how to drill such a deep hole in it ?
mediumcaliber September 17th, 2005, 06:03 PM

There are books that should be in the ftp that cover deep hole drilling, and one website that briefly describes it is
riflebarrels.com , although there are probably a lot of others. Use Google.
It can be HARD to find a supplier for thick walled seamless alloy tube, but they exist. One large one here in the states that
has nearly ideal tubes for 20-50mm guns is very large but specialized in tube and bar supply. There should be several
manufacturers in Austria and Germany that make these sorts of tube -a lot of seamless tube technology was invented in
Germany- and if it helps, I believe I've heard of a European machine shop referring to such stock as hollow bar.
Vinci September 18th, 2005, 08:43 AM

Ok, finally found a company wich sells nice tubes, but now Ive a problem to choose a diameter.
I thought about 95x20 (everything in mm) or maybe even 115x20. Of course it should stay somehow portable and the price is
important too...
Ive no clue what 1m of such a pipe cost here.
Heres a nice list of the pipes they sell:
http://service.rohrmertl.at/liste/ll_s.htm?SPRACHE=D
tomu September 18th, 2005, 12:06 PM

Well, you'll have to be very lucky if the pipe dealer sells you just one metre length of the pipe you want. Normally large
dealers like this sell only full length the pipes are manufactured which are 6 metres or sometimes 3 metres.
A pipe with this measurements isn't cheap, my guess is about 100 Euro plus/minus 20 Euro per metre, more if the dealer just
sells you one metre with an additional charge for cutting the pipe.

-------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Looking at the website... the tube spec turns out to call for low carbon steel, yield strength 345 MPa. I guess you mean
that the walls will have a thickness of 20mm, which makes more sense than a 20mm ID. You're talking about some very
heavy stuff with a 95mm OD; 37kg for a 1m tube... How do you plan to transport it? I would advise going with some kind of
alloy tube if you can find one, because the strength will be 2-3 times as high for the same weight, and it's said that it's about
the same cost per total strength. With a 95x20mm pipe, it will start to yield at only 184 MPa, about twice shotgun pressures,
so you'll have to watch how much powder you use very carefully. I heard of some guys firing a blank load from a homemade
cannon not too long ago and killing themselves when it exploded.
One way to avoid this might be to put a strain gage on the tube and measure firing strain; they have equipment to do that
with rifle barrels here for $2-500US.
Edit again: That dealer does have 20MnV6 hollow bar (Maschinenrohre), which is still low carbon (.2%) but with some vanadium
doping, and it can supposedly be heat treated to 620 Mpa yield, which is still not optimal, but a bit better.
http://service.rohrmertl.at/liste/ll_m.htm?SPRACHE=D
http://www.interlloy.com.au/data_sheets/hollow_bar/20mnv6.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
What alloy? You can probably get some idea what the alloy costs and find the weight of your tube. I seriously doubt you'll
need more than one bore diameter of wall thickness to be safe with just about anything. It's almost difficult for conventional
guns to reach 100KSI (100 K PSI) pressure, and if your tube OD is twice the ID, the tube will withstand internal pressure equal
to the yield strength of the material. Since a safety factor of 2 is advisable, then if you can find a *reasonably strong steel,*
the OD shouldn't need to be more than 3x the ID. In US terms, high end maraging steel has yield strengths from 250-350
KSI and mild steel more like 30-50 KSI, while types 4130, 4140, 4340, 8740, and a number of other low alloy steels can easily
be heat treated to above 100KSI.
In more expensive products like this, I think dealers will be willing to cut off however much you want, at least in America. The
dealer I know of offers custom cutting and related services to go along with their steel.

Ok, so 20MnV6 is the way to go ?
I still dont know wich diameter I should choose :D
And what about the lenght ?
On what does it depends ?
On the diameter ?
The used propellant ?
/edit
how much can stand a DOM pipe with the same diameter ?
I wont take any risc of exploding pipes !
but where to get them... :/

Ok, so 20MnV6 is the way to go ?
I still dont know wich diameter I should choose :D
And what about the lenght ?
On what does it depends ?
On the diameter ?
The used propellant ?
/edit
how much can stand a DOM pipe with the same diameter ?
I wont take any risc of exploding pipes !
but where to get them... :/
20MnV3 is a very tough steel and takes quite a lot of abuse.
What lenght and what diameter depends on what o you want to do or what type of mortar you want to build and what projecties
you want to fire, also to what range and with what type of propellant.
There are two engineering formulas for calculating the burst pressures of barrels, but I don't have them at hand right now. If I
will not forget I'll look them up and post them sometime.
But it's not only the maximum pressure but also the time-pressure gradient which plays an important role in the way a pipe
bursts.
Obiviously you know nothing otherwise you wouldn't ask such questions. So I suggest you should only experiment with Black
Powder as a propellant, because as long as the projectile is capable of freely moving in the barrel and as long as it isn't too
heavy a heavy walled steel pipe will not rupture, but you can blow the bottom plug out if it isn't properly made.
I further suggest you make a trip to Ferlach and visit the Fachschule fuer Buechsenmacher and the Ferlach Arms Museum in
Kaernten and have a look at their library. Btw. you can find a lot of literature about guns and arms in austrian libraries, so do
your homework. If you can't find suitable books at the library in your hometown think about Fernleihe.

Well, I red all the threads in the forum since Ive no books about artillery at home yet. But the hardly contain any usefull
information ...
Ive searched with google too of course, but I want hard facts (formulas). And I never thought about any other propellant as
blackpowder (maybe DBSP one day) because Im not one of those idiots who use HE charges.
I asked for the length because I first thought about building a conventional cannon as I prefer low shooting angles. But as the
cannon should stay somehow portable Ive to find a good compromise in it.
/edit
You may show your knowledge by explaining the connections and showing some examples. (like such diameter, with that
length and ... you know what I mean)
So, more technical, not just "5-6cal. lenghts are howitzer" or stuff like that.

Im sorry for making a double post, but I found a very interessting passage in Meyer&Khlers "Explosivstoffe" page 379. Ill
try to translete the text as good as possible:
"The, at the detonation of propellants, upcoming pressures in the inner ballistic can reach up to 600MPa and temperatures of
4000K. To calculate those pressures and temperatures a "condition-equation" is needed, wich connects the pressure, the
temperature, the gas density and the specific molnumber."
Now there is a part about the equation, but I wont write it down. Its pretty complicated as there are 2 virial-coefficients in it
wich describe the increasing double and thirdimpacts on gasmolecules with the growing gas density...
The calculation of those virial-coefficients has something to do with statistical thermodynamic...but lot more complicated than
usuall thermodynamics with explosives... ok, nevermind.
The next passage is way more interessting:

"The upcoming pressures from a detonation of a liquid or solid explosive after the shockwave can reach 2-50 GPa and
temperatures of arround 5000K."
That should explain why high explosives (to be exact: detonating HE) cant be used as propellant. (I wonder why keith got
banned ? Was it because of that thread ?)
/edit
maybe anyone can find more informations about the calculation

It looks like you have a lot of reading ahead of you :) I have an English ebook of Meyer, Kohler "Explosives" 5th ed, 2002,
and I'll look in it for what you referred to on propellants, but, if you don't aready know, plenty of propellants and HE share
common ingredents. HE compositions are optimized to detonate, while propellants try to avoid doing so; RDX is common in HE
as well as LOVA propellants where, if I understand correctly, a binding system was meant to reduce sensitivity, as well as some
older missile boosters. Is there a word in German for 'deflagrate?'
-----------
What heading was the entry in Meyer under? My copy is encyclopedic and probably has the same segment in a different place.
----------
I had a theory that might be useful in estimating very roughly how much of a propellant of known qualities might do what; but
bear in mind that it probably has an error in excess of 10% charge mass and that experimentation with reduced charges and
some means of determining pressure is necessary. It should give a very general idea of the charge size.
http://www.obscure-reference.com/cgi-bin/atr.cgi?read=776
A short paper that goes over better interior ballistics theory in a little detail is
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA076175

Of course, thats why I wrote detonating in anchor. And ya, there is a word, its just "deflagrieren". Im not new to explosives,
just to cannons.
--------------
The headline is "equation of state".
--------------
The book contain a lot of usefull informations about thermodynamic calculations, not only for explosives. But the
thermodynamic section in the book only contains explosionheats, gasvolumes, oxygenbalances, and and and... well known
calculations at all.
Not exactly cannon related :/
But maybe can you figure out how to calculate the pressure ;)
--------------
I wonder if its even possible to calculate the propellant amounts for a homemade cannon. There are just too many facts you
would have to look at... (just for example: the quality of the propellant wont allways be the same, that gets even worse when
using DB propellants like NC/NG)
I guess its only possible to estimate it or doing some trial&error and start with little amounts.
--------------
/edit
ah sry, you allready mentioned, I should red the whole post next time before I write my answer
nice links youve found there
dana_m_h July 26th, 2006, 12:13 AM

My cannon is roughly 2.5" in diameter... just the perfect size that it made it impossible to find any ammo. A can of tomato
paste is just a hair too large... but a shot glass is a hair too small. i ended up wrapping a large bouncyball with 2 rolls of
electrical tape. I used a film canister of FF grade pyrodex for the charge and typical cannonfuse for the ignition. It went off a
little larger than I expected with a huge thunderous BOOOOOM echoing for atleast 20 seconds in the valley I fired it. The
velocity must have been in excess of 500fps but I am sure it was less than 1000fps because there was no crack to it..... I dont
think at least. with my fingers in my ears they were still ringing after i fired it. Some time when the Local Yocals ( area pigs )
calm down I will do it again. This time in the daylight. I was supprised that there was very little muzzle flash. But the amount
of smoke was quite large. what would be a good ammo to use so I dont run out of electrical tape again... thanks in advance
-------Just Another Henchman
Dank$taVegas July 26th, 2006, 03:00 AM

My cannon is roughly 2.5" in diameter
A pop can is roughly 2.5" in diameter around the center of the can, you could drink the pop from the cans and find something
to fill the empty cans with, maybe some cement or something similar.
I personally don't have any experience with cannons thought so this is just an idea.
ak-47_gunner July 26th, 2006, 08:54 AM

I have a .70 cal 1 ounce slug mould
made a cannon from hydrolic cylender tube I have put it through over 6 inches of solid pine at 20 feet using rifle powder
dana_m_h July 26th, 2006, 04:46 PM

a pop can is roughly 2.75 in diameter like a tennis ball both are too big and a golf ball is too small

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Accurate, Long Range SC's?
Log in
View Full Version : Accurate, Long Range SC's?
Cricket S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 08:19 AM

I h a v e t h o u g ht for a while about the accuracy of Shaped Charges. Does anyone know anything about the accuracy of a SC? Of
course there would be determining factors (ang le, cone material, size, co nfinement, ect.), but in theory, could these be used
from a good distance? If so, this could hold very m uch potential. For exa m p l e , s a y I a m a guerilla fighter. My enem y tends to
walk in single file line s. I could set up a charge aim ed through a well known trail with a trip wire and a length of detcord to th e
SC (maybe several). This would have the potential to destroy many targets at once, hum an, and machine alike (well, m ostly).
And if they are too inaccurate to be used for this, would there be any way to m a k e t h e m m ore accurate, in flight or before
detonation? Maybe a very long, very tough funnel, like a choke on a shotgun? Just an idea thats been floating around for a
while. Thanks.
DBSP S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Allth ough I a m not shure I don't belive that the jet will survive any longer distances before getting scrambe l e d u p . I t s h o u l d b e
s o m ewhat accurate though.
W hat you want is an EFP.
Anthony S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 11:57 AM

Yes, I believe the jet thins out and breaks up over distance.
Not sure why you'd want to attack troop lines with shape d charge s though, since that one charge will only take out one person.
The same explosive charge propelling 4x its weight in frags could take out m any persons. Even with vehicles this would still be
better unless they're significantly arm oured.
Maybe an EFP would be more like what you're thinking of?
knowledgehungry S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 03:03 PM

I think what he mean t is that an SC co uld have the potential to go through many people, if they were in single file, not very
practical tho IMHO, a claymore is better.

U s u a l l y , s h a p e d c h a r g e s a r e r a t e d b y h o w m a n y i n c h e s o f R o l l e d H o m o g e n o u s A r m or (RHA) it can penetrate, but cricket gave
m e an idea for a new testing standard, and we wouldn't even have to change the abbreviation!
It's be the num ber of RHA (Rag Head Abdulla's) the charge could penetrate. :D
Line up 10 RHA's, tied together, and fire off the charge. The number of RHA's that the jet com pletely penetrates is its effective
rating. If the charge penetrates all 10 R H A ' s , l i n e u p 2 0 a n d r e p e a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t ! ; )
James S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 04:17 PM

I think what you are looking for could be accom plished with a launched (conical) shaped charge which would be trigg ered at
s o m e distance from hitting the point guy.
TreverSlyFox S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2003, 07:09 PM

For what you describe "single file colum n of troops" the best tactic would be claym ores in a "V" pattern along the trail. For be st
effect an MG should be at the point of the "V" to rake over any survivors.
O n e o f o u r n a s t y a m b u s h e s i n N a m was to m ount 3 claymores a bout 10' off the ground in trees on each side of the trail
poin ting slightly down ward (ab out 45 degree angle). Charley and us were so busy watching the ground for trip wires and m i n e s
that we'ed fo rget about "UP" in the trees. This is m uch better used comm and detonated rather tha n a trip wire so the point
m an doesn't set it off. With an M60 MG set at the point of the "V" not m uch will survive after the first 30 seconds.
This setup is best used at a turn in the trail especially with a long streach before the turn. Set the MG up at the turn and you r
claym ores set about 50-100 yards out (point m an will be anywhere from 2 0 - 7 5 y a r d s o u t d e p e n d i n g on terrain so his hand
signals can be seen). The claymores set with a spacing of about 50 feet between them or whatever you can get. The leads are
brought back to the cam o e d M G e m p l a c e m e n t , o n c e t h e m a i n b o d y o f t r o o p s i s i n t h e b l a s t z o n e t h e M G s p o t t e r t r i p s t h e
claym o r e s a n d t h e f u n b e g a i n s .
Trever
Cricket S e p t e m b e r 1 6th, 2003, 01:59 PM

Yea, an EFP would probably be better for that instance. But this idea m ight still be usefull. W hat if som e o n e h a d a L S C 6 - 8 " o f f
the ground a t the end of a hallway? Heh heh, poor guys would leave bloody little nub prints everywhere after their feet were
s e p e r a t e d . M i g h t n o t b e a s d e a d l y a s a c l a y m o r e , b u t i t ' d b e g o o d i f s o m eone didn't what them dead, just imm obilised. If it
was meant to be deadly, they could just m ove it up 4 or 5 feet. Anyway, m a y b e s o m e o n e c a n t h i n k o f a g o o d i d e a f o r o n e .
Mr Cool S e p t e m b e r 2 5th, 2003, 12:40 PM

IIR C, SC's m ade with a pressed or spun (ie, one piece of m etal) liner still had significant penetrating abilities at short ranges
( 1 m w a s t h e r a n g e m entioned, but I forget how big they said the SC was), whereas SC 's with sintered cones did not.
Cyclonite S e p t e m b e r 2 6th, 2003, 09:57 AM

A sh ape charge is sim ply not effective at any other distance than the one is should be used for. A m ore useful charge would be
a platter charge, the m ilitary uses these at longer distances. The cone is thicker and just m olds into a large spike and hits the
target at a longer distance.
DeviantSaint S e p t e m b e r 2 6th, 2003, 03:17 PM

I'm not very fam iliar with shaped charges as I was not an engineer. However, I've done am b u s h e s i n t h e h i n d u - k u s h o f
a f g h a n i s t a n a n d w e u sed claym ores in conjunction with sm all arms. Howe ver, a large part of that has to do with the terrain. The
hind u kush is very verticle with narrow passes a nd canyons. Very little foliage and loose, soft rock. (looked like sandstone to
m e).
IMO claym ores are th e way to go with an ambush. C o m m a n d d e tonated to start the party off with and then m op up with sm all
a r m s . I f s m a l l a r m s a r e n ' t a v a i l i b l e t h e n p e r h a p s a s e r i e s o f e x p l o s i o n m ight be the way to go. Ho wever, I personally would
opt for an explosive version of shoot and scoot tactics. Lay your expediant am bush, detonate, withdraw, track, lay, detonate.
etc etc etc.
Again though, I had access to small arms and em ployed those instead.
On another thread about claym ores there was a questio n of wether the m ines have "front towards enem y" on them .. they do..
however, my team h a d a h a b i t o f t a k i n g a m agic m arker and writing "if you can read this you're fucked." on the forward side .
W e also would put sm iley faces on the HEDP 40mm grenades... But I dig ress.
C l a y m o r e m i n e s a r e e m placed with the convex side towards the enemy. (or at least that's how I was trained). I've not seen a
trip wire claym ore used, however that is more a m atter of JAG and the current anti-mine sentim ent than anything else I
b e l i e v e . C o m m a n d d e t o n a t e d c l a y m ores are still standard use stuff.
Btw, love the site. I'm really intrigued by the co ncept of mini-gre n a d e s a n d m i n i - m ores. I'm s u p r i s e d t h a t I h a v e n ' t s e e n
anything for an im provised PDM yet.
P e r h a p s I j u s t h a v e n ' t s e a r c h e d e n o u g h.
Thanks.
-DS
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 2 7th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Apparantly you haven't search ed, otherwise you'd have found se veral threads on the subject of an IPDM.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > High pressure electric valve ...
Log in
View Full Version : High pressure electric valve...
chokingvictim78 S e p t e m b e r 1 9th, 2003, 11:59 PM

Yes, I know. Don't start a new thread as your first post, but I searched and could not find any info on m y question. W ell, I
designed a bolt action pneumatic spud gun, with a bolt that m oves back, instead of the whole barrel m oving forward (the
designs for that can be found with a google search), so that I ca n quickly change barrel sizes without switch ing out the entire
bolt. I'm p l a n n i n g o n u s i n g a n e x t r a C O 2 t a n k f r o m m y p a i n t b a l l g u n a s t h e a i r s o u r c e , e l i m i n a t i n g t h e n e e d t o p u m p u p t h e
tank after every shot. My only problem is that I need an electric valve strong enough to withstand the pressure of CO 2. I
believe the psi is som ewhere around 1 100 on a full 20 oz. tank. The valve needs to be fairly sm all so I don't have to
c o m p l e t e l y r e - d e s i g n t h e l a y o u t o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s . S o m ething in-line and sm aller than a standard 1" solenoid sprinkler valve.
Any com m e n ts/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Wild Catmage S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2003, 07:15 AM

1 1 0 0 p s i s o u n d s l i k e a l o t o f p r e s s u r e f o r a s p u d g u n . C o p p e r p i p e o n l y t a k e s a r o u n d 8 5 0 psi with liquids a nd 200 psi with
g a s e s . W hy not use a regulator to take the pre ssure do wn, and then use a solenoid valve that will work with lower pressures?
Y o u c o u l d a l s o t a k e a l o o k a t h t t p : / / c a m b r i a b i k e . c o m /SALE/pum p s / i n d e x . h t m
They sell a 4 0 gram CO2 tire infalting device that will fit onto a schrader valve. This way, you can u se the cartridge to
pressurise th e reservoir on your gun in b e twe e n sh o ts. A l s o , a s t he CO2 s ys t em c a n be t urned o f f bet w een s ho t s , s o th at you
d o n ' t l o s e e x t r a g a s w h e n t h e s o l e n o i d v a l v e i s o p e n e d ( a l t h o u g h this depends on the tim ing of your valve system ).
W hile we're on the topic of spud guns, what sort of amm o d o y o u u s e ? I f i n d t h a t a n e m p t y 7 . 6 2 m m cartridge that has been
refilled with lead :D requires o nly m inim al wrapping with m asking tape to form a g o o d s e a l in a 15 mm barrel. It also has a
fairly good am ount of power (although the rounds tend to tum ble through the air but that's what you get from a s m o o t h b o r e
barrel).
There is an existing topic on this subject at http://www.roguesci.org/theforum /sho wthread.php?thre adid=725
Anthony S e p t e m b e r 2 0th, 2003, 09:10 AM

I agree, you don't want to be putting full bottle pressure into your gun, g et a reg!
High pressure solenoid valves are not easy to find, to the point where pe o p l e h a v e f o u n d i t e a s i e r t o m a k e t h e m f r o m scratch
than source them. Hydraulic solenoid valves can be used, they're fairly cheap and will easily habdle the pressure, but being
designed for viscous liquids, not gases, they can leak all over th e place.
chokingvictim78 S e p t e m b e r 2 1st, 2003, 03:43 PM

T h a n k s . I d e c i d e d t o u s e a P a l m er reg ( p a i n t b a l l ) o n t h e t a n k s o I c o u l d u s e a R a i n b i r d s o l e n o i d , t h e y h o l d u p a r o u n d 1 2 0 p s i .
As for am m o , I usually get a length of pipe the sam e diameter as my barrel, sha r p e n t h e e d g e o f o n e e n d , cut slugs, and
f r e e z e t h e m . If you g et a pack of cheap pencils, and pull the eraser/m etal part off, get one of those pins with the little ball on
t h e e n d , a n d put about 10-15 peices of yarn on it, and shove the needle through straight, starting from t h e b o t t o m o f t h e
eraser up, it makes a nasty little dart that flies pretty stable, they fit 1/2 in. barrels. And thanks fo r the link to the other
thread. I had pretty much figured out that using CO2 to charge up a PVC tank was probab ly a bad idea in the first place
though, so I went with the idea of just hooking up a paintball tank to a h igh-rated solenoid, but didn't think of a reg. Now all I
have to do is wait until I have enough money...
Tuatara S e p t e m b e r 2 1st, 2003, 06:27 PM

The other wa y to do this is to use a reg to prod uce a low pressure supply, then use a low pressure solenoid valve to drive a
high pressure pneumatic valve. Its a com mon industrial m aster/slave arrangement.
Chemical_burn September 2 2nd, 2003, 12:46 PM

Hm m m this m aster/slave valve setup sounds intresting but totally confuses m e o n how it would wo rk. Tuatara can you expla in
in a little more detail how this type of setup works? I will do som e research into this as it sounds very intresting as I have
alwa ys wante d a h i g h p r e s s u r e p n e u m atic cannon to pla y with :D
I h a v e t h o u g ht of ma king the popular piston disign that is used with m o s t h i g h p r e s s u r e p n e u m a t i c s p u d g u n s b u t t h e s e

require a ball valve and I want one that uses a high pre ssure solenoid valve. I haven't disigned my gun yet but if at all
possible I want to run it off of somewhere around 200psi maybe 250psi but if I go that high I will need som e seriou s
equipment to manufacture it as it will need to be Al.
I'm hopeing to get th is thing designed and build by spring so I can do som e fun testing with it.
If I can I might even see if I can get a rifled barrel attachm ent m ade for it along with som e other barrels for different
purposes.
Any help would greatly be app riciated Ideas are always welcom e as I really haven't been working on the design m uch lately.
Any suggestion and/or tips wo uld be very helpful.
Tuatara September 2 2nd, 2003, 06:52 PM

W ell, my last post was a little terse, I adm it.
W hat I'm trying to de scribe is a system in which there are two gas supplies, one high pressure and one low pressure. The low
pressure sup ply is used for control gear. In a pneum atic system it is possible to do everything with air pressure - yo u can ge t
swtiches, one-way valves, m ulti-port valves, proportiona l valves etc. The switches generally run on low pressure, (for operator
s a f e ty as m uch as an ything), an these low-pressure 'signals' can be used to operate pneumatic va lves which control high
pressure air - to do whatever e.g. drive ram s.
S o i n s t e a d o f u s i n g a p n e u m atic switch, I'm suggesting using a solenoid valve to provide the low p r e s s u r e s i g n a l t o o p e r a t e a
p n e u m atic valve which controls the high pressure air.
If you register you can get loads of power-point based pneum atic training guides free from Norgren (http://www.norgren.com /)
chokingvictim78 S e p t e m b e r 2 4th, 2003, 08:14 PM

Thanks for all the help. I have this thing com pletely designed now. I was hoping I wouldn't get flam ed for having a new topic
a s m y first post, and I guess I'm just barely not-lam e enough to have pulled it off :D . Chemical_burn, on the topic of rifled
barrels, wouldn't somehow attaching a drill bit slightly la rger than in id of your barrel to a swivel on the end of a rod, and
pushing it through with a constant speed, create a crude rifling? Since it wouldn't be going fast, I think the cut would just follow
t h e s a m e pattern of the bit, although I could be wrong.
chokingvictim78 October 4th, 2003, 11:06 PM

OK...this thing has officially been built. I used the tank from my old cannon, I can't afford to m a k e i t C O 2 powered yet. No
wood stock e ither, I don't have the proper tools here, I need m y grandfa thers shop that's all the way in Mississippi. I'll try and
get pics of the bolt assembly up tom orrow once the PVC g l u e s e t s . M y d a d a n d I d e s i g n e d s o m e exploding rounds, too. Pretty
sim ple, sort of an im provement of the kewl bb-glued-to -a-shotg un-prim er thing, but it should be pretty reliable.
Wild Catmage October 5th, 2003, 05:14 AM

You can work out roughly how many twists are needed for your b arrel using the Greenhill Form ula:
Bullet Caliber (K (Bullet Length Bullet Caliber)) = 1 twist in so m any inches (round down to the next whole num ber).
All d im e n s i o n s h a v e t o b e i n i n c h e s .
K is a constant and is equal to 125 for velocities up to 1500-fps, 150 for velocities of 1500-fps to 3000-fps, and 180 for
velocities of 3000-fps and up. From what I've h eard, m ost air cannons work at around 500-fps but I haven't used a
chronom eter on m ine yet.
http://www.aeroballisticsonline .com/ballistics/riflings.htm l#greenhill
YayItGoBoom! October 13th , 2 0 0 3 , 0 6 : 2 2 P M

The spudder's super supply source: McMaster Carr (http ://www.m cmaster.com) This is a great site they have everything you
could possibly want (except SDR21 1.5 " pipe aka golf ball barrels). Search for Quick Exhaust Valve they are very useful for
actuating piston pnumatics.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Soft Kill Claymore
Log in
View Full Version : Soft Kill Claymore
nbk2000 September 23rd, 2003, 08:37 AM

The military has this neat new toy called the MCCM (Modular Crowd Control Munition) which is supposed to be a "non-lethal" version of the claymore, using hard rubber pellets
instead of steel shot.
The "rubber" pellets are actually high-durometer PVC spheres .33" in diameter. They are held in a plastic matrix which is a plate drilled with holes of slighly larger I.D. than the
pellets OD., so that the pellets are held in a uniform pattern and don't rattle around inside the casing. This also serves as a kind of barrel to direct the rubber "bullet" (pellet) in
the proper direction.
The pellets are propelled with less than an ounce of sheet explosive, of the PETN type, to a velocity of ~300FPS. This is enough to hurt you, but not kill you, as long as you're
not standing directly in front of it when it goes off.
With this loading, and the usual claymore size and placement on the ground, the pellets hit the ground within 100 feet.
Now, don't let the term "Non-lethal" fool you, because this isn't harmless. The pellets will penetrate the body if you're less than 15 yards away from it, and through clothing
too. I've seen pictures of what these kinds of pellets (fired from shotguns) can do to a person. You'd have penetrating wounds of an inch or so depth, which would be very
painful and disfiguring, even if it doesn't kill you.
However, that doesn't concern us, since we wouldn't be on the receiving end anyways. :)
An application would be to use this as a deterrent to kevlar roaches interfering with any activities you might be engaged in at the time they so rudely interupt you, like when
you're making off with the loot. ;)
See, killing someone (especially pork) means no statute of limitations, so you always have that hanging over your head. But, if you blast them with hundreds of rubber pellets
which puncture their body in multiple places to a depth of several inches, leaving them crippled from the pain...but alive...then after 8 years (or whatever it is), you're
untouchable.
You get away, they get a disability pension, and everyone's happy. :p
You're also saving explosives, since the SKC uses less than 20 grams, whereas the normal claymore uses about 700 grams, 35x more. :o So you could make 35 SKC's with the
same amount of explosive as one normal claymore. :D
Plus, the SKC (Soft-Kill Claymore) can be used in situations where using a full-powered one could get you killed. Like, for instance, directing them at your hideout to take out
surrounding bacon. If you use normal claymores, then you'd be spraying your own position with fragments, as well as the bacon. BAD!
But, if the pellets are lightweight rubber or plastic, then the frags are unable to penetrate into your abode by the time they reach it, if they don't hit the ground first.
You could even use these indoors because the pellets are too light and soft to penetrate through interior walls, but are still going fast enough to fuck up anyone inside the
room, as well as being deafened by the explosion of an ounce of explosive in the confines of a room. I'd imagine the pellets would do quite a bit of ricocheting around too.
I've whipped up a nice .GIF animation showing the general construction of the SKC, but it's 640Kb, too large to up here or on my server, so I've upped it to the Pizzaman
briefcase. Only took me an hour to make it but I'm happy with it.
http://briefcase.yahoo.com username: jakio50 pass: tehwin
The patent number for this is 6,298,788.
DBSP September 23rd, 2003, 09:36 AM

I think I have seen something similar to this, if not the same thing. But as I remember it the frags was propelled by flash instead of a HE. The thing kinda looked like a car
audio set, only it was a plastic box with one of the short ends open and the frags at thew other eclosed end.
And I can't find the .GIF in the briefcase, I don't know if it's only my computer that is screwing me or if you screwed up while upploading it ;)
nbk2000 September 23rd, 2003, 04:51 PM

No, I didn't screw up the upload, because I verified it by downloading it.
What happened was some PUNK deleted it, no doubt after they downloaded it themselves. :mad:
I've re-upped it to my site. You'll have to use HJSplit to rejoin the parts.
Right click/save Part 1 (http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/MCCManimation.gif.001) and Part 2 (http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/MCCManimation.gif.002)
For some weird reason, my site renamed the file extensions to gif.gig, instead of gif.001 and gif.002, so you'll have to rename them as such when saving them.
I know what you're talking about, DBSP, as I've seen it too. That's not the MCCM though. That's some flash-bang manufacturers version, that uses a heavy steel box with a
flash charge in it, to propel the rubber balls.
NoltaiR September 24th, 2003, 01:22 AM

Claymores have always amused me due to the sheer power that each one yields and due to the fact that manufacturing one is almost foolproof... but then again if you are a
fool that made one, then you will probably be seriously injured at the very least. But my main point I have to stress in this post is that in all the claymores I have deployed (in
theory, of coarse) and seen deployed, I have never seen one that couldn't tear through sheet metal so I find it hard to believe that a police force would actually use one
(whether rubber or not). And I very much agree with NBKs statement that within a certain range, penetration is likely, especially when used with a sheet explosive comparable
with PETN.

While searching google to prove our ownership of the files being sold by the thieving shit (thread elsewhere), I ran across the link to the other LLW claymore you were talking
about DBSP.
http://www.pop-inc.com/POP_Cat_Pg15.html
NoltaiR September 24th, 2003, 02:42 PM

Well I guess I stand corrected, although I can see where lawsuits against police forces may result due to excessive force and the fact that you can't really stop the munition
from injuring any innocent people who may be among the crowd.

While on the subject of claymores agin I though I'd clarify some of the pics linked to my sig.
On my vacation I made two minimores. I took an empty 22lr 50 round box and taped the upper side of it full of BBs, I'll have to have a look to see how many there where but
I belive there where about 120 of them. I packed 100g of ANNM into the box and wrapped it in duct tape, I left the side with the frags open, so that only the thin paper-tape
covered the BBs. Then put a 22WM shell with PETN in the center of the charge perpendicular to the frags. I put the claymore on the ground and put a 30x42cm 1mm steel plate
1m infront of the claymore then detonated it.
I did catch the video of it which is availible in my sig as well as the pics of the setup and the plate.
The plate had been fully penetrated by the frags, without ANY effort it seemed. 75 of the frags hit the plate. Some small rocks from the ground had also penetrated the plate.
The largest rock to penetrate the plate was 1x2mm and the smallest about 0,1x0,1mm.
Later that weak I detonated another claymore this time against a slightly funnier target namely a car!! Not to far from where I was staying a ford escort had been abandoned
and filled with garbage. I put the claymore which was equal in size to the first claymore on a wooden tripod I quickly made before the detonation. I belive it was about 50cm
high. It was a bit difficult to aim the claymore this time and I think I got it a bit to hight because there where only about 28 hits on the car, however there where a window
directly above where the frags had hit so I suspect that at least as many frags had gone out that way(there where no glass in the frame).
Well well, the frags did also fully penetrate this car, the holes in the car plating which is if I am to belive my brother 1.6mm thick looked exactly the same as the ones in the
1mm plating.
I coulden't have a look inside the car because the car was full of junk but I shure wouldn't like to be sitting in it with one of these claymores aimed at it !!.
I could have had a look in the car but there was a good reason not to, TIME. I had to get the fuck out of there really quick because just 300m from the car there was a couple
of poachers that I suspect had just shoot a moose! :) At first I thought about skipping the charge but then I though that if they just did something illegal then I might just as
well do the same. :D
And I also knew that I would be 1000km from the car within 12h since I was on my way home. Man what an adrenaline rush that blast was, and the getaway from the car on
the narrow gravel road doing well over 140 km/h with the poachers hunting us :cool:
Well that was about as off topic one can get but what the hell at least the word claymore is compatible with this thread;)
FragmentedSanity September 25th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Lo all :)
Am I the only one who thinks those poachers must carry their balls about in a wheelbarrow?
Maybe I justy react differently than some - but if someone set of any kind of explosive device near me Id be heading in the other direction real quick.
Ayway - back to the topic, any suggestions as to suitable materials for thne rubber balls if improvising such a device. My first thought was those high bounce rubber balls that
are about an inch in diameter. They are a lot bigger so penetration is less likley, but these little balls would still pack a punch, I wonder if the kenetic energy could break ribs
and such? The other benifit these balls would have is the bounce. Letting of such a device inside a room would be insane - even outside ricochets would still be fairly powerful.
Of course youd probably need a little more explosive to get similar velocities with the heaveir frags.
Later
FS

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Blowpipes
Log in
View Full Version : Blowpipes
dinkydexy October 3rd, 2003, 06:08 PM

Anyone know anything about how to make a rather good blowpipe, or links to such information??
Rhadon October 3rd, 2003, 07:00 PM

Assuming that you want something else than the most simple blowgun w hich should be rather easy to construct, the USPTO will yield some useful results. Use the patent
numbers 6,588,413 and 4,103,893 (didn't have the time to have a closer look at them) or even better do a search yourself using the term "blowgun".
dinkydexy October 3rd, 2003, 09:44 PM

Thanks Rhadon, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean...forgive my ignorance, and please explain. I've tried searching 'blow pipe' and all similar stuff on Google and
all the rest, but there's nothing.
ps. You're right in assuming that I'm looking for something more substantial than a basic peashooter. The situation is that a gang of drug users have taken over a sports field
near where I live, and they seem to like needles....
Rhadon October 3rd, 2003, 10:42 PM

I didn't mean searching google but the USPTO (http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-bool.html).
Tuatara October 4th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Blowpipes are simple! A piece of 10mm Al tube , about 75cm long, w as my favourite toy. Darts w ere made using sewing machine needles (nice and heavy) bound to a thin
bamboo tw ig, with a tuft of cotton on the end. I could get these things embedded 10mm into drywall. Best of all, a sewing machine needle has a nice hole just behind the point,
where you can put your favourite poison.
At work I used 15mm PVC conduit, firing a steel centerpunch through several carboard boxes, with air from a compressor. Not exactly long range, but still fun.
IDTB October 4th, 2003, 03:28 AM

I may not be able to help you with your blow gun, but this may help you with your situation.
Unfortunately I too have seen many drug users 'take over' parks and other innocent areas where our youth tend to be. I highly dislike the blowgun idea. Where will you be
shooting from? How far aw ay? What will be the dart(laced or unlaced)? What do you expect to come of it?
To my knowledge, blowguns really can't shoot far enough for a covert situation. I question their effectiveness.
Their reaction to just being shot with a dart won't be pleasant. I go by a simple rule: If you can see them, they can see you. What are you going to do when they start looking
around for the shooter? Assuming you want them away from the sports field, I'd suggest boosting up your tactics. Remember not only to take physical action, but to make them
mentally aware of how you want them to respond. How you'd address that, I'm not sure. Firstly, watch your target. Make a note of their patterns.
After this period, you should begin thinking of a course to address the situation. This part, I'm really not sure what to do. If you're stuck on the blow gun idea, incorporate
Tuatara's idea of using compressed air. I think a dart(or any object) in a bb gun w ould be the most effective means of delivering it, but I suggest you think of another plan. I'm
sure if you seek another more effective plan, the other members may help you. Nobody wants drug users poisoning our wells of innocence.
Sgt.Starr October 5th, 2003, 09:52 PM

I kind of agree that blowpipes not be the most effective, although they might be the most fun.
If you had access to a paintball gun and some cheap paint you could easily deploy anything from pepper spray to almost any sort of caustic gasses. get a dental syringe, like
the ones ppl use to clean thier braces, empty the PB of the paint and fill it with whatever like or just grab some bulldog rounds (solid rubber rounds designed for PB practice.)
and hit some punks in the nuts, fast effective and pretty decent on the range. It might not the most covert, I would make sure that if you do use a PB gun that who you shoot
definatly doesnt know that you have a PB gun and that they can't find out.
Also, you could refer to the other topic on caltrops and other impediments of movement. Leave some notes in or around your traps and let them know w hat you w ant done,
them out. That could be a little dangerous though just because you are leaving behind traps that could end up with collateral damage, or they could possibly trace you. One
thing to keep in mind, if you can somehow get them in the trap right about the time that a pig "happens" to ride by with his spot light on, you could whatch while this mf'er gets
his own and gets to be Justina instead of justin, in overnight lockup. Either way it all sounds fun to me, be creative w ith whatever you do.
But if you really w ant to go w ith the blowpipe idea...Go down to the local hardware store and just browse the plumbing section for awhile, remember that you w ould need a
mouth piece and possibly a grip. Try to have the pipe as stiff as possible, and I w ould even start long and w ork my way down on the length, seeing what is the most effective,
again be creative. All you need is in the plumbing and sew ing section. Another thing, if you want to make some nice heavy darts, use sewing needles, put the needle through a
tire valve cap and then use super glue with any kind of tail. Cotton w ould work, or you could search around the crafts section of wal-mart, k-mat or any of those "marts".
Anyways good luck with w hatever you do, and for the third any final time, Be creative!
aikon October 6th, 2003, 01:36 PM

dinkydexi: you should look for michael d. janich's book "BLOWGUNS-The Breath Of Death" published by paladin press.
it's a nice introduction to the topic but don't expect too much. His design for the "homemade exploding syringe dart" is horrible, because the darts are too heavy.
I don't think that a blowgun is the right weapon to fight against drug abusing individuals.
whatever you do: be carfeul and think tw ice about your actions.
dinkydexy October 6th, 2003, 02:24 PM

Thanks to everyone for your contributions; it turns out that this is much, much simpler than I anticipated. Which is good, because I'm big on keeping things simple.
I nipped into a gas supplies shop today- as it happens there's one on the end of my street- and bought a rather nice chrome plated tube, 8mm bore and over a metre long. I
was pleasantly surprised to find that a humble Q-tip fits the tube neatly enough to be going on w ith....so i just bit one end off and replaced the cotton w ool wad with the
straight needle part of a safety pin. Fuck me!! It must have gone over 20 metres, straight as an arrow!!
I will w ork on this and post the results for anyone who might be interested. BTW, I hear w hat some of you guys are saying about blowpipes not being the best weapon for the
situation, and I don't disagree with you...a hand grenade or 9 would be much more effective, for sure. But surely, surely we can agree that to stick these assholes with NEEDLES
is APPROPRIATE?? I'm sure they'll get the POINT!

dinkydexy, I bet you are from the UK.
Please add your location to your profile. Trust me, you're not a super-stelath if you leave it blank, and knowing w hat country you are from helps us help you.
Sparky October 6th, 2003, 05:15 PM

I remember buying a mouthpeice for protection in sparring. They are made of some plastic rubbery stuff which gets quite soft in boiling water. At the time I was trying to think
of a use for it but nothing came to mind. It occurs to me now that this material w ould be perfect for a mouthpiece for a blow gun. It's soft and easy to shape, plus it's fairly
durable and rubbery (easy to make airtight). Pretty much any sports store should sell them.

There is a "trade center" nearby in the metropolitan Detroit area open Friday nights, all day Saturday and much of Sunday. It's a glorified indoors flea market but has a number
of shops you won't find downtown.
One such shop sells knives of every impractical sort, coins from many lands and times... and blowguns. These aren't the same as w hat you'll find at (Was|K|Super)Mart, these
fellows range in length from 1 to nearly three metres in length.
Supplied w ith them are metal darts, and standing next to them is a collection of bits and pieces for making your own darts.
Perhaps a very SMALL impact-sensitive charge could be set behind a syringe plunger? If you want them to get the POINT, perhaps you could use a NEEDLE full of some REAL
HOT STUFF. Potassium chloride and maybe some jalapeno extract?
DG-PEACH October 28th, 2003, 08:32 AM

I've been playing around with a couple of blow pipes and home made darts and found it best to use a pipe about 60 cms, I made the darts w ith sewing machine needles glued/
taped onto a length of hollow bamboo ~8cms long then tape some medical cotton on the end, then cover the cotton with glad-wrap/plastic wrap/w hatever you call it so that
when you blow on the pipe you dont get little strands of annoying cotton in your mouth. The sewing machine needles break occassionally due to the fact that they have a hole
near the tip that makes them a little fragile, but when shooting into solid objects like wood. I've tried using pins, nails, and also knitting needles, which all seem to work ok but
just arent sharp as the sewing machine needles. If I could sharpen up the knitting needles I'm sure they'd be a lot more durable but I don't have a knife sharpener/grinding
block handy and using the concrete isn't tooo effective. Also I experimented w ith heavier darts, first by filling the bamboo w ith nails and then by using metal shafts etc. but I
found they're too heavy and drop considerably after only 5-10 meters. My mate and I made some darts replacing the needles big nails w ith the heads facing out (bludgeoning
as opposed to pericing) and played around shooting eachother in the backyard.....quite effective and left some nice bruises hehe so we went down the park to see if we could
hit any birds with any accuracy and we found that the needles are fairly useless in killing the bird as they dont do much damage and occasionally just fell out after a few
seconds of flapping around, but the bludgeoning darts broke bones etc etc. I'm kinda wondering what type of material I could make a stomp bag out of to get some more
pressure into the tube...any ideas would be helpful, thanks :)

You can use a large bottle or other container made of soft plastic (not PET drink bottles). There are several clothes w ashing procucts that come in suitable bottles.
All you then need to do is run a tube from the bottle to the blowgun, and stomp on the bottle.
IDTB October 28th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Why not pet drink bottles? I w ould think they would have ideal soft plastic for the intended use.
DG-PEACH October 29th, 2003, 08:16 AM

Thanks xyz, never really thought about using a bottle considering the normal 2ltr softdrink bottle usually takes some effort to uncrush after being stood on. I'll try out a softer
bottle when I finish off some bleach or laundry liquid :) I Tried using an inflatable toy and cut a decent hole in it for better airflow but its hard keeping it inflated in time to stomp
it and even then it finds some way to pop and ruin the fun :(

IDTB, the reason for not using PET drink bottles is that they do not go back to their original shape after being stomped on, and it can take a long time to get them back to their
original shape.
The plasic laundry cleaner bottles that I w as talking about will regain their orignal shape in a second or tw o w hen you stomp on them.
YayItGoBoom! November 4th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Not pertaining to blow guns, but if you're going to pull a covert stunt like this, you're going to need more than just a weapon. It sounds like this has wooded areas near it, so I
think a Ghille Suit would be perfect. I could tell you how to make one but I w ouldn't get the details right, just search google for "Homemade ghille suit". Basically w hat it is is a
cargo net (or tennis net for that matter) with jute twine (what burlap is made of) dyed to match the surrounding area. You end up w ith a full body suit that looks like Cousin It,
and is great for blending in to the environment. Since we're going with the sniper tactic anyw ays, I also reccomend you w ork in a pair, a spotter, and a shooter, and have
adequate entry and escape routes, maybe backup if things get ugly.
dinkydexy November 6th, 2003, 10:12 AM

I'm afraid this thread has taken a nasty tw ist; just a few weeks ago a 23 year old pregnant girl was raped on the land where these human beings have been hanging out, and it
appears that all the subsequent police activity has served to move them elsewhere.
On the subject of blowpipes in general, I'm certainly gonna try out the kinda squashy bottle idea; obviously this is a rough and ready means of producing a short blast of
compressed air, and maybe I'll be able to develop that and build a pretty powerful weapon. I've been looking in toy model shops at these air-powered rockets you can buy...
wrythawk January 21st, 2004, 02:07 PM

hey everyone.
the way I make my arrows is by making a paper cone and making it fit to the barrel than i put a needle or a toothpick(depends on what i w ant to use it for) trough the tip and
tape or glue it.
as a barrel i ussually use a piece of pvc pipe,it just can't be any more simple than that.
@dinkydexy are you a kydex fan to,if so, what do use it for?
daysleeper January 21st, 2004, 03:03 PM

I once took an old cheapy paintball gun and inserted a blowgun barrel in it by wrapping it with duct tape until it was a tight fit.
Then just used blow gun darts from the local army navy shop. You have to load them one at a time like a standard blow gun though, I got really good pow er. I put an airgun
laser on the gun and from 20 yards put a 4 inch long dart 1.5 inches deep into a piece of treated 4x4 lumber. Plus I shot my shed w ith it, and it went clean through my steel
sided shed, not both sides just one,
and I w as 10 yards aw ay!
I used a standard .40 cal blow gun barrel and darts with the conicle shaped plastic ends.
Arbalest January 22nd, 2004, 01:05 PM

Short, small blowguns and needle darts are great fun, but to be truly effective a w eapon needs to deliver a heavy projectile with decent speed. Small blowguns fail at this.
Needle and wire darts penetrate deeply due to their extremely small cross section ( = friction), but they do next to no damage to live targets, unless one hits the brain in a
lethal spot. I know people who have had to use several commercial wire darts to immobilize a sparrow, and still finish the tiny bird with a boot.
Things change when the blow gun gets bigger. A .628 cal. blow gun is vastly more powerful than a .40 cal 'gun, just as a five-foot blowgun is vastly more powerful (and
accurate) than a tw o-foot blow gun. Combine this with a heavy (40 - 70 grain) dart and you will have a real weapon that w ill make a painful bruise to a man w ith a blunt dart
or kill a small game animal dead with a broadhead dart, at distances of <20 yards.
The power and range of a blowgun increases with the length of the barrel up to a certain point. An optimal barrel is just long enough that the dart exits the muzzle excactly as it
reaches it's maximum velocity. This length depends somewhat on the shooter's blow ing capacity. Tests have shown that the average shooter peaks with a barrel length of 88",
while anything under 56" is markedly slower / weaker. Carrying a seven-foot blowgun might seem next to impossible, but it's surprisingly easy, even in thick w oods.
The easiest way to get a big caliber blowgun is to buy a length of 18mm aluminum electric conduit ( which has an inner diam. of just .628") and glue a mouthpiece on. I have
used the sawn-off bottoms of cheap plastic "wine glasses" that have just the right funnel shape and size. With a couple of dollars and 15 minutes of work, you'll have a blowgun
that is just as accurate and deadly as the best commercial models.
Efficient blunt darts can be easily made from 2" domehead screw s. Just put a cone on one (on the sharp end), and you'll have an accurate, cheap dart that will do some serious
damage to living and non-living things. These work w ell only with a large-caliber blow gun.
tiac03 February 5th, 2004, 07:40 PM

I made a simple blowgun out of an arrow shaft (cut off the coned end and pulled out the piece of aluminum that the arrow head screws into). beauty of this is that you can
make 2 or three and conect them with 1 inch pieces of tube that have an inside diameter equal to the outside diameter of the arrows. This allow s for easy transport, and allow s
you to vary the length of the gun. They are basically what the commercial ones are made of and is probably the straightest tube you can find.
I made darts out of sturdy wire.I used approx 4 inch pieces. I scored them along one end so that it w ould catch the cotton. I used two different types of points, one you just
sharpen the tip into a cone, and the other (my favorite) is to pound the tip of the dart and w hen it has flattened out enough it can be ground into a triangle and sharpened (if
wire thick enough).
Now if you can manage to fire at people without being seen it works because people tend to react to pieces of wire striking them and sinking in about 2+ inches (many people
underestimate the power of a blowgun, you can pin a squirrel to a tree with w ire darts and have to go up with pliars to pull it out of the tree, because it is too difficult w ith
hands.) people panic and run away (usually).
Now if you want a better w eapon and arn't afraid of w ho will see you, you should use the "toys" based off the indian design that the street gangs used to use around here. It
consisted of a 12 inch nail that had a stabilizer tied around the head of the nail made of string (about 20-60 strands tied to it.I guess depending on how thick the string you use
is) the other end is flattened and sharpened into a point of sorts. and a groove is cut out about 1 inch from the "point". The "launcher" was a piece of metal bar (another 12inch
nail would probably be good enough [wood w orks too has to be thicker though]) with heavy duty elastics tied to one end in a loop (bungee(sp?) cords, or innertubes from bikes
would work). Now to use you would hook the elastic into the groove of the nail, pull back holding where the stabilizer is, aim to the best of your ability and let go. (basically its
a slingshot type device). The speed these things have is enough to seriously F*ck up anything in its way.
Well if anyone can actually make sense of what I just wrote I'll be surprised (it doesn't easily transfer into a "short" reply).
Also both the darts and the 12inch nail can kill a person quite easily. So make sure you are willing to risk that if you are going to use them. Lastly I posted this for educational
purposes only....
wrythawk February 7th, 2004, 06:05 AM

well I think if you shoot at anyone and the dart makes a poor hit.
They won't panic because it doesn't hurt like hell ,they w ill start searching after w ho shot them and they will want revenge.If you get cought by a bunch of stoned and pissed off
junks after you shot them with a blowpipe,then most likely you will have your blowgun shuved up youre arse(at least that's what I would do after someone shot me with a
blowpipe).
so be shure you won't get cought,and always take a heavy backup weapon w ith you for safety(rather safe than sorry),or you could leave some smoke bomb's to cover youre
retreat
AsylumSeaker February 12th, 2004, 09:09 PM

I havn't had much experience with paintball guns except for the pump action kind which are like the only legal ones in this country. They have a sort of slot in the side which
opens up when you pump it. You can see the paint ball fall down into place w hen that happens. If you just left the hopper off and pumped the thing back I think you could
insert a blow dart into the gun there. Anyone understand what I am talking about?
Fear February 13th, 2004, 12:15 AM

I have found that spokes from bike wheels ar very good shafts for the darts, and the threads on the end is very good for holding glue on the end. Quick trip to a local scrap yard
will get you a few for cheap, unbending is easy enough. 10 seconds w ith a grinder, or 10 min with a file will give a good point.
Paper cones I think work the best, not much air loss. Make sure the volume of the pipe is less than the volume of a good breath, take a three liter bottle filled w ith water and
turn it upside down in a sink, and lead an air hose in it, a good breath and a little math will tell tell you the optimum length of pipe for greater power and accuracy.
AsylumSeaker February 14th, 2004, 02:58 AM

Yeah I make my darts out of bike spokes aswell. They are pretty heavy and don't go to far but when they hit something they get wedged in pretty hard. I cut the frilly edges
off some of my mums place mats while she w asn';t looking to use as the feathery bits on the end. They work w ell.
twinkle February 15th, 2004, 02:04 PM

here is a very good link for making the blowgun as well as the darts
http://ww w.polar-electric.com/Blowgun/Index.html# TableTop
THAT Dude May 4th, 2004, 12:35 PM

Cold Steel sells a big blow gun(.625 magnum).
It comes in 4 ft. ,and 5ft. and you can bye a 2ft.extension.
They cost 19.99,24.99,and7.99.
They are adertised to have a range of 20yards+
(You can order a free catalog on the web it comes with a More Proof DVD)
They sell bammboo,stun,broad head,and mini broad head darts.
I plan on geting one for small game hunting.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Explosively form ed projectiles and
advanced warhead design
Log in
View Full Version : Explosively formed projectiles and advanced warhead design
cutefix October 7th, 2003, 06:03 AM

Here are interesting things about the new developments of Explosively form ed projectiles .
http://www.dtic.m il/ndia/2002m i n e s / n g . p d f
It m ight provide some interesting idea s for im provised EFP arm or piercing warhea ds.
Maybe people here can use PETN NG or even picric acid powered charges to defeat a particular obstacle.
I also showed some interestin g details of advanced warhead design that may motivate you to design som e improvised
weapons with the imp r o v i s e d e x p l o s i v e s .
http://www.dtic.m i l / n d i a / c a n n o n / f o n g . p d f
DBSP October 7th, 2003, 11:03 AM

I posted a link in the "forum pic and vid post" topic a while ago to the page you are refering to.
Main page:
http://www.dtic.m il/ndia/
A nother inte resting PDF worth the download.
http://www.dtic.m i l / n d i a / 2 0 0 1 a r m a m ents/burnhardt.pdf
It's not to easy to find the good PDFs on that page but definately worth the trouble when you find a good o ne.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R emote pipebomb s
Log in
View Full Version : Remote pipebombs
Cyborg Commando October 13th , 2003, 02:11 AM

O k , I ' v e d o n e s o m e s e a r c h i n g , I a i n t r e a l l y f o u n d a n y t h ing I'm tryin to find out right now..
I was lookin for som ething on how to rem o t e l y d e t o n a t e a p i p e b o m b , s o m e t h i n g that aint gonna be to complicated, I'm just
look in for a sim ple design for my sim p l e m i n d . . .
I think I pretty much know how to m a k e t h e b a sic pipe bom b, but what I'm looking at is o ne that'll go off exactly when I want
it to, like with a prim er or som e other form of rem ote that'll set off a big pipe of gunpowder and buckshot or something...
picture, edited the picture out so that it wouldn't cut on peoples bandwith (http://m isc01.gaja-networks.com /m yst/champ/
uplo a d / p i c s / 2 6 5 7 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 3 . J P G )
this is what I plan to put it in, I figure with a 6 inch diam eter from top to bottum and side to side, with a 22 .5 inch in length
capacity, I could be able to put a 5X20 p i p e b o m b in there,and still have room for a detonator or extra shrapenal... I dunno
how far the frequency for one of those is good for, I don't own one yet, but I figure for the pipebom b detonation length away
should be about 30 to 50 yards ? I dunno I'm pretty new to this, any suggestions as to how to go about m a k i n g / f i n d i n g a
detonator for one of these ? any suggestions will be apreciated, thanks.
EP October 13th , 2003, 04:08 AM

I d u n n o I ' m pretty new to this
No shit? You obviously don't k now what you are doing and should definetly NO T be trying to m a k e s o m e b i g s h r a p n e l b o m b ,
you'll just hurt yourse lf, or worse, you'll hurt others.
john_smith October 13th , 2003, 04:34 AM

Does the truck have remotely controlle d headlights or som ething? If yes, the imp lication should be obvious. Anyway, this
thread is fucking K3\/\/L.
DBSP October 13th , 2003, 08:25 AM

As said this is total bullshit:mad:
By n ot reading/ignoring the ru le about not posting a new topic on your first post you have just gotten yourself into a sity
position. And by posting a rea lly lam e topic at that it's even worse.
If you don't know better than to play a round with pipe b o m b s y o u definately don't belong here.
End of topic and of I<3\/\/I_ :D

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Stink bomb
Log in
View Full Version : Stink bomb

I am after a decent stink bomb that produces a bad smell fairly quickly.
I want to avoid using ignition to start the reaction as this creates heat and heat would not be good if I want to minimise damage to property. (I dont want to make burn marks
on lino.)
The main idea I had was to use the reaction between FeS and Hydrochloric acid this would create H2S, which I know is a poisionus gas but compared to other gasses, it really
stinks and wont create lasting effects to people exposed to it.
I figured out this simple idea then I wondered "how am I going to start the reaction without gassing myself" so I figured that maybe if one of the chemicals was in something
like a balloon, the reaction could start by bursting the balloon in the container and then either running off or throwing the device before too much gas is evolved. though tis
created a futher problem, Glass shatter when you throw it, and a tin can would be affected by the HCl, plastic container are hard to get of in the right shape suitable for the
stink bomb and carrying around.
The third problem I had was that since Hydrochloric acid is corrosive, if any spilt out of the container, they would be difficult to handle.
To some it all up I am after a stinkbomb that has the following specs:

1. dosen't create a large amount of heat. I want to be able to use it inside on lino flors.
2. Isn't going to be a bitch to handle or clean up.
3. Has to really stink
4. Fairly simple and easy to make (I need about 10).
If the device can also create thick smoke then thats a bonus.:D
bobo October 13th, 2003, 08:49 AM

I don't like the idea of a two component stink bomb at all. Why not just keep some stinky stuff in a glass bottle and throw it? Things that really stink are mercaptanes.If you
can get hold of mercapto-ethanol or the like you're set. I know that spilling even one drop of this stuff can keep people from a room. I think it is very volatile at that.
If you're sure about two component stuff, can't you use a weak acid like vinegar? Also, if you get hold of butyric acid it's horrible (the stuff that makes your socks stink if you
don't wash your feet). I think that a butyrate salt is without much smell. It would form butyric acid though on exposure to an acid...
aikon October 13th, 2003, 01:32 PM

I agree to bobo's advice to use butyric acid. An animal welfarist threw it through the window in a restaurant where they sold exotic enndangered animals. They had to close the
restaurant for 2 weeks! Butyric acid is not difficult to get where i live and it should be available in most free countries. Butyric acid is heavily used in the manufacturing process
of synthetic material, medication and pest control chemicals. BA excites the eyes and the respiratory system but it's one of the weaker carbon acids.

Butyric acid is what causes the repulsive smell of "rotten" butter.
Another choice would be dimethylsulfide, or other organic disulfides.
Tuatara October 13th, 2003, 05:37 PM

Hmmm, Australia... Crushed wattle tree seeds in water. Thats fairly evil.

Wattle seeds hmmmmmm. That would be a very easy to aquire stink agent
Butyric acid is another possibilty, though harder to get.
Now we need to find an effective way to deliver the stink agent to the area subtly and quickly. Of course I dont want to be in the area, because if I get caught = no graduation
If butyric acid is fairly volatile then I might be able to simply put some in a water bomb then through it in the area, however high volatility can also mean low permability to
rubber.
bobo; if butyric acid is as powerful as you say it is, then I wont be needing much for it to work its magic. :D
Efraim_barkbit October 14th, 2003, 12:46 PM

First of all, I have not made the two described "stinking agents" myself, so I do not know if they works.
BUTYRIC ACID (C3H7COOH)
Ingredients: 3 parts HCl, 2 parts NaOH, 2,5 parts Butter, 1,5 parts cold water. (Parts by volume)
Mix NaOH, the cold water and the butter and heat slowly and "almost boil". after half an hour, a yellow beige foam will start to form on top. Take the foam off and save it.
Continue until no more foam forms. Discard the brown liquid that is left.
Mix the foam with the HCl slowly while stirring, and let dissolve. When nothing more dissolves, your butyric acid is ready for use.
Translated from Swedish, Source unknown.
if you can make H2S, this might be something for you: (if it works)
ETHYL MERCAPTAN (formula C2H5SH)
H2S + C2H5OH --->C2H5SH + H2O

H2S gas is lead through concentrated ethanol, and forms C2H5SH, which is mentioned in the Swedish infomania to be one of the
worst smelling substances in the world.
because it is a liquid, it should be easier to handle than H2S gas, and quite easy to make too.
its Boiling point is 35degrees C and soluble in alcohol, so it should stay in solution with the ethanol used in the making.
The smallest noticeable amount in air is 0,00004mg/m^3.
Translated from swedish, source: the Swedish infomania.
Edit: changed "unknown" to "ethyl mercarptan"
BrAiNFeVeR October 14th, 2003, 01:29 PM

When burning Al powder and S in a stochiometric ratio (about 10grams Al + 17 grams S I thought, not sure) you get a dark grey solid in your crucible; Al2S3, which reacts with
atmosferic H2O to form Al203 and H2S.
When placed in a cup of water, reaction goes fairly fast once 50C and higher are reached (reaction is a bit exothermic)
Damage to property should remain within descent limits, and once the source of the stinky-ness is removed, the smell will dissapate within the hour if the room is somewhat
ventilated.
No acid liquids/gasses and the reaction starts fairly slow, and can even be regulated by constricting the water flow, like packing a lump of Al2S3 in a moist/wet tissue.
The reaction might even work without Al powder if you just add S to molten Al, or make a small batch with Al powder and use the heat of that to start the reaction with Al foil
with S powder inbetween the sheets of foil or something. I haven't really tried this.
bobo October 14th, 2003, 01:44 PM

[edit: thx vulture for correcting me]
Butter contains only a few % butyric acid. The process you describe frees glycerol from fatty acids. Most free fatty acids (FFA's) are long chains. From vinegar on to C7 or C8
acid they stink. Stinkyness is optimum around four C atoms I think. The longer chain length fatty acids do not stink anymore. So, mixing butter and NaOH will make your
cream stink really hard but nowhere near the true power of butyric acid in all it's vomitable glory. Still, it might be good enough for your purposes.
The amounts of NaOH used in this synthesis looks a bit high, stoichiometrically you need only one OH- ion per fatty acid chain. The more excess you have the faster it goes but
you'll toss in a lot of HCL to neutralize. The exact amount depends on the chain lengths of each but already butyrate is 88g/mol while NaOH is 40 g/mol. I'd say 1/4 by weight
is more than enough already.
zeocrash October 14th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Hydrolosis of various nylons gets you some nasty smelling amines, (putrescine, cadaverine etc.).
For stink bombs i use a mixture of citric acid crystals and iron sulfide though. this stinks when water is added to it and is fairly safe to use.

Butyric acid is C3H7COOH, notice that there are 4 carbon atoms, so it is the acid of butane.
You may also call it propanecarbonic acid (because the carbonic refers to an extra carbon atom).
C4H9COOH is pentyric acid or butanecarbonic acid.

I have been doing some of my own tests.
Some of the flora that is near my house has an awful smell, the leaves of the curry tree are quite rank, when you crush and boil them. However this wouldn't be volatile
enough for use unless the mixture was directly applyed to the victim.. I mean target ;).
Efraim_Barkbit; I might try synthising C2H5SH as all the chemicals needed are freely avalible. I have done a search on this compound and it has a strong garlic odour, ver low
odour threshold (1ppb) plus it isn't toxic at low concerntrations.
It should also be quite volatile.
BTW the compund is called; ethyl mercarptan
At the moment my method of delivery is going to be via a water bomb, though a water pistol might also be an idea.
Efraim_barkbit October 15th, 2003, 02:36 PM

Hydrogen peroxide or HCl reacts with Sodiumditionite to form H2S, wich in turn reacts with ethanol to form Ethyl mercaptan.
Mix two parts ethanol, two parts HCl or H202 and one part Na 2O4S2
This will not produce as good results as the H2S gas through ethanol route, and it wont be as pure, but is VERY simple and can be put together quickly, with
minimal effort.
I give no guarantees that it will work, but it is clamed in the swedish infomania to have been succesfully tested.
xyz October 21st, 2003, 07:58 PM

Another way of generating H2S is to mix an acid with a metal sulfide, a friend and I stank out one of the chemistry rooms at shool by soaking a sponge in sodium sulfide
solution, then putting it the cupboard and pouring HCl onto it. We then moved away quickly and in a few minutes the whole room stank of H2S.
A very effective method of delivery for stinky liquids would be a bottle of the liquid with a waterproofed salute inside.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Intresting Homemade Weapon pics...
Log in
View Full Version : Intresting Homemade Weapon pics...
Drayen October 14th, 2003, 02:59 AM

Just curious to see what toys everyone out there has that they can proudly say they made themselves.
I'm not too sure about authorities and using this site as an excuse for a raid, so post pics at your own descretion.
There should be no problem with any authority about posting pictures of decorative knives or swords that you made yourself though.
link to pic (http://members.shaw.ca/kickass-chris/pics/JhonnyKnifeFinished.jpg)
The total length from blade-tip to the butt of the handle is 15" with the blades being 10" each and the handle being 5".
I TIG welded this out of a piece of stainless steel pipe that I had to flatten out into a sheet.
It took a hellofa lot of clamping, heating with a rosebud tip on an oxytorch, and bending with a combination of metal tongs and a hammer to finally end up with a flat-ish piece
of stainless steel that I then cut with a plasma arc cutter, TIG'd together, and buffed up with a fine grit 5" flapper(sandpaper) disk.
I don't know how many times I had to resharpen that damm tungston, but I enjoyed TIGing this piece and think it's welded fairly decently for my first time actually using this
welding method.
This is also my first decorative/home-security piece that I made, and I'm quite proud to show this off to everyone.
linked the picture instead/DBSP
knowledgehungry October 14th, 2003, 08:14 AM

Post links to pictures as such large pictures take up loads of bandwidth. I'm also not sure what the point of that weapon is, to look cool? It seems very impractical to me. Also
1st post new topic :rolleyes:. I find it pointless to build improvised knivs, as you can buy high quality knives anywhere. I do want a nice switch blade though.
kvitekrist October 14th, 2003, 07:15 PM

Made this small axe recently: here (http://home.no/kvitekrist/stasj/%f8ks.jpg)
And made this simple .22 a few years ago: here (http://home.no/kvitekrist/stasj/p1.jpg)
Drayen October 15th, 2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by knowledgehungry
Post links to pictures as such large pictures take up loads of bandwidth. I'm also not sure what the point of that weapon is, to look cool? It seems very impractical to me.
...
oops, my bad about the pic.
the stainless steel blades could be sharpened with a grinder and then honed to a fine edge to make something that would leave quite the mess behind.
or just pulling this out on someone would defidently have an effect if they believe you're intent on using it.
the whole point of my post is just to see what intresting ideas others have come up with, and to share one that i'm quite proud to have made with my own hands.
btw....
Also 1st post new topic :rolleyes:.
oooooooooo,
not a newbie posting a new topic
:rolleyes:
BrAiNFeVeR October 15th, 2003, 04:59 AM

oooooooooo,
not a newbie posting a new topic
:rolleyes:
Oooh, look !! :eek: a newbie with an attitude :p

The average life expectancy of those is rather low, especially if they don't read the rules.
Look at this rare and about to be extinct animal my fellow forumites :D
EDIT:
About the blade ... do you really expect to get trough a descent layer of clothes with that?
Even if you do, you would need excessive force (compared to a regular stabbing knife) and thus getting you tired faster, giving less accuracy etc.
On the upside, it probably DOES have the scare effect to people who think you can actually kill them easily with that.
A-BOMB October 15th, 2003, 09:53 AM

I think that would be more of a chop/slash weapon, you could easily break someones colar bone with that in a downward swing. And I looked at the rest of the pic you had on
you site and I can only say is fucking gay ass panzy bitch.
Kid Orgo October 15th, 2003, 03:25 PM

Could you please leave the warnings to the mods? It just creates friction between the established members of this board, and the new people that could be useful productive
members, denying the forum new talent. People seem to keep jumping to the conclusion that anyone with a low post count has nothing useful to contribute. Whether or not
this thread has merit, I leave that to the mods. It's not my place to judge, or yours.
And please don't bother "ooh noob"ing me over this, I'm making a respectful request.
On Topic: That weapon looks more like a poleaxe or something. Mount that fucker on a toilet-plunger handle, and chop away. As a stabbing weapon, i think you'd be better off
with something narrower.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > potato cannon, carbide powered..
Log in
View Full Version : potato cannon, carbide powered..
Nevermore October 17th, 2003, 08:01 PM

I was wondering about building up a potato cannon, using carbide power instead of hair products..
I already have some drawings i made about the prototipe, i wish to know if there is anyone experienced in that topic that can give me some hints and maybe correct the errors
i made being my first work with acethylene gun.
Thanks
Anthony October 18th, 2003, 07:07 AM

You might want to provide some more detail of your design e.g. dimensions, construction materials etc.
Experience of acetylene powered spudguns isn't likely to be that great, as most people regard it as too dangerous apart from in special circumstances and don't bother.
Nevermore October 18th, 2003, 07:27 AM

my idea is making it from one piece steel tube, the type used for gas pipes underground, that is quite thick walls, closed at the bottom with a screw cap and then soldered.
an hole is performed in the bottom cap for the insertion of a spart plugh stopped by a big bolt from the inside to prevent it to be blown out, then is obtained a combustion
chamber of around 15-20cm, at the lower top of the combustion chamber two holes are performed to divert part of the pressure of the explosion out to the atmosfere and to
prevent excessive pressure build up while acethylene is generated.
Some water is inserted from the barrel and lays on the bottom om the combustion chamber, it shouldn't be enough to cover the spark plugh. A small piece of carbide is inserted
then a potato is set up deep enough not to cover the pressure hole in the barrel, using a calibrated piece of wood.
After few seconds waiting to allow the acethylene to be fully generated a few spark are sent to the spark plugh so igniting the mixture. If too time passes from the carbide
charge and fire the holes stop pressure build up that could spit out the potato.
The pipe used for all should be around 2''-2.5'' tube with 0.5-0.7mm walls, made of steel.
make me know what you think about that.
Wild Catmage October 18th, 2003, 11:07 AM

I don't think that 0.5mm - 0.7mm thick walls will be strong enough to hold the pressure. Also there will be flames coming out of the pressure vents so you'd have to take
precautions against getting burnt ;).
EDIT - You'd also have to be careful about what type of steel you use. Higher carbon steels are brittle and can shatter.

My first thought is that you're probably going to want something other than potato for the projectile. Potato isn't very good under high pressures and tends to disintergrate.
Also, steel piping tends not to have smooth walls, rough barrel walls will shred a potato leading to horrible blow-by.
Something more solid and dense would give far more impressive results anyway.
How are you going to know that you have the ideal fuel/air mixture inside your cannon?
Nevermore October 18th, 2003, 01:23 PM

that is a weak point, there is no way to know i've reached the optimal mixture inside the barrel, it can be seen only by tests.
You are right, i didn't think about that the inside walls should be smooth, i know there are some tools that can smoothen them using a drill, but i am not sure that will be
enough..
i'd cover the inside walls with a thin layer of grease to avoid excessive friction, or find a stainless steel pipe, but that would be probably brittle.
Flames coming out of pressure vents, yes for sure there will be, but i am not gonna use the cannon on my shoulder, so the flaming won't be a problem, i should try what is the
best number and dimension of holes, not too many to weaken too much the pipes, not too few that the pressure would be out of control..

Its not a good idea to use a very powerful propellant with a small chamber is a bad idea. I would definitely reccomend a steel chamber 3" diameter and AT LEAST .125"
thickness, .25" would be preferable but that leads to weight. There is always aluminum, which I would also recomend for the barrel even if you use steel chamber, because it is
a bit smoother. I sure hope you have a welder ;) . And don't use pressure vents, though if you can get a PSI pop off valve that might be good, but just open holes is a bad
idea. Trust me, I know from experience. (the only reason I'm here to talk about it is because it was a tiny spudgun, only a handgun)
xmarinevet October 21st, 2003, 01:52 AM

As long as the chamber is thoroughly reinforced any substance can be used as propellent. Instead of hairspray I used propance from a small bottle. I disassembled a small
single mantle lantern and mounted it in the end cap of my launcher so I can turn on and off the gass as needed. Its the best design I've come across yet my digital cam needs
no batterys so I'll link to picks when i get it. I reinforced the chamber with a piece of three inch stell. I can launch a spud with a 2 inch diameter about a hundred yards. I know
not alot of distance but its easy fun and has some fierce muzzle velocity. I've shot several neighborhood strays and knocked then out cold.
grendel23 October 21st, 2003, 07:00 AM

Pneumatic spud guns are much more powerful than conventional hair spray or propane powered ones. Mine will put a frozen potato through 1/2" plywood, or send it 600 yards
downrange.
Here (http://www.frii.com/~bsimon/pngun.htm) is the one I built. If I have time and the cash this winter, I am going to build a piston valve gun with a 2" bore and a 4"
chamber.
At one time I was considering making a "cabbage cannon", a spud gun with a large chamber and an adaptor on the barrel to expand it to 6". I figured I could send a cabbage
maybe 100 yards, and they would turn to cole slaw when they hit the ground. I decided not to build it when I figured that it would cost $100+.
YayItGoBoom! October 23rd, 2003, 09:49 PM

Thats whats an ass about pneumatics...good ones can be very expensive compared to combustions, and I know from experience they are a pain in the ass to get them to
work right sometimes (I've been working on my pneumatic piston valve for a while but it refuses to work and I've given up on that for a while)
As long as the chamber is thoroughly reinforced any substance can be used as propellent.
This kind of thinking will leave you preforated some day. First of all, any PVC or plastic polymer cannon user should be very wary of fuels, because many flammable things are
conveniently solvents for PVC. Second, different chemicals have different expansion times. Propane is pretty harmless if you're using SCH 40 or greater PVC, but if you want to
use stuff like ether, acetylene, or hydrogen (I'm assuming you're suicidal), then metal is the only way to go. We spudgunners don't want any more incidents like the tard who
shot himself in the face with a frog, or worse, an exploding cannon.
Cyclonite October 24th, 2003, 05:22 AM

As far as safety gos, when you want to test a new fuel in a PVC cannon (I use ABS personally) fire remotely. I use a stun gun for electric ignition so I just mount it and lead off
some speaker wires to a safe distance.
Someone earlier in this thread said that Pneumatics are difficult to make.
I disagree with this as I have made 3 Pneumatic cannons (all solenoid powered as I have found a brand of solenoid that opens REALLY fast) and have not had any trouble
making any of them even though I had never used PVC pipe for anything else before.
True, Pneumatics cost about twice as much as the average combustion but who wouldn't be willing to pay this for the greater safety and 4 or 5 times more power.
However, a pneumatic will never be as powerful as a combustion gun that uses pure oxygen and a fuel instead of air and a fuel. These kinds of cannons usually have to be
made from steel though. I hope to eventually get round to making a hydrogen/oxygen powered one from steel and using golf balls as projectiles.
Ammonal October 24th, 2003, 09:17 AM

Yes I use a 'star post driver', which for those of you not in aus is a piece of 3" pipe with 1/4" walls and a handle on both sides, this has a piece of solid steel for the weight in
one end and the other end has a piece of 1/4" plate welded all the way around to seal the chamber. the barrel is some scrap pipe that a golf ball fits loosely into, the barrel is
welded through the 1/4" plate. At the rear of the gun there is a 1/2" and a 5/8" threaded holes. For the fuel insertion the is a threaded plug that screws into the 1/2" hole, and
for the ignition a normal spark plug threads in. to power the spark plug is a 6 volt lantern battery and a motor bike ignition coil switched by a push button switch on the
handgrip.
Now, for the fuel I use an oxy/actylene set. First I light the torch and then tune it to a proper cutting flame then I push the torch flat up against a piece of timber thus
extinguishing the flame.
The gas mixture that is coming out of the torch is placed into the chamber via the 1/2" plug for no more than 2 seconds!!! Emphasis on 2 (two) seconds, 4 seconds knocked
me off my feet and left my ears ringing for about 2 days after. The plug is replaced, the battery is connected, and a golf ball is dropped down the barrel (there is a rubber ring
that stops the golf ball rolling into the chamber and holds the golf ball still).
The gun, cannon is placed onto the users shoulder, aim is taken and the trigger is pulled. The ignition is ALWAYS instantaneous (unlike most aerosol spray mixtures).
The only problem with the cannon so far is that a golf ball although being aerodynamic, does not seal to the barrel like the way that an orange does to PVC, but still this is
better than jamming and goodness knows what happening to the user.

Heh, you bastard I wish I had steel pipe. :cool: I had a solenoid cannon for a while, it was fun but the solenoid hampered the performance a ton, so I tried to modify the gun
to accomidate a piston valve, which to date hasn't worked. Anyone know of something that is pretty solid yet light, fits well in 3" pipe, and makes a nice seal?
Ammonal October 24th, 2003, 09:23 PM

What kind of seal are you after? Cut two steel circles of 2.5" diameter and then cut some 1/2" sheet rubber into a 3" circle using a hole saw, this will leave you with a center
hole. To trim the rubber use a bench grinder or dremel, then put the circle of rubber between the 2 steel circles. Put a bolt through the whole lot and you should have an
effective seal.

Ammonal, that is an excellent idea to use a star picket hammer as the chamber, I will almost certainly use that in the one I hope to build.

Goodluck xyz, and one thing- wear some ear muffs/ hearing protection when you do fire it.

I probably won't get to build it for a while but all the parts are available and I have the necessary welding skills. I intend to wear earmuffs and remote fire the cannon the first
10 or so times.
I want to totally fill the chamber and remote fire the cannon just to see what kind of range/power will be obtained.
Has anyone seen the site where the guy has a steel cannon that uses 3 ounces of pyrodex to fire a BOWLING BALL at 500fps? I will see if I can find the link to it
EDIT : Here is the link to the kickass bowling ball mortar. (http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar.html)

xyz, the biggest charge I fired through mine was 10 seconds worth of gas - the result was beyond spectacular. The golf ball which was aimed at an old outhouse went straight
through the door and out the other side and kept going skyward! This is a serious weapon! (kind of thing to stop an Armaguard truck) and the damage to the front 1/4"
chamber plate had a very large bulge. Then there was the noise that firing it made- I sometimes wonder if I may live my life with all my fingers and limbs but with no hearing?
! I would strongly suggest you use nothing less than a 1/4" thick steel and even then that is to keep the weight managable.
Enjoy!
dannyboy16 January 28th, 2004, 10:51 PM

i live in australia and i have made only one pneumatic cannon, but i was thinking of making a solenoid operated one using a airbrake valve from a truck. i dunno if it would
work but they seem to open pretty quick and let alot of air through. also i was thinking of making a smaller one that you could pump up with a bike pump and carry in a
backpack. oh and my nextdoor neihbour used to weld stainless steel tee peices for an oil company, they got tested to 30,000 psi.
rayad January 4th, 2005, 03:35 AM

I had an epiphany while i was making balloon animals. what if someone used a two chamber barrel? my cannon is basic because of a severe lack of green, but I thought about
this design for a while now. The gun would use pipe joins and seals to allow the gun to break in the middle, like a shot gun. This lets the exaust out of the fuel chamber, allows
you to fill the chamber with your propellant, then makes use of your ammo (tennis ball) to stop gas from escaping. simply rejoin seal, clamp a lock on side if nervous, and
push trigger. pop!
Weak points in the joints can be addressed with heavier material. The removeable barrel uses one pipe nested in another, and filled with a non-flammable insulant. Very
heavy, but safe, and allows it to be use more like a bazooka than a mortar (over shoulder rather than placing the butt in the ground and plotting a ballistic trajectory). Q's or
Comments?
FUTI January 10th, 2005, 02:45 PM

I don't know how to help with design as I find it highly risky, but I assume it is possible to be made carbide powered cannon. This is slightly OT but I had to post it. In a
suburban area not very far from me there WAS a tradition during winter holidays to "launch a barrel" (best translation I come up so far) based on that principle. Actually it is not
the cannonball that flies but the barrel itself (action/reaction). If I understood well barrel is turned upside down and dig-up inside the land (it is swampy area so it works good
as seal). They use carbide to make gas from reaction with water (again swamp) and kill me if I know how they lit the charge. Anyway this year there was no such thing since
the autorities became grumpy. One of the guys that do such things (leave that stuff to pros;)) said the reporters that police stated that if they even hear the blast he and
couple of other pyros flies behind the bars. Also he confessed that claimed reason for banning this was "public safety" with one claimed material damage. He said that few
years back local goverment representative tried to stop them, as a retaliation they aimed his house with a barrel, "we missed with first one but the second went stright to the
office"...needless to say I cried my eyes from laughing. Guys deserves a scout merit badge in artilery skills even cannons make sure hit in three rounds.
grimreaper December 31st, 2006, 08:42 AM

I feel I should share my recent experiences , not to promote the use of calcium carbide , but to hopefully avoid accidents with the people who are going to use it anyway.
I have recently built a carbide powered spud gun.
The chamber is made f rom a schedule 80 pvc coupler with reducers glued inside the ends giving almost wall thickness I would not consider anything less than this
adequate , steel would definitely be safer
Weighing the CC is the most reliable way of ensuring a safe charge.
Consider this :
I gram of calcium carbide will produce 349 cc of acetylene, therefore, in a sealed 1000ml chamber by simple displacement approx 1 gram of carbide will only raise the pressure
by about 5 psi this is way too much gas for good combustion (poor power lots of soot)
4 grams of carbide will produce enough gas to raise pressure to the critical 15 psi or so and could result in all the horrible things that go with violent chemical explosions
I try to get close to a 10 : 1 air fuel ratio this requires only about 0.5 grams of carbide and I get a reasonably clean burn and frightening amounts of power
As for oxy acetylene dont even think about it, I am speaking from personal experience (not spud guns but other toys ) this stuff is lethal , the explosions in unsealed
containers are violent and deafening, in a plastic spud gun, death or serious injury would be the likely result

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Suggestions for zip gun?
Log in
View Full Version : Suggestions for zip gun?
NickSG October 18th, 2003, 01:58 AM

I wasnt sure whether to post here or Improvised Weapons, but ill give this place a try. If the mods feel like moving please feel free to do so.
Im planning on making a zipgun sometime before the year is up. I have the plans ready and all, but I was wondering if there is anything better than a end cap to hold the
bullet in place.
The design is fairly simple. A .22LR bullet is placed in a 1/4 inch ID steel pipe (with one end threaded). A 1/2 inch ID steel end cap (assuming the walls of the pipe are 1/8
inch) is screwed on, but first, a dremel tool is used to grind away a section of the outside edge of the cap, so when screwed on the pipe, the rim of the bullet (where the
primer is) is exposed. I have the firing mechanism all figured out, but I was wondering if anyone had any better ideas as to how to keep the casing from flying back after the
bullet was fired. The steel cap is a good idea, but it would take too much time to unscrew it after each to shot to empty and reload, and I assume it would be difficult to make
sure the grinded part of the cap always ended up in the right spot (otherwise the hammer would never hit the right spot).
I already have the blueprints drawn out, but if needed, I have some simple drawings of the gun online.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
angelo October 18th, 2003, 02:18 AM

yes this thread should be in the improvised weapons forum.
Thats why I moved it.
Anthony October 18th, 2003, 07:04 AM

You don't need to have a cut out for a hammer to hit the rim of the cartridge. You can have a normal firing pin and offset it from the centre of the end cap, so that it strikes
the rim of the cartridge. The profile of the firing pin tip is important though, a normal "spike" and it'll often go right through the cartridge base without setting the round off.
Making the tip into a blade shape (like a screwdriver) gave complete reliability IME.
Because you're just drilling a few mm hole in the endcap rather than grinding away a significant area of it, it should be left with a little more strength.
You could cut slots into the thread of the pipe and endcap to create an "interupted thread". You then just align the slots, push the cap onto the thread and a quarter or half turn
locates the threads. Was used on the breaches of quite a few large bore, shell firing military guns.
NickSG October 18th, 2003, 03:41 PM

The firing pin is just a 1 inch length of 1/16 inch copper wire. Both ends are flat, but the striking force of the hammer is so great I dont think I will have any problems with
firing.
Does anyone have any suggestions other than an end cap, though? I hoping for something faster than an end cap (to make it quicker to load and reload), but something a
little simple. I searched the forums and found a few people who have made zip guns in the past, and im curious as to what they used to keep the casing from flying out of the
barrel.
jelly October 18th, 2003, 08:02 PM

I remember the drawing of a unique .22-caliber "rimshot" pistol.
The body is made from three sections of wooden broomstick.

The middle section swings up for loading after the striker is drawn back.
Once loaded, the user presses the middle section closed, which aligns the
striker and fires the weapon :p
With a good technique you should be able to fire dozens of rounds per minute :D
walbern October 20th, 2003, 04:04 AM

You may want to check out the following thread from 2001.
Single shot gun plans
Improvised Weapons page 6
Twinkle is thread starter
xmarinevet October 21st, 2003, 01:44 AM

You can just order surplus flarepistols off of the net at various places for around 20 bucks. Drive a piece of 3/4 inch water pipe in the barrel and its chambered for 12 gauge
really cheap to make easy to build and sell to friends.
Ammonal October 21st, 2003, 02:22 AM

You asked for a suggestion and the best thing that I have seen and used is the breech loading of this pistol. Although primitive and slow to reload, I have made a handgun
firing a .22LR using a plate that slots down behind the cartridge, with a hole in it allowing the firing pin to strike the rim of the shell. Email me for pics (dont want to post pics of
homemade handgun as Australian law would murder me :(
A-BOMB October 21st, 2003, 09:17 AM

To make a easy zip gun your going to need a barrel you can get them HERE (www.e-gunparts.com) and a thick steel door hinge about 1" to 1.25" wide and about .1875 to
.25" thick and a spring, hammer and trigger all of which can be made rather easy. First hammer the center pin out of the hinge so you get to metal plates next put the plates
together again but without the pin. Next take you hammer and cut a slot into the hinge to fit the hammer in so the pin hole in the center of you hammer First you must drill a
hole in the hinge to the OD(Outer Diameter) of you barrel thats if you plan to braze/solder/weld it in the hole. Else you need to drill and tap the barrel and hinge.
I'll stop writing this now and draw up some thing to help explain.
jelly October 21st, 2003, 10:07 PM

I have uploaded 2 drawings of very simple pen gun principles here:
Pen Guns (http://jellybelly84.tripod.com/penguns)
The first pic shows a .22 cal pen gun made from common materials.
The second pic shows a .22 cal rimshot pen gun made from three sections of wooden broomstick.
And don't forget to take a look into the pen gun related patents I have posted
in another forum section a year ago:
Gas Pens:
1,663,834 Fountain-Pen-Shaped Pistol
1,772,070 Gas Pen
1,772,656 Gas-Cartridge-Firing Device (Gas Pen)
1,775,178 Gas Pen
1,826,562 Gas Pen
1,897,992 Disabling Gas Firing Weapon (Gas Billy)
2,757,474 Pen Type Tear Gas Gun
Bullet Pen Guns:

1,608,359 Fountain Pen Gun
1,681,172 Pen Gun
2,880,543 Pen Pistol
Squeezer Guns:
2,042,934 Squeezer Pen Gun
788,866 Squeezer Firearm
Chemical_burn October 22nd, 2003, 02:51 AM

hmm intresting but in the pics I have noticed that it says 1/8" nipple, but that is much smaller than a .22cal round. Because .25 cal is 1/4" twice the size of 1/8". I just want to
make sure its not labled wrong and to clear that up.
Also on a second note I am not %100 sure how the broom stick gun works and also how reliable is it. To me it would work but probably only once maybe twice.
jelly October 22nd, 2003, 03:09 PM

Thanks for the hint. Maybe the draftsman has mistaken the inner diameter for the thread length.
Since there is a metallic barrel in the left part the broomstick gun shouldn't break
when firing .22 cal rounds:p

There is no mistake in that diagram, according to "Homemade Guns and Homemade Ammo" schedule 40 1/8" steel pipe actually has an internal diameter of .264" and an
outside diameter of .405". I think that the ID of the pipe used to be 1/8" back in the day but now thinner pipe is used but the OD has remained the same so that old fittings
can still be used.
Pipe sizes are always some retarded number that has nothing to do with the size that the pipe is sold as :rolleyes: .
EDIT : I would just like to add that because the ID is .264", you would be able to fire .22short, .22long, .22LR, or .22Mag all in the same gun. If you wanted a better barrel fit,
you could use a .243 or .25 bullet with a .22 blank behind it. Make sure that the gun is strong though as a bigger, heavier bullet will mean higher chamber pressures
steyr November 21st, 2003, 07:44 PM

my friend has a gun (he received it from his grandpa) and it's very small (about 9cm). it's single-shot, and very small caliber (i don't know what caliber is this). the pistol is not
zip-gun, but it can give you some ideas for it.
Wild Catmage November 21st, 2003, 07:57 PM

The miniflare discharger used by the UK military can easily be adapted to fire .22 rimfire rounds. Because of this, the civilian version is slightly different in design, although
military ones are available from certain sources (I'll try and find more info on this topic). 21/11/2003

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > M3 Multi-Role Anti-Arm or Anti-Perso nnel
W e a p o n S y s t e m ( M A A W S)
Log in
View Full Version : M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS)
zaqzaq1 October 19th , 2003, 09:57 AM

Hi
plea s e h e l p m e to m a k e
M3 Multi-R ole Anti-Arm or Anti-Personnel W e a p o n S y s t e m (MAAW S)
http://www.fas.org/m a n / d o d - 1 0 1 / s y s / l a n d / m 3-m aws.htm
and
M-72 Light Anti-tank W e a p o n ( L A W )
whate the steps to make it ?
Thanks
Anath October 19th , 2003, 10:27 AM

O.k, I can see you're about to be brutalized by the m ods. but anyway.
A sh oulder launched, spin stabilized ro cket with a shaped charge warhead could conceivably be made by 'Joe Average'. Here's
how I would go about it.
O b t a i n s o m e thin walled aluminium tubing (about 3" diam eter) that is a sliding fit into a thick walled (schedule 80?) PVC pip e,
Internally rifle the PVC piping (or buy pre-rifled potato cannon tube) and construct studs (pop-rivets?) on the Al rocket tube to
engage the rifling. yo u m ight look into s o m e sort of bla st shield sim ilar to a WW I I b a z o o k a a s w e l l .
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=457
There's plenty of thre a d s o n t h e f o r u m about b lackpowder or Sugar/Chlorate rocket mixtures, ram m i n g c o r e s a n d n o z z l e s .
You would need a High Explosive shaped charge (martini glass) payload with a standoff fuse to detonate the SC at the optimal
distance from the target surface. I'd guess a le ngth (15 inches?) of thin aluminium tube, impacting a shotgun prim er to fire a
d e t o n a t o r a t t h e a p e x o f t h e m artini glass SC might work.
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1732&highlight=martini
All the individual system s of a Shoulder Launch ed Anti-Armour R ocket are well docum ented on the forum, but it wou l d t a k e a
h u g e a m o u n t o f e x p e r i m e n t i n g to get it all to 'com e together' and make a reliable and SAFE unit that actually works. for christs
sake, don't try firing anything until you are -dam ned- sure it works safely.
Now, W hat the hell do you want one for? are yo u planning on going 'overt' against Tanks or APC's? you'd be better off
h e a d b u t t i n g a m odern Tank with all the damag e a h o m e m ade SC would do.. look into Explosively Form ed Projectile s a n d t h i n k
about firing one of those -downwards- from bridge or something, tanks are weakest on top. Laying traps is infinitely superior to
tryin g to get yourself killed.
zeocrash October 19th , 2003, 10:54 AM

everything you need can be found righ t here
page 1 (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/misc.php?s=&action=faq)
page 2 (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=4)
read it well

thank you for reply
but I want the structure,Description
and steps to make the body
regards

There is a book out on converting a deactivated LAW launcher to live fire again, I believe it's called "L.A.W and Disorder". That
s e e m s feasible, or try the "improvised home built recoilless launcher" book that's floating around here som ewhere. BTW, do n't
ask where, try a search on google or R ogue Sci.

S h e e s h , i s u p p o s e y o u want som eone to build and shoot it for you as well? This isn't "The Com plete Idiots Guide to M a k i n g a
T O W missile"..
It re ally is very sim ple to picture what you would need to do. Try looking at http://im g.villagephoto s . c o m / p / 2 0 0 3 - 9 / 4 0 5 2 2 1 /
SLAAR.gif
I don't think I'll waste any mo re time on this unless it b ecom es a 'proper' topic.
Thanks for you
But I want more nformation about it.
chokingvictim78 October 19th , 2 0 0 3 , 0 2 : 4 7 P M

It is most likely not g oing to be even remotely conceiva ble for you to build a m il-spec recoiless shoulder-m ounted launcher,
especially taking into consideration your desire to just b e s p o o n - f e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e s c h e m atic that Anath posted will
probably be the pinnacle of your possible acheivem ents. A simple SC would be much more effective, because it could be mu ch
larger/carry more shrapnel than a shoulder-lauched rocket could. An electronically activated SC mounted on the bottom of a
bridge the ta rget will pass under would be the best way to go about it, IMO. Build a cheap trip-wire setup out of a clothespin,
foil, a battery, and some wire. Use a plastic spacer tied to a string to open the circuit, and set up the string so that the tank will
run into it an d pull it out. Som eone operating a bigass tank will m ost likely not be looking for a thin string, more lik ely they will
b e l o o k i n g f o r s o m e o ne with a hom e m ade rocket launcher hiding somewhere.
Edit: I will be off the forum an d net for a week. Not allowed to give details.
vulture October 19th , 2 0 0 3 , 0 5 : 1 3 P M

<start shaking head in utter d isbelief>
W T F h a p p e n e d t o t h e f o r u m spirit when NBK started his hiatus? Did everybody suddenly turn into feel nice bearhuggers or
what?
T h e d u d e i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k i n g t o b e s p o o n f e d a n d y o u g u y s e v e n h e l p h im ?! :eek:
Tell him to fill the lau nch tube with tabasco and stuff it up his ass!
</continue shaking head in utter disbelief>
DBSP October 19th , 2 0 0 3 , 0 5 : 2 4 P M

zaqzaq1 you was very recently told NOT to ask for inform ation bu rather to SEARC H for it, and what do you do? You still ask for
it, stupid!!
Now NBK m ight not be here right now b ut I'm sertainly n o t g o i n g t o b e c o m e a n y b earhugger, I like this place nice and orderly,
and we can sertainly cope with out these constant annoying interuptions from stupid little KEW LS.
Lets all just be happy that this particular kewl isn't going to be bothering us anytim e the n earest future, HED...:D

Hah, sorry about helping him out, but it's an interesting topic for m e, particularly as I used to design and b uild sim ilar things
for a living :)
I'm certainly no 'bearhugger'. I don't feel I sho uld be chastising people until I have 50+ posts up though, I get irked by
p e o p l e w i t h 8 p o s t s s c r e a m i n g " y o u r g o n n a g e t b a n n e d w h e n a m od com es n00b!!".
as this hasn't been locked, will it becom e a proper topic for large (non-firework) Spin Stabilized Recoilless Rifle / Barrage
Rockets with HE payloads?
knowledgehungry October 20th , 2003, 08:30 AM

I believe the term is treehugg ers;). I too have noticed an exponential increase in retards and new posts since NBK took his
absence, it would appear his mere presence stopped KEWLS in there tracks, the current mods are doing a good job though.
W here is Anthony? I haven't seen him for a while.
vulture October 20th , 2 0 0 3 , 0 3 : 5 5 P M

IMHO :
Bearhugger: Person that advo cates the feel nice/be nice idea in to the extrem e. W ill do everything, including com plying to the
e n e m y to avoid any trace of conflict.
T r e e h u g g e r : P e r s o n t h a t h a s a n i n s a n e c o m passion for vegetables, even if they're a piece of weed in the g rass.
knowledgehungry October 20th , 2 0 0 3 , 0 4 : 3 0 P M

The intelligence level of the recent N00Bs resembles that of vegetables, and they are defintly weeds in our garden of
knowledge... So treehuggers it is :p
Anthony October 21st, 2003, 01:03 PM

Fuck m e, this has *got* to be a troll! Or are people really capab le of being that stupid? W orrying thought...
"as this hasn't been locked, will it become a proper topic for larg e (non-firework) Spin Stabilized Recoilless R ifle / Barrage
Rockets with HE payloads?"
It can if you want it to be! Considering your experience, it could well be a n interesting thre ad. So if you wan t the challenge, you
can m a k e i t y o u r p e r s o n a l m i s s i o n t o m ake this thread rise from the ash es like a veritable pheonix :)
"Where is An thony? I haven't seen him for a while."
Making a 5m i hike to the sodding petrol station at 9am :mad:
Still, at least I'm subsequently not at work today :D

Tuatara October 21st, 2003, 06:11 PM
H a s a n y o n e h e r e a c t u a l l y f i r e d o n e o f t h e s e t h i n g s ? W h e n I w o r k e d f o r a m il company ma king sim ulators we had a Carl Gustav
(with a big hole drilled in the side :mad: ), as well as a number of used, single shot anti-tank launchers, and it always seem e d
to m e that the poor sucker firing the thing would get singed by the backblast as the m issile left the launcher. So I'm a m ite
curious as to how one retains ones eyebrows when firing one of these things.
Anthony October 21st, 2003, 07:18 PM

A sh ort websearch would probably bring up a definite an swer, but I'm just going off the top of my head here. I think there are
two ways:
1 ) h a v e t h e m otor bu rn all its propellent before exiting the launch tube, obviously this would require a very high burn rate, a n d
m ight severly lim it projectile speed.
2 ) h a v e a s m all ejection charge to lum ber the projectile from the launcher and then ignite the m ain motor a few yards away.
This is definitely used, I reme mber a thread a while back where a m ember was in volved in developing such a w e a p o n u s i n g a
hydrazine ba sed fuel and were using this technique to make sure that user was clear of th e r o c k e t e x h a u s t w h e n t h e m a i n
hydrazine fuel ignited. The ejection charge burns com pletely before the rocket leaves the launcher.
There was also a video clip kicking about some where (p ossibly the FTP) dem oing an anti-tank launcher. W hen fired, the rocket
jum ps out of the launcher with a small "bumpff", starts falling th e ground a few yards away and then the main m otor ignites
and it streaks back skywards and off to it's target. The video is recognisable by the com plete flattening of a tank when the
rocket strikes, so much that you wonder whether it was a real tank...

Or n o n e o f t h e a b o v e ;) in the case of recoilless launchers, like the C arl Gustav. Basically a frangible plate on the end of the
cartridge lets pressure build up and then shatters, pushing the gas through a ven turi, and the shell out the other end. Then
there is the countershot system , where you throw a shell of, say, a kilo out one end of a tube, and s o m ething weighing 500g
out the other end twice as fast. Or, som ething like the German Armbrust system , which uses a couple of opposed pistons with
the propellant between them. No flash, bang or sm oke, some plastic flys out the back, wh ich soon slows down, and the shell
goes out the front.
McGyver October 26th , 2 0 0 3 , 1 0 : 2 5 P M

Related to both improvised weapons and rocket luanchers, interesting tactics...current events (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
m iddle_east/3216141.stm)
Alot different from this chain of suicide bom bings, those bastard s are becom ing clever. Th is is deffinetly an improvised device,
they had to sight the rockets and modify the RPG luanchers for the attack. I wounder if they are going to use these same
tactics in the future, maybe add a RC to the m ultiple rocket luancher.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > .22 sem i auto action
Log in
View Full Version : .22 semi auto action
Ammonal October 21st, 2003, 02:51 AM

D o e s a n y o n e h a v e u s a b l e d i a g r a m s f o r a sem i auto action similar to an AR 7 or 10/22 please???
I a m going to leave Australia because I cant own a sem i auto rifle without a parlim entery com mitee allowing me to- so if
anyone could please share diagrams blueprints I would be appreciative.
xyz October 21st, 2003, 05:43 AM

Living in Australia rea lly sucks doesn't it? A-BOMB was b uilding h is own AR-7 and you should be able to find it if you search the
Improvised Weapons section.
A-BOMB October 21st, 2003, 10:50 AM

I f y o u w a n t s o m e t h i n g e a s y g e t a 8 0 % c o m p l e t e d r u g e r 10/22 receiver, you just need to drill some holes and file/mill in a
couple of slots then you just get a 10/22 parts kit and put in the bolt, trigger group barrel attach a stock of whateve r you want
y o u c o u l d e v e n m a k e it a pistol it you wanted. There are a bunch of diffe rnet com panies that m a k e t h e m just search it in
g o o g l e . T h o u g h i f y o u d e a d s e t o n m a king it from scratch, I sug gest a winchester type of weapon they are m uch easier to
built, If you want I can provide som e s i m ple drawing to get you started.
kvitekrist October 21st, 2003, 12:14 PM

closed bolt or open?
I would go for a close d bolt with ham m er.
m aby an im provised m p5 or AK bolt design...
A-BOMB October 21st, 2003, 05:01 PM

Mine is closed bolt right now, but it could be either. If anyone is interseted send me a email and I'll send you some diagram s
and stuff.
xyz October 21st, 2003, 07:47 PM

A-BOMB, he can't get an 80% com pleted receiver in Australia due to the fascist laws we ha v e . H e s a i d h e i s m o v i n g t o a n o t h e r
country though so he may be able to get it there.
Ammonal October 22nd, 2003, 03:40 AM

Does Spain have any better gun laws than Australia?? I am only going fo r a few m onths but that should do to reconnoiter
som e self loading gun designs:)
Any suggestions for open bolt or closed bolt op eration?? I already have an open bolt prototype but the bolt is too heavy and
wont return to recock the trigger :( it is very difficult to take much more metal from the bo lt as I have alrea dy drilled and
ground alot of it away.
xyz October 22nd, 2003, 06:55 AM

W hy can't you just use a stronger spring for returning the bolt?
Ammonal October 22nd, 2003, 07:57 AM

Open bolt operation- the spring is the driving force behind the bolt; the blowback from the .22LR is insufficient to push the bolt
back to the starting p osition- thus recocked and ready to fire.
kvitekrist October 22nd, 2003, 07:22 PM

Then your spring is to powerful, m aby you could find a new sprin g or m ake the springactio n longer.
it would be nice to see a drawing/picture of your design.
Ammonal October 23rd , 2003, 01:26 AM

I have to copy som e C AD at the mom ent but give m e a n hour or three and I should have you a picture of the action. Tell me
s o m ething kvitekrist how do you define open bolt operation - the way I understand open bolt is to be the bolt is held back
a g a i n s t a c o m pressed spring held by the sear when the sear is released the bolt travels forward strips a round from the
m a g a z i n e , c h a m bers it and is fired by a fixed firing pin on the bolt face.
Also; A Bom b could you post/em ail the diagram s of your action please?
xyz October 23rd , 2003, 05:29 AM

Am monal, have you tried usin g a more powerful kind of .22LR am m unition such as Aguila Super Maxim um? Apparently Aguila
SM is a very high pressure loa d a n d h a s b e e n k n o w n t o c a u s e c a s e b u l g i n g i n 1 0 / 2 2 a c t i o n s . I t s h o u l d h a v e a l o t m o r e p o w e r
for pushing the bolt back.
A-BOMB, I would also like your diagrams to be posted here or em ailed to m e .
A-BOMB October 23rd , 2003, 09:20 AM

Since there has been alot of intrest in .22 sem i-autos and the like recently I'm m aking a website that will h ave the file and m y
p r o g r e s s o n m y AR-7 and zipguns on it it will be up in a few hours.

Yes indeed kvitekrist, the spring was too strong, I honestly dont know what I was talking about. Once it was replaced with the
only softer spring that I had from a m otor bike carburettor and after 50 rounds and 7 feed jam s it looks lik e I m igh t have a
working submachine gun(I do not want to start any fights over handgun rounds being fired in a longer barrel and all that, I just
call it a sub gun because it ha s a short barrel)

I h a v e b e e n u s i n g W inchester powerpoints for the last 500 rounds, which are good and reliable in a standard length 22, in a
cut down 22 which has a 9 inch barrel they had reduced penetration ability, and for the sem i auto they were just plain crap. I
u s e d a b o x o f 2 2 r e m ington C yclone and these had a lot m ore speed and penetration with the 5 inch barrel of my sub gun.
O n c e I g e t s o m e online storage I will post links to a heap of photos of m y single shot cut down winchester, and the semi auto.
Has anyone suggestions for som e easy to get free storage on the net??
I doo, go to www.im a g e s t a t i o n . c o m and sign in using: ID: theforum and PASS: viewingpics
I've used image station a while now and it workes good.. I created that account for so that others wouldn't have to register
themselves just to view my pics, videos are allso allowed there. And there are no size lim it as far as I unde rstand. I think it
would be great if all E&W mem ebers who need a place to out their stuff could use the sam e account, it would m a k e t h i n g s
e a s i e r . T h e r i s k i s t h a t s o m e o ne gets pissed at us and deletes the things in the folder though. If oyu wan't to be shure your
pics stay online then create a new account othe rwise you can use the one I sugge sted...
DBSP ..
Ammonal October 26th , 2003, 09:14 AM

A bomb, I am not trying to act like some knowledge ignorant little kewl but I have sent you 2 ema ils and I am just wondering
if yo u have your current email?
Also I was wondering if you had the we b s i t e u p o n s e m i auto .22's?

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > AC 5 5 6 v s m i n i 1 4
Log in
View Full Version : AC556 vs mini 14
stu460 October 23rd , 2003, 08:09 AM

hi all,i posted a little while ago about how does one tell if the m ini 14 had been converted,well i pu lled the firing me ch apart
and it still has the second sea r so thats good,o k guru`s,what is the difference between the FA ac556 and the sem i auto
m ini14,what is the difference in firing mechanisms,does the full auto style selector switch hold back the sear so its fully auto,is
that why taking out the sear would have to be same effect,but you guys reckon the full au to had problem s a n y w a y , s o m e o n e
enlighten this lam er,i was given this gun off a deceased relative,its shortened with a pistol grip,silenced,and also has a red dot
s c o p e , 3 0 s h o t m a g , l o o k s l i k e a n a s s a s s i n s f o r m er weapon,these guns are new to m e , t h i s s i t e h a s b e e n h e lpfull..
grandyOse October 23rd , 2003, 11:41 AM

IIR C there is a factory version of selective fire m ini-14 for LEO s. Of this I know nothing. There is only one conversion of which I
a m aware for selective fire, and it involves a makeshift rod connected (on the right side) between the trigger group and the
receiver. This should be obvious to the m ost casual observer. Several years ago I read the instructions, and it looked like a
good way to detroy a rifle, and spend m any frustrating hours in the process.
If you have a FA m ini, then you have somethin g rare.
stu460 October 23rd , 2 0 0 3 , 0 7 : 1 5 P M

i wish it were an ac556,i just wanted to make it clear that im inte rested in the firin g m echa nism difference,i dont plan to convert
it,as som e o n e o n h e r e o n c e s a i d , i t s p r o b a b l y b etter in semi m ode anyway,its just an interest i have at the m o m ent,i was
curious to kn ow how the factory did it,for all i know the fa m e c h a n i s m m a y be totally different..ive never seen any informatio n
on
them.
JDA M October 26th , 2003, 01:38 AM

True factory ACs have a small lever on the right rear of the recie ver that needs a slight scallop of the stock to m ove . Factory FA
M14s are very sim ilar. No leve r no FA. Aside fro m the fa ct shooting FA is fun, for m ost weapons and people it is a total waste of
m o n e y ( a m m o) and a quick ticket to a fed prison for un-liscened maker or user of said weapon.
JDAM
MP5Guy Novem ber 9th, 2003, 01:36 AM

A s y o u c a n s e e a g o o d bit of difference between the Mini14 and the AC556. I hop e this helps you out.
http://www.hunt101.com /img/069839.jpg
stu460 Novem ber 9th, 2003, 10:26 AM

yeah now i can see why its a lot m ore than just turning the secondary sear around or modifying it,thanks fo r that pic,i couldn t
find one anywhere,theres a major difference in the two firing mechanism s,i was starting to wonder if i posted a stupid
question..thanks.
MP5Guy Novem ber 9th, 2003, 02:00 PM

That used in the Sele ct Fire M14's and is reliant on way too many small parts and springs to be reliable. Sim plicity is the key to
a system that can be maintained by the user without se nding the weapon back to the m anufacture r a s s e e n h e r e i n a M 1 6
Auto Sear.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > A neat item on EBay.....
Log in
View Full Version : A neat item on EBay.....
JDA M October 26th , 2 0 0 3 , 1 1 : 1 6 P M

Practice Rifle grenade (http://cgi.ebay.com /ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem &item=363 4173078&category=36258&rd=1)
T h i s m ight be an inte rsting piece for those interested in rocket style weapons. I h a v e s e e n a n d u s e d v a r i o u s r i f l e g r e n a d e s a n d
m ost could b e adapted to rocket power without to much fuss. Put the biggest easte's model rocket engine in it and m a k e
s o m e sort of launcher.
JDAM
A-BOMB October 26th , 2 0 0 3 , 1 1 : 4 7 P M

You can get a whole set here of 6 units and all the replacement parts here. For $140
http://www.e-gunparts.com /DisplayAd.asp?chrProductSKU=881770&chrSuperSKU=&MC &MC=YJ
McGyver October 26th , 2 0 0 3 , 1 1 : 5 6 P M

L o o k s l i k e t h e g r e n a d e c a n b e m odifie d to suite other non-cilvilian purpo s e s : D
Fergus January 20th , 2004, 09:04 AM

I think it'd be easier and cheaper to ju st use the old dowel rod down the shotgun barrel with one's explosive package attached
to the distal end of the dowel. Ths original plan for this was found in a book called Che Guevara On Guerrila Warfare. W orke d
well with m y 12 ga. and a round that I'd taken the shot out of.
Whitey January 21st, 2004, 01:32 PM

Hey Fergus what kind of range did you get with that? W hat was the weigh t of the projectile? That design sounds very easy to do
but how effective is it.
Fergus January 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 1 0 : 0 6 P M

I a m not sure what the exact wt was but I used a cut off broomstick for the dowel rod and a 6 oz glass Coke bottle with wate r
in it for the payload so it was heavier than need be. I got a good 75 yards out of it. It would be ea sier to m e r e l y t a p e a
payload to the stick with duct tape than to build the platform Che describ es and decrease the wt by using som ething lighter
than a glass bottle, thereby increasing the range obtain ed. You can probably get better instructions from the book "Che
Guevara O n Guerrilla Warfare".

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Pack Howitzer pics
Log in
View Full Version : Pack Howitzer pics
Spartin13 Novem ber 2nd, 2003, 08:14 AM

I was wondering if anyone can lead m e to pic/p lans for the W W II pack Howitzer that were used by the Marines . I have com e
a c r o s s s o m e v e r y h e a v y s e a m l e s s t u b i n g a p p o x 3 ' l l o n g s e a m less 1.25 bore with .75 walls. could be fun project if I can obta in
gun mount/breach plans. Thanks in advance!
Wild Catmage Novem b e r 2 n d , 2 0 0 3 , 0 4 : 0 5 P M

A google search (hint) revealed a site listing the dim e n s i o n s a n d n a m e s o f t h e v a r i a n t s o f t h e 7 5 m m Pack Howitzer used in
both world wars by the US m arine corps. You co uld try to find pla ns for the other variants of this we apon is you can't find any
for this m o d e l .
http://www.strategyplanet.com /panzergeneral/ww2/Weapons/towed_artillery/usa/gundata/75m m_Pack_how_M1A1.html

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Lighting Link
Log in
View Full Version : Lighting Link
Paul AR15 Novem ber 3rd, 2003, 01:00 AM

For years one could g o to http : / / m e m b e r s . h o m e.net/gryphon223/ar15/fullauto/4.htm l and get Lighting Link plans. That site is
now gone and I haven't seen anyone with plans posted. If you know of o n e p l e a s e p o s t i t h e r e .
I've seen the one with the diagram of how it works but haven't seen the blueprint anymore.
For training inform ation only of course.
Thanks
MP5Guy Novem ber 11th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Print Plans are m issing. Paddles can be had from several gun auction sites and are not NFA Items so No Paperwork to buy. Try
GunBroker.com or GunsAm erica. com for Paddles FS.
http://www.linuxshell.org/pics/ar15/link/lightnin g.html
MP5Guy D e c e m ber 4th, 2003, 06:34 PM

http://www.sturm gewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=37960
ossassin D e c e m ber 4th, 2003, 08:09 PM

A new topic on the first post? Good luck with NBK.
I f y o u w a n t t o m a k e a n A R - 1 5 f u l l - a u t o , a n d y o u h a v e m achining tools, I'd recom m e n d f i n d i n g p l a ns for either the M16A1 or

the M4A1 fire-control group. Don't do the M16A2. Burst is worthless.
NOTE: The M16A1 is known for its unreliability, and the M4A1 is slightly d ifferent internally. Neither choice is ideal.
MP5Guy D e c e m ber 5th, 2003, 03:41 PM

"All Pics Are Legal Post Sam ples" And done on DPMS Lowers. If you are not licensed to do these m odifications DO N'T they can
send you to Barred Holiday Inn... Obviously I can Legally m a k e t h e s e m odifications and the pic is for informational purposes
Only...

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Zip Gun SEMI AUTO and PMJB
Log in
View Full Version : Zip Gun SEMI AUTO and PMJB
marco November 8th, 2003, 07:26 PM

hooah! i have 2 very simply questions:
1... i want to do a semi auto zip gun, but i dont know how to make SIMPLY AND EASY mechanism. Good if it will be plans.
2... i live in very bad country, if you mean to buy some books (interesting books, like Poor Mans James Bond). I tried to download it from KAZAA - there isnt. I tried download
it from eMule - queue, 3 days waiting, having hope, snafu. is there any site with this book?
Its my first post, not last...

Don't waste your time with the Poor Mans James Bond.
I have a copy and other than the pyro information the rest is of no real use.
As for your zip gun design, What caliber are you wanting to use?

Read the different volumes of "Home workshop firearms" on the FTP. They contain the diagrams for a couple of very simple semi auto .22 Pistol designs.
P.S. - Your sig is too long, 3 lines max
grandyOse November 9th, 2003, 12:02 AM

uh, I thought the FTP was available only to those deemed worthy. This rather kewlish newby has but one lame post, and a question at that. Not even in the water cooler. It is
not my intention to flame said newby, rather to obtain clarification of the FTP protocol.

Grandy0se, yes, the FTP is only for people deemed worthy, Which he may eventually (very eventually) be.
But for now, If I was him, I would just be glad that NBK isn't here to see this.
marco November 9th, 2003, 08:56 AM

hmmm... thanks for replies. caliber doesn't matter, it can be .45, .22, 9mm, but common.
xyz, what is adress of this ftp? im new ;P
i readed forums like this veeery long, and everybody said "PMJB is very good book! buy or download it!" strange...
zaibatsu November 9th, 2003, 10:28 AM

Get PA Luty's 9mm expedient smg book, it's very good for an easy-ish, throwaway 9mmP smg. The author however was stupid, employing someone else to do the
photography and got himself thrown in prison (he's from england).
marco November 9th, 2003, 01:05 PM

yeah, thanks, but its one bad thing: in my country its impossible to find books like this, so if you can... ftp or site... ill be grateful... thx
i made shotgun plans, very easy to build, but i dont know does it work. ill scan them. and, of course, post them here.

So, Marco has sailed away...
Makes me wonder what he did for is two weeks "cooling off period", as he obviously didn't read the rules!
The Luty book gets some really good reviews online. I might pay the $20, but I would rather get it from the ftp or something, as I really wouldn't want to wind up like Mr. Luty,
with four years in prison! Failing that, I might see if I can pick it up from a show or something.
Any members have an opinion on it, or other similar texts? For study, of course.
TampaPunk November 17th, 2003, 05:37 PM

i have a question. where is the ftp, this is my first post, i have read a lot, but i havent had much to say.

Not to flame you or anything, but there are about three or four threads about the ftp.
As for access, I think it is a case of "Ask and you won't get" unless you have contributed. Read the threads!
aussie_boy November 21st, 2003, 09:38 PM

in australia recently they had a couple of guy's mass produce a 2 shot zip gun they had enough pasrts for 2,500 guns selling for $1,500 each a quick calculation that's about 4
and a half million australin dollars the thing looked something simular to a remote control
xyz November 22nd, 2003, 09:53 PM

I think they would only have gotten a couple of hundred bucks each for those zipguns, the 1.5 grand was just a police estimate (in other words, way off).
Anyways, they fired two rounds of .32ACP from 2 seperate barrels, they were about 3cmx3cmx10cm in size (rectangular shaped), and they were fired by pushing 2 buttons on
the top. Yes, they looked a lot like small TV remotes with only 2 buttons.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > PB grenade
Log in
View Full Version : PB grenade
marco Novem ber 11th, 2003, 08:13 AM

H o o a h ! D o y o u k n o w h o w d o e s p r o p a n e b u t a n e lighter grenade works? I dont want answers like "throw it at sth hard, it will
blow." I want grenade, not f**ckin' blowing stone! On other threads i didnt found anything g o o d .
I'll be grateful for BUTANE HAND GRENADE book scan, plans, ima ges, eve rything. Thanks
DBSP Novem ber 11th, 2003, 09:12 AM

1) kewl=bad
2) kewl gone = g o o d
Result--->ke wl gone:)
Wild Catmage Novem ber 13th, 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by marco
H o o a h ! D o y o u k n o w h o w d o e s p r o p a n e b u t a n e lighter grenade works? I dont want answers like "throw it at sth hard, it will
blow." I want grenade, not f**ckin' blowing stone! On other threads i didnt found anything g o o d .
I'll be grateful for BUTANE HAND GRENADE book scan, plans, ima ges, eve rything. Thanks
I'm guessing he's talking about throwing a butane lighter on the floor un til it breaks, but I can't really tell due to the poor
description of what he's trying to do. Sounds like he needs to try som ewhere else, such as Totse or maybe a site with the
crapbooks. :p
Also, butane will require a sou rce of ignition, and isn't really the best incendiary, as it quickly vapourises on c e e x p o s e d t o
n o r m a l t e m p eratures and pressure.
[un]Official Forum F l a m e
===================================
Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
[ ] Loser
[ ] S p a m m er
[X] 12 year old
[X] Dum b a s s
[ ] Dickhead
[ ] Pervert
[ ] Nerd
[X] l337 K3w|
[ ] Other: illegal im m igrant
You Are Being Flam e d B e c a u s e

[ ] You posted a Nudity thread (anime or normal).
[ ] You posted a thread that is annoying as all hell just to look at.
[X] You posted something that makes absolutely no sense at all.
[ ] You whine like a b itch.
[ ] Y o u b u m ped a thread from t h e l a s t p a g e .
[ ] You started an off-topic thread.
[ ] You are b eing a parrot
[ ] You don't know which forum to post in.
[ ] You posted false information (or lack thereof).
[ ] Y o u p o s t e d s o m ething totally uninteresting.
[ ] You are p ost whoring
[ ] Y o u p o s t e d a m essage all written in C APS (oR aLtErNaTe CaP s).
[X] You are raping the English l a n g u a g e
[X] I don't like your tone of voice.
[X] You annoyed the m[g]ods
[ ] You forgo t to do a search
To Repent, You Must:

[X] Spend a night with "Bubba " in a 3x 3 cell
[ ] Search the forum for the correct answer
[ ] Jum p into a bathtub while holding your mon itor
[X] Actually post something relevant
[X] Stick a firecracker up your ass
[ ] Apologize to everybody on this foru m
[ ] Go and play on the freeway
[ ] Run with scissors
[ ] Listen to NSYNC and Nikki W ebster for 2 hours
In C losing, I'd like to Say:

[ ] Get a life
[ ] Go to hell
[ ] Your mother m ust've dropped you as a child
[ ] You will never post in this forum a g a i n
[ ] I pity your dog
[ X ] Y o u m u s t h a v e t h e m ental capacity of an avocardo
[ X ] Y o u r b a l l s s h o u l d b e r e m o ved for what you posted
[X] Take your crap somewhere else
[ ] Do us all a favour and jump into so me industrial equipm ent
[ ] Go and crawl back under the rock you cam e f r o m
[ ] Go play Dress-Up Barbie Online
[ ] All of the above
=====================================
The first use of the unofficial forum fla m e f o r m , I think... :D
steyr Novem ber 21st, 2003 , 07:38 PM

i think he was talking about one book (propane butane hand lighter grenade). i saw it somewere, but i don 't think it will work.
his out, so end this topic.
Rhadon Novem ber 21st, 2003 , 08:25 PM

You're telling us to end this topic, but you keep it running by posting in it. Strange, isn't it? That's your second useless post for
so far. A third one will get you banned.
Radiant Novem ber 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM

i thought he was talking about paintba ll grenades ;)
xyz Novem ber 27th, 2003, 04:12 AM

P l e a se don't post things like that radiant, it just clogs threads up with useless posts (not that this thread is worth preserving).
Anyway, why hasn't this been closed yet? It would seem the logical thing to do (and I am not posting to keep the topic
running, I am posting to tell radiant not to post useless stuff).

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Bird Bombs for signal guns?
Log in
View Full Version : Bird Bombs for signal guns?
Macgyver November 13th, 2003, 09:40 AM

I recently aquired a box of them after quite a lot of searching around.
Mine are red and about 5-6 cm long, 15mm diameter. Haven't tested one yet, but they are supposed to be something like a M80 fired from a signal gun.
Anyone else have experience with these fun things?
Wild Catmage November 13th, 2003, 09:56 AM

I saw them being used on the airfield that I flew from. I asked the instructor who was with me why the guy was firing them, and he replied that they were used to scare birds
away from the arifield to reduce the chance of a birdstrike happening during takeoff and landing. They were loud enough to be heard over the noise of the engine when we
were inside the plane. I'd judge that they reach a height of about 30 metres before going "bang".
They're probably not of much use in an urban environment, except for scaring away sheeple and causing other trouble, which will cause the armed response unit to turn up. :D
Arkangel November 13th, 2003, 11:47 AM

They normally have a bright star, which explodes after a second or so of flight. They are generally a 12 gauge cartridge, although they shouldn't be fired from a shotgun - be
carefull with them, they might fuck your gun and/or hurt you. The most common way to fire them is from a 38mm signal pistol, with a 12gauge sub-cal adapter, although it
would be fairly easy to make yourself a slam bang device, since accuracy isn't really an issue anyway.
If you look around, you can also find some quite cool "smoke puff" cartridges, although they are normally just in 38mm - they don't have the flare or star, just a decent size
cloud of smoke.

The 12 gauge bird bombs work quite well in a shotgun and they do sound about as loud as an m-80.
They are not that hard to find around here and have a range of around 30-50 meters.
I havnt taken one apart yet to see what type and amount of charge they use.
try these sites.

http://www.deer-busters.com/bird-control-pyrotechnics---launchers.html
http://hometown.aol.com/ramlasers/ammo.html
Macgyver November 13th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Arkangel
They normally have a bright star, which explodes after a second or so of flight. They are generally a 12 gauge cartridge, although they shouldn't be fired from a shotgun - be
carefull with them, they might fuck your gun and/or hurt you. The most common way to fire them is from a 38mm signal pistol, with a 12gauge sub-cal adapter, although it
would be fairly easy to make yourself a slam bang device, since accuracy isn't really an issue anyway.
If you look around, you can also find some quite cool "smoke puff" cartridges, although they are normally just in 38mm - they don't have the flare or star, just a decent size
cloud of smoke.
I do have the proper means of firing these suckers. 9mm signal pistol with an adaptor for flares and such.
Arkangel November 14th, 2003, 05:31 AM

That sounds odd.......
Can you post any pics?
Ta

Originally posted by Arkangel
That sounds odd.......
Can you post any pics?
Ta
Pictures coming up on the same site as the pumpkin movie was on shortly.
Just got to reboot to Windows and transfer them from my digital camera, got photos of both birdbomb + gun used to fire them.
http://www.imagestation.com
id: theforum
pass: viewingpics
Look in the folder "Birdbombs"...
Damn! Seems they didn't approve of the exploding pumpkin, that account is closed. I'll get back with the pictures as soon as I have uploaded them somewhere!

Originally posted by PHAID
[B]The 12 gauge bird bombs work quite well in a shotgun and they do sound about as loud as an m-80.
I haven't ever heard an M-80, being from across the pond, but my 12 is easily heard from a half a mile away, more if it is quiet. So why do you need a special cartridge? Just
use a BP saluting blank. Very loud and a big cloud of BP smoke.
On a related note, has anyone ever played with any other fun cartridges for a 12? or Should I search/start a new topic?

The actual firing of the shotgun with a bird bomb gives a mild report.
The blast from the bird bomb is louder than the normal report of the shotgun.
If you look around you can find them linked in a chain with fuse for lighting as well.
Ive tried a few of the oddball 12 ga. rounds, what would you like to know?
Great thing about here is we have a semi anual machinegun shoot at Knob Creek shooting range and you can find about anything you like there.:cool:

shoot your bird bombs outta one of these 12 ga improvised pipe pistols http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=575&highlight=screw+action
FrankRizzo November 14th, 2003, 07:43 PM

I believe that Macgyver is talking about bird bombs for 15mm flare guns. I bought a couple of boxes before they became an "agricultural use only" item here in the US. They're
basically a 2" red tube containing 1.5g of flash powder with a yellow plastic stopper in one end, and a black powder based fuse pellet crimped in the other. The blank cartridge
used to propel them, lights the fuse and sends it about 75'.
The report on these things is fairly impressive to someone who has only heard 50mg crackers (ie. most kids born after 1980) , but they aren't 3.5g M-80 caliber :)
Here's a picture of 'em:

http://www.gemplers.com/pix/prod/P12218.jpg

Originally posted by FrankRizzo
I believe that Macgyver is talking about bird bombs for 15mm flare guns. I bought a couple of boxes before they became an "agricultural use only" item here in the US. They're
basically a 2" red tube containing 1.5g of flash powder with a yellow plastic stopper in one end, and a black powder based fuse pellet crimped in the other. The blank cartridge
used to propel them, lights the fuse and sends it about 75'.
The report on these things is fairly impressive to someone who has only heard 50mg crackers (ie. most kids born after 1980) , but they aren't 3.5g M-80 caliber :)
Here's a picture of 'em:

http://www.gemplers.com/pix/prod/P12218.jpg
That's exactly like those I have!

PHAID,
I was wondering about starting a thread on exotic 12g cartridges. Some of them are really rather cool.
There are the various slugs, tracer, different shot sizes, and so on, and we could do a "show and tell" kind of thing. I heard of a rather neat improvised slug, and I am sure
others here do some cool stuff too.
I seriously doubt if UK subjects could ever get anything like these crow-scarers. Slugs are section 1 (firearms certificate, which means *very* strictly controlled - you have to
have type approval!) as is anything over .36 diameter shot, or with fewer than 6 bits of shot. We can get a type of tracer, though.
Anyway, I have just started it, in this section. :)

Does someone want to add a "review" of these crow-scarers?
Macgyver November 16th, 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Jack's Complete
Does someone want to add a "review" of these crow-scarers?
I will do that as soon as I get time to go outside of town to test them.
Don't think my neighbours would appreciate me firing a 9mm blank gun with crow scarers flying all over the place :D

Okay, I've tested one of them now.
It was quite loud, not as loud as a homemade M-80, but not far from though.
It's a pity that they're not available without license over here, but hopefully I can get a few more if I ask nice enough again :D

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Rocket proppelant for horizontal launch
Log in
View Full Version : Rocket proppelant for horizontal launch
AsylumSeaker November 25th, 2003, 02:14 AM

I have been experimenting with rocket launcher ideas. I have been using estes D-12 booster engines. They supply the most thrust out of the D class engines I beleive.. but its
not really enough. I have experimented with my own compacted black powder as fuel but its not good really. The research I did gave me plenty of rocket fuels for vertical
launches which seem mostly to use power of lift over speed. I figure a vertical launch needs more speed. Can anyone help me with a good fast burning rocket fuel? I can get
chemicals.. I sort of have a chemical supplier.. sort of.
I make my fins from peices of coke bottle which bend down and suspend the rocket in the tube and then pop up again when the rocket leaves the tube. Is it worth it to invest
the time in proper pop up fins?
Tuatara November 25th, 2003, 04:41 AM

Where to begin...
1. BP is a fast burning propellant (note spelling!). Sometimes too fast, one of the reasons its not used in bigger motors.
2. Think about what produces speed in a rocket. Its thrust! Equates to lift power. So if you need more speed (I think the term you want is acceleration) then you want more
thrust.
3. To get more thrust the easiest way is to burn more fuel at once. This is usually done by putting a hole down the length of the propellant grain, giving a much larger burning
surface
4. Extend your research into 'motor design'
5. Use candy propellant, mixed with a large dollop of 'motor design' and you will get the result you want.
6. If coke bottle fins work, keep using them. If not, try something else. :rolleyes:
I sure hope you've read all the threads here pertaining to rockets...
Microtek November 25th, 2003, 05:05 AM

If you want really high acceleration, I suggest whistle mix or other KClO4 based propellants. Optimally they should be used with a good binder ( not solvent evaporated NC ) as
they burn so fast they tend to erode the core, which often leads to CATO.

There's a page at www.unopar.br/portal/space/artigos/sugar-rocket.doc where some Brazilian students tried to create a rocket that would fly to 2000m using a NaNO3/Sugar
mix. They managed to get it to fly to 1400m, but this was vertically. Still, the altidtude attained was impressive.
akinrog November 25th, 2003, 02:31 PM

Hi,
You may find a lot of rocketry information at http://nakka-rocketry.net. I think I found this link through Mr. Cool's web site.
Rgrds.;)
ronald November 25th, 2003, 03:14 PM

More thrust isnt always the best way to achieve speed. Lower thrust but longer burn sounds more efficient to me, because the acceleration is lower then and drag is lower too.
Impulse is what counts anyway:)
Tuatara November 25th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Actually higher thrust is more efficient , if you're going vertically, and simply want speed. Remember you've got gravity working against you all the time, so if you take the
motor thrust to the lowest extreme where it just balances gravity, then you can burn your entire motor and go nowhere - not very efficient :p
Since you're going for speed, the final drag is irrelevant.
Height is a different story ...
AsylumSeaker November 25th, 2003, 07:59 PM

Thankyou for your help. I will go with cored black powder rockets next I beleive. Thanks again.
Arkangel November 26th, 2003, 06:35 PM

Asylumseaker - NOT an auspicious start.
New thread by a newbie, pretty much in the wrong section, something that you could find elsewhere if you looked and a pretty dappy question at best.
You're lucky that people are feeling generous - although there's no guarantee you won't still be banned.
1. Read the rules
2. Search
3. Watch your step from here on in. You're unlikely to get any second chances.
You want a high speed fuel for horizontally fired, flat trajectory projectile right?
Then forget Estes, forget any model rocketry you see on the Nakka site and elsewhere, they are ALL too slow burning. As Tuatara said, making things go faster involves
burning more fuel in a shorter space of time. I've fire 66mm LAW's and RPG7's, and in both cases, the fuel is all burnt before the rocket leaves the launcher. There's just a big
WHUMP and it's gone. I used to have a LAW motor kicking about, and it's a very strong aluminium body, with venturi something like half the size of the overall bore. The fuel is
in the form of a load of thin rods. You could do that sort of thing with home made rockets, but you're going to have to forget everything you read about models - pvc/
cardboard/rolled metal tubing and the rest. Your rocket will have to be made from a piece of solid metal, and in any case, I wouldn't dare fire something like that home-made
from over your shoulder - you'll die sooner rather than later.
But anyway, you started off this thread like a retard, so piss off and do some actual THINKING before you post again

I believe that as soon as the rocket leaves the launcher, it will start accelerating downwards at around 9.8 m/s/s.
In a vertically launched rocket, all of the rocket's thrust is being spent in opposing gravity. However, in a horizontally launched rocket, very little thrust will be directly
downwards to counter the pull of gravity.
This means that you will have to add some kind of force to counter the effects of this (e.g. lift), or have a very fast flight time. You could also try launching the rocket at an
angle, instead of launching it horizontally, which would also counter the downwards acceleration at the expense of accuracy (a direct line weapon is generally easier to aim).
Also, a rocket launcher is not the best covert weapon :D
so you will have to consider what you want to use the weapon for.

Horizontially fired missiles have both high speed and lifting bodies (wings) to counter-act gravitational dropping.
Otherwise you'll have to fire the rocket as a ballistic projectile and aim at an angle like a gun projectile to counter it.
When firing horizontially, you either have to
A) burn up enough propellant in the launcher to get sufficient velocity for the projectile to generate adequate lift when the wings deploy, otherwise the projectile will sort of fall
out the tube and shoot off along the ground.
This is usually achieved by using either a bursting diaphragm that allows the propellant to generate enough pressure to create the required thrust when the diaphragm ruptures,
like the MLRS.
The other way is to use an extremely rapidly burning propellant like the "sticks" in the LAAW's rocket, which burns up in a few milliseconds.
B) Use a gas generator to heave the projectile out of the tube far enough away so that when the rocket kicks in, it doesn't roast the operator. (JAVELIN)
C) Use counterbalancing weights with a small central propellant to heave the projectile out of the tube far enough away... (ARM-BURST)

another thing is the #s on the side of the engine actualy tell its characteristics... you said you were using D-12 boosters... the 12 is thrust measured in newtons. there are
aproximatly 4.45 newtons per pound, so your D engine is putting out about 2.5 - 3 pounds of thrust , but it is in around the first few seconds which is what you want. you can
make your D engine create maro thrust the first fractions of a second by (VERY CAREFULLY) taking a really small drill bit and drilling less than 1/4 in into the bp core from the
hole you ignite. this will create more thrust faster but do not mess up the clay surrounding the hole or the engine will not work . another thing to try is another engine such as
an E-9 it will not produce as much thrust but it will produce thrust longer(better in upward performance than for a rpg but do what you want)
Arkangel November 28th, 2003, 01:43 PM

Ok, let's try and get this straight, before anyone posts any more.
Asylumseaker - what are you hoping to achieve. Do you want your rocket to go up, or go horizontally?
If it's horizontally then 90% of what people have posted here is irrelevant crap.
If it's vertical then why the confusing title to the thread? And since I'm on the subject, how come your post doesn't mention the word horizontal? How come you don't give a
fucking clue what you're actually trying to do?:mad:
Maybe you should be banned, I certainly wouldn't cry about it. Maybe this thread should be left open as an example of why newbies should NOT start threads, and a bit of a
sad reflection on the fact that some other (some of who ought to know better) members seem capable of responding to such a shit thread without really reading it?:rolleyes:
So PEOPLE, might I suggest that we leave this thread alone until Asylumseaker has got off his fat arse and explained himself?
AsylumSeaker December 1st, 2003, 11:52 PM

Arkangel- Basicly what I mean is a rocket which will be launched horizontally from a tube. Research I have been doing includes looking into ww2 rocket launchers, particularly
the german panzershrek. I think I have the design of the rocket down how I want it, except what fuel to use. The question I was asking was what fuel would give me the
highest acceleration which I could obtain or make without to much hassel, ie- without breaking into any sort of military facility. Thanks for your help. No need to ban me, I will
leave now.
ronald December 2nd, 2003, 09:28 AM

Keep it simple and just use KNSU propellant.
Jacks Complete December 2nd, 2003, 11:01 AM

If I might make a suggestion.
Build a large crossbow. Fire your rocket from it, with a clever 1 second delay fuse on it.
I will leave you to figure out the rest. Then you can explain it to us.
Arkangel December 3rd, 2003, 05:42 PM

In that case Asylumseaker (and I'm not a mod, so I couldn't ban you anyway), it's pretty easy to work out some parameters:
As Wild Catmage explains, fired horizontally your rocket will start accelerating DOWN at 9.8m/s/s, just the same as a bullet does.
In this respect, you should be able to make a simple table of how fast the rocket will have to be going to get certain distances from your launcher.
For example, if you want the projectile to travel 100m and drop only an 10cm,
The formula you need is s=ut+1/2atsquared
where
s=0.1m
u = starting velocity(0m/s)
a = 9.8m/s/s
t = the time you have to get the projectile the 100m.
I can't be arsed to work it out for you, but you should be getting the idea.
So, once you've worked out how much time you have, then you can work out the average speed for that distance, or the acceleration you'll need to give the projectile. With a
bullet it's a bit easier, as it's easier to get the average speed - muzzle velocity is maximum, and it will only decellerate after the barrel.
However, once you've roughly worked out the acceleration you need, you can work out the thrust needed from the rocket and all the rest of it.
But I can save you all the trouble.:p
Forget it unless you can burn all your propellant in a fraction of a second. Motor design is going to be critical and pretty much beyond anything model rocketeers can achieve.
Fuel type is less relevant than giving it the largest surface area you can. Watch a LAW being fired, close up. Have a look at the design and you'll understand what I mean.
(and I should be clear at this point that such a design WOULD be possible for an experienced rocketeer who had the right tooling, but for you, it's out of your reach at the
moment)
The best you're going to achieve with a model rocket is a semi ballistic trajectory over any distance, estes rockets aren't designed to be anything other than end burners and if
you drill a full core, stand well back as the chances are they will explode.
(And for the record, I'm about as evenly pissed with you as I am with members who have responded to your thread by missing the point totally, of a thread they should have
dissed in any case. I hope you learn something from this. I don't want to flame you, but the answers are all there if you THINK about it. Try that a bit more in future eh?;) )
Microtek December 4th, 2003, 06:31 AM

For the record, I don't think this is such a bad thread. The proposed project is not much different from gyrojet type systems, which don't burn all the fuel at once and which are
well within the capabilities of an experienced amateur.
I have built several rockets that will travel 80-100 m horizontally without discernible drop, although the scale was probably smaller than what the poster had in mind ( 6-12 mm
diameter ).
These systems used KClO4 based whistle mix, as this type of propellant burns very fast and delivers high thrust.
And just for the record, I understood the question from the beginning.

another suggestion for fast acceleration is to build the rocket with multiple cores...I remember hearing that this is how stinger missiles go super sonic to catch their targets.
Multiple cores means a lot more surface area which means a much fast burn rate...this will however reduce the amount of fuel you can have in there...
AsylumSeaker December 6th, 2003, 11:57 PM

Thankyou for the multiple core suggestion. I don't plan on shooting at planes or anything, so I don't require a very long range. I won't need too much fuel in the rocket. I think
i will: Make a Whistle mix rocket with multiple cores (3 maybe). I will have to engineer a shaped thingy to go on the end of my press which will press the cores for me because
I don't feel like drilling whistle mix. Here are some CGI plans I whipped up for you to look at. Sorry if they don't make sense.
http://fire.prohosting.com/asylumse/engine.htm
http://fire.prohosting.com/asylumse/rocketview.htm
http://fire.prohosting.com/asylumse/shapedcharge
Microtek December 7th, 2003, 07:36 AM

Unless you already have experience with whistle mix, you should do a little experimentation with it. In my opinion, multiple cores will be asking for trouble with a propellant
this ferocious.
MrSamosa December 8th, 2003, 08:49 AM

If you are looking for complete burning on launch (what is the acronym? BOL? I don't remember), I'm not sure if cores produced by simple drilling will be the answer. You may
want to investigate several different core-shapes, especially the star-shaped ones and possibly even more elaborate snow-flake designs, because these patterns seem like they
would offer the most available surface area for burning. However, using these designs, there is a significant decrease in the amount of propellant... I don't know how these
compare with the simple cylindar-type cores (I have not stumbled across any comparison information to date), but it may be worth a try.

Something that will help acceleration is to put pressure on the escaping gases by funneling.
for an example watch a jet take off a air craft carrrier. the after-burners go from "00" to "oo" thus producing higher thrust.
The burning of the propellant causes gases. It is the Gases that make the rocket move. so by funneling them you are compressing them. The more you compresse them the
faster they move. The faster the leave the rocket the faster your rocket should travel.
Take equal amounts of propellant and fill two rockets. make one with a quarter size exhaust tube and one with a dime size exhaust tube. which goes faster? in most situations
the smaller.
Now I am not saying take a cup ful of black powder and force it out a hole the size of a bb. Use your brain hehe. I am saying max the pressure output of the exhuast tube by
funneling.
PhoeniX_KEA January 1st, 2004, 03:41 PM

I have had success with 37mm hand held parachute rockets firing from a horitontal firing position. The rocket's flare and parachute are removed making the spin stabilized
rocket much lighter, read much faster initally too. It is a bit of a long arched shot though, where over a 100 yards you aim about a foot high to hit near the target. I have not
yet substituted the payload for an exploding one. My launcher is a PVC fabricated tube with an Estes ignitor pack attached to it, handle, electronics, etc. I remove both ends of
the rocket flare tube insert it into the launcher, connect rocket ignighter leads aim and fire. I pick up the rocket parachute flares at a local gun show for $10.00US Ea. this is a
bit pricey but success is worth the cost. Huve fun and be carefull.
gkarmis January 3rd, 2004, 10:47 AM

If you are intrested to open more cores to the propellant you should read this site http://members.aol.com/ricnakk/th_grain.html
there in a very intresting analysis of the way a propellant grain is burnt
lamar pye January 3rd, 2004, 08:32 PM

The M72 laws rocket launcher as said before, uses all of its propellant before the fins leave the tube. If this was not the case the person firing the weapon would have thier
face burnt off. The russian RPG uses a slightly different method where it has an initial exit charge that propells the rocket out to a safe range before the rocket motor fires.
Using aluminum popcans for fin material will result in eratic performance......spend some time and dont cut corners by improvising too much. Putting stacked donuts of
propellant in a rocket motor will allow more air to reach the propellant and will cause extremely high and unpredictable pressures.
ShadowAlchemist January 7th, 2004, 02:34 AM

Just quickly, has anybody had any success with incorporating an impact sensitive HE charge into the nose of their rocket. I am toying with the idea of packing the nose of a
rocket with Ammonium Triodide crystals but I have reservations about the whole idea. Fear of making the shit and the possibility of it taking my face off while packing the
charge being 2 that come to mind! So...what is everyone else making their rocket tips out of??
AsylumSeaker January 7th, 2004, 03:19 AM

Don't put ni3 in a rocket. if it didn't go off from the movment of the rocket it would from the rocket banging against the sides of the tube or from the centrifugal force of the
rocket spinning or from a million other reasons. AP might work.. you'd be better off going with a proper electrical or percussion cap.

Alchemist you fool, NI3 is only EVER going to be used as a novelty, it is too sensetive, you can't "Pack" it as you said, it would go off. Ap may work but it may not, better to
use a rifle primer in the same way as is being said in the land mine thread. Have the entire nose attatched to what would be the trigger for the mine so that even if the rocket
dosn't hit a hard surface completely perpendicular the nail will still trigger the cap as it is spring loaded and therefore not dependant on hitting force. I may post a picture later
to make myself clear as it is a bit hard to explain.

Here is the design once the mods attatch the pic it will make sense.
Basically as the nosecone hits something it pushes down on the lever arm which pulls out of the notch cut into the end of the nail. The nail then powered by the spring rams
into the primer, which detonates. The primer then sets off the primary cap which is connected to the trigger assembly by a short length of metal tube also packed full of a
primary. The primary cap is embedded in the main secondary HE charge. The design is mostly stolen from the landmine thread so most credit goes to there.
Sorry about the double post but I just learnt that I couldnt attatch a pic after the post had been sent :(
T_Pyro January 8th, 2004, 10:38 AM

Blackhawk, the design that you posted looks interesting, but I'm not too convinced that it would work. The success of the mechanism depends on whether the impact forces act
on the trigger rod to displace it in the direction desired. Further, wouldn't the trigger rod damage the spring/nail/washer arrangement if the missile crashes exactly
perpendicularly to the target surface?
I think I have an alternative design to do more or less the same thing:

http://mercury.walagata.com/w/joydeepb/T_Pyro/Missile-percussion-design.jpg
During impact, the inner cone (see diagram) is compressed, and the fluid pressure exerts enough force on the percussion to set off the impact-sensitive charge like mercury
fulminate, which in turn sets off the main charge. The only possible disadvantage of this design that I can think of is that it would be rather top-heavy.
Blackhawk January 8th, 2004, 11:28 PM

The problem I was thinking with having a direct initiation path between the impact point and the primer composition would be that if for some reason the impact was well
gentler than expected (for instance it hits water or is slowed by plants draging on the fins as it enters dense vegitation) the impact may not be enough to set the primer off,
hense using a spring system, the impact on the primer will always be the same reguardless of velocity or angle of impact.
Of course that picture only shows the main active sections of the trigger, and there would be a structure holding the triggering rod in place so that it could only ove in one axis
and there would be built in stops to ensure that it could not travel further than would be needed for proper triggering.
Microtek January 9th, 2004, 09:04 AM

Making a trigger that will activate on impact is very easy. What's difficult is to make sure that it will not go off before that, for instance when the warhead is accelerating.
One method of doing this is to use an inertial trigger:
The trigger system consists of a small heavy object ( eg. a ball bearing ) contained in a tube of some suitable length and diameter. The tube is placed parallel with the axis of
the warhead, and the impact sensitive cap is placed at the forward facing end of the tube.
When the warhead is launched, the ball bearing is pressed against the back of the tube where there is no trigger device, thus there is no danger of detonation on launch.
However, when it impacts something and is suddenly stopped, the ball bearing gives the cap a sharp whack, setting it off.
Reliability can be increased by using a weak spring to hold the ball bearing against the back end of the tube to ensure that it does not descend gently on the cap in mid-flight
due to the drag-induced deceleration ( and of course also acts as an added safety during handling ).
I haven't tested this myself, as it requires a rather large warhead to accomodate this kind of trigger.
lamar pye January 11th, 2004, 01:43 AM

A mechanicaly operated detonating system like the ones described will work but if you have a shaped charge warhead the best system is to use a piezo electric detonator.
Imagine a barbecue ignitor on the nose cone with the wire going to a blasting cap in the shaped charge......thats how they work. The spring loaded firing pins and inertia firing
designs will destroy a shaped charge before it has a chance to detonate on impact.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Stopping the bullet
Log in
View Full Version : Stopping the bullet
Jacks Complete December 2nd, 2003, 12:05 PM

Having searched around the forum, I have found not a lot on the subject of armour/armor.
There is a lot of stuff about on the 'net, but a lot of it is wrong, in as much as it contradicts it's self.
Any armour that we make is likely to be improvised, and, while not a weapon, this section is as close as it gets. Perhaps a
"defensive aids" section would be a good idea?
So, how do you stop those .50 BMG rounds, or an APDFS anti-tank round? What kind of thickness and type of material do you
need, and so on.
Culled from the forum, there are people who know various bits, as they have tested things.
I used to used a 3/8ths of an inch steel bar as my test, but gave up after putting a 7.62 through it. I dug back a foot, but still
couldn't find the bullet. It was just a standard bit of copper 7.62 vs. mild steel.
The mess a solid slug made of it was funny, but the slug didn't penetrate (it was a brass one, for anyone familier with my
other thread). If you had been wearing it as armour, you would have died as you wouldn't be able to breathe! The dent was
two inches deep, and the back cracked.
For mobile armour, I think treadplate would be quite good, as it would space well from the tread (two bits tread to tread) and
the inside could be filled with gravel. Also, the face is hardened (normally) and it is easily available compared to armour plate.
It is expensive, but you get what you pay for!
Wire each plate to a heavy duty spark generator. That will stop shaped charge warheads, and the random nature of the gravel
will protect against spalling from HESH charges. The outer plate should be something like 4.5mm and the inside should be as
thick as possible, or multiple sheets. It needs to be thick enough that the gravel destroys itself rather than the inside plate.
Also, the air gap will provide heat insulation, should you get napalmed or firebombed. Filling the gaps in the gravel with sand
might be even better, but this is all theory!
On the inside of the inside plate, I would want something like fibreglass or carbon fibre or Kevlar matting, resined into place.
This would stop rust from condensation, as well as spall, and allow that extra bit of protection.
If you want vision slots, go with thick polycarbonate slabs, held in really well, as you don't want them to pop through if hit!
Has anyone got any army manuals or anything, with thicknesses of earth, sand, concrete, etc. needed to stop various things?
From various manufacturers there is a statement that 12.5 mm of armour is enough to stop 7.62mm AP, as is 27mm of
armoured glass. This is from point blank (presumeably used to refer to end of the muzzle, rather than correctly!) and with the
best steel plate available. Presumeably the glass is layered polycarbonate and glass. (Source: Weapons and equipment of
counter-terrorism, 1994)
Perhaps another thread should deal with bulletproof glass, etc.?
vulture December 2nd, 2003, 01:44 PM

Forget steel. You need high tech material. Titanium, SiC or boronnitride. Lightweight and strong as hell. Titanium sheet metal
with a SiC coating is going to seriously deform any round that hits it, because they're harder than any other material
commonly used in bullets.
Anyways, I'd say you need to layers. One to take the punch out of the round, that is absorb the energy and another one to
stop it from penetrating. Now, I haven't got a clue which one should come first.
PHAID December 2nd, 2003, 07:25 PM

Just go basic and use several layers of 1/8" lexan, Its basicly what most "bullet proof glass" is made of.
The comercial layerd lexan can stop armor piercing .30 cal rounds and is around 1-2" thick.
I have tested rounds on various metals and found that they dont work well unless they are quite thick or at a sharp angle.
A .223 SS109 round will penetrate 4 1/2" Al plates and mild steel up to 1/2" ( it may do more but that is all i had to test on)
The standard .223 m855 round and the 7.62x39mm rounds will only produce large crators in the 1st Al plate.
apathyboy December 2nd, 2003, 10:25 PM

Well, if you're talking about personal armor, the best so far is a 2 layer system
on the outside, you have a fairly thick layer of hard substance (I think the army uses some kind or ceramic, but a layer or 2 of
windshield glass might work). This first layer fragments the round and tears up its jacket.
Then there's a layer of kevlar armor (lots of layers of kevlar cloth) bonded (epoxied?) to the back of the ceramic plate..
anyways the idea is that the hard surface fragments and tears up the round, and then the kevlar stops it just like it would a
hollowpoint bullet.
This combination will apparently stop an AK round (7.62 x 39mm).
This is kind of limited because it brings back rigid armor and its heavier than regular soft body armor, so its mainly for the
torso and maybe upper legs - places where it's very bad to be shot.
Short refresher on normal soft body armor: it doesnt actually stop the round, your body does. Punching a hole in kevlar cloth
is hard, because punching a hole in tightly woven cloth means breaking a lot of strands, and kevlar has a lot of tensile
strength. A blunt bullet i.e. hollowpoints can't penetrate, so its energy is spread out over a larger area, acting more like a
beanbag round. Its the difference between being knifed and being hit with a baseball bat. The human body can take blunt
trauma better than it can take things stabbed into it ;) .
However sharper, longer bullets don't have to break as many strands for their weight (energy) and so can get through it.
As far as APFSDS rounds go, well, got any depleted uranium or tungsten alloy lying around? You just need as hard and dense
a metal as you can find, and lots of it.
Ammonal December 3rd, 2003, 04:06 AM

Could a suggestion of the proposed weight of this body armour be made, because stopping armour penetrating rounds(the
name says it all) would be a very hard problem to solve while maintaining the user not having to haul around 50kg of armour
on his torso, legs, etc.
Wouldnt it be more feasilble to avoid having armour penetrating rounds fired at you?
Not being a smartarse or anything, I like the idea; but I would also like to be able to move and standup with the armour on.

I wasn't really talking about body armour and the like, but hey, whatever...
Apathyboy,
You are right about the soft nature of the Kevlar vests at the I and II level. They are designed for very low powered threats,
though. Don't forget, a (sharp) knife will go right through soft Kevlar, as it just cuts a few strands, then you! IIA has some
hard panels in it, in some designs, but are mostly soft.
Almost all of them have pockets for ceramic plates, so you can increase the level of protection.
Ammonal,
That's why they are banned most places! Obviously, you could make them with a bit of steel, though.
PHAID,
Sorry, what do you mean by "I have tested rounds on various metals and found that they dont work well unless they are quite
thick or at a sharp angle."? Do you mean that most metals you have shot at have to be at a grazing angle to stop the bullet,
or otherwise pretty thick, to stop the bullet?
If so, what sort of bullets (Lead, Lead with copper jacket, steel case, steel core, etc.) and what sorts of metals? It is no
surprise that soft metals won't stop a bullet, not on thier own, at least.
Vulture,
I think you missed the point a bit. If we had two inch plates of Titanium and Kevlar backing lying about the place, we could sell
them for silly money, and buy a house or two.
This is "Improvised weapons", not "Weapons I could make if I had ten years, millions of dollars, and no life", hence a
suggested way to make a fairly good (in theory) armour from scrap and easy to find materials.
I want thicknesses of sand banks/bags, bricks, and concrete, earth, etc. as well as steel plates, as they are far easier to get
hold of!
PHAID December 3rd, 2003, 07:52 PM

Jack's Complete
What i ment by the thickness was for standard metal plates that anyone can easily get, not the armor that military uses.
As for the angle i ment that to defeat rounds with a thiner metal plate it needs to at an angle so that the round deflects rather
than punch into the plate.
The rounds ive tested were the standard military issue full metal jacketed rounds with the exception of the .223 SS109 round
as it has a tungsten penetrator.
I wasn't doing a serious test so i didnt record and photograph my tests.
Next time i go to the Range ill see if i can get downrange to get some examples of the damage that the rounds do, they
normaly use cars for targets on the machinegun shoots so i can check out what several differant calibers do on the engine
block.
The next sceduled big shoot is in april so i hope to get some good video, if you have a preferance for a particular weapon or
caliber let me know and ill be sure to get the info you need.

You mean Knob Creek, or something of that ilk, don't you???
That is the coolest damned thing I have EVER seen, and that includes a private armoury and machinegun range I visited once.
Sure, firing an MP5 is neat, handling a protype automatic pistol is cool, but watching those guys shoot automatics at cars and
barrels... :D :D :D
Can you tell what I really like?
I so have to save up and go to one of those, before they get banned. Maybe ask Satan Claws, or someone.
Anyway, if you could find some info on 7.62/.308, .50, and .223/5.56 that would be cool, as they are the most common
rounds you see about the place on mil. spec. stuff. 9mm and .40 might be handy as well.
I am amazed that the Tungsten 5.56 went through 4.5" of aluminium, though. What does one of those bullets weigh, any
idea?
ossassin December 3rd, 2003, 09:47 PM

The M995 black-tip AP .223 bullet is 62 grains. If you want more info on the .223/5.56x45 cartridge, go here (http://
www.ammo-oracle.com/). This (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/556.htm) is a good site, too.
NickSG December 3rd, 2003, 10:19 PM

.223 doesnt do that well against most types of armor anyway (although ive seen a 55 grain FMJ zip through a level III vest). I
doubt even .223 AP ammuntion can get through much more than 1/2 inch of steel. All FMJ weights we tested failed to go
through 3/8 inch.
150 grain .30-06 AP ammo barely managed to get through 1 1/2 inches of steel, but the FMJ of the same weight (150 grain, I
think) failed to go through 1 inch.
.50 BMG FMJ (800 grain) easily penitrated through 2 inches of steel. I dont think they tested any AP ammo. If they did I
missed it.
All of the above testing was done at a demonstration I saw a while ago, long before I had any interests in guns. If I could, I
would offer more detailed info but I cant, since I didnt care to remember most of it. However, in my own testing, every
handgun caliber I tested failed to penitrate through a level III vest and only the 10mm and .357 SIG managed to even dent a
1/4 inch thick steel plate. Of the calibers tested (.22LR, .22 magnum, .32ACP, .380, 9mm, .357 SIG, 10mm, and .45), the .22
magnum penitrated deepest in the III vest.

IIRC the reletively new 5.7x28mm round is suppossed to be quite effectice against Body armor. According to the FN website
the 5.7x28mm bullet can penetrate 48 layers of kevlar at 200m when fired from an FN P90.
However, most police sevices and security forces around the world use the 9mm round, which isn't very good against body
armor. So that would be the best area to start with designing improvised body armor.
Chemical_burn December 4th, 2003, 05:49 AM

I cant remember where but I have seen dont have it any more a video of a US marine deminstrating the effectiveness of a
700grain .50cal AP round penitrating a manhole cover at 1800m like a hot knife though butter. It was some scarry shit.
According to the site this was on the maximum effective range of a 800grain .50cal round was 4200m on a soft target (human
equiped with standard boddy armor) :eek: the round doesnt even have to penitrate the armor. It carries enough kenetic
energy to shadder bone and cause fatal injuries at that range. :D Thats some scarry shit.
Hell the farthest recorded kill with a .50 cal round was approximidly 2500m made by Carlos Handcock jr. During the vietnam
war he used a .50 cal Mg equiped with an 8x scope to make a head shot at that range :eek: he was one scarry mother fucker.
By far the best sniper in the world then or now as far as most are consirned.
As for me on consirning boddy armor I can buy military Ballistic armor at a local Army surpluse store for any where from $90
US to $150 US depending on the age and condition of the armor.
Its old and very fucking thick and somewhat comberson but shit I dont care. They even have a vest split down the middle
showing the penitrating depths of several standard rounds from a .22 cal up to a .308 mag at 30m very impressive. What I
thought was even more impressive was that a .22mag had a supprisingly very good penitration. The best penitrating round
though was a .17-233 High Velocity rounds passed thought it supprisingly easily said the owner almost like it wasnt there. :D
Jacks Complete December 4th, 2003, 09:57 AM

Mr. Hathcock is (was?) certainly a great shot, but the best sniper ever? Not so sure about that. He got a great write-up, and
others didn't, despite higher kill counts. Hathcosk got 80 confirmed, and 300+ probable.
"Chuck Mawhinney agrees. During nearly two years as a Marine sniper in Vietnam, Mawhinney had 103 confirmed kills and
another 216 probables. No other Marine sniper in Vietnam had more confirmed kills of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army
regulars." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65639,00.html
Anyway, the longest snipe has now gone up. IIRC, some Canadian guy sniped someone at 2430+ meters. I guess
Afghanistan was barren and flat enough that targets could be seen at that kind of range!
http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/2430kill.htm
Seems the team isn't getting a medal, as the Canadians think that people dying in a war is too nasty, and shouldn't be
"celebrated"!
AsylumSeaker December 4th, 2003, 05:14 PM

Perhaps a way to deal with shaped charges is to put some sort of screen over the armour which the probe on the missile hits
before it is at the right standoff. You could.. say: Put a foam rubber matress over you armour and then put a peice of tin plate
or something on top of it. It would be better if the SC was somehow caused to detonate after it passes its standoff range but I
can't figure out how to do that.
stickfigure December 5th, 2003, 04:17 AM

If you want a vest to stop .30cal AP try the Vietnam era Variable Armor, Ground Troops. IT's rated to stop it and these vest
were made up through the 80's and can be found new for about $250-$300.
or
A Vietnam era Helicopter Gunner's Vest it to is rated to stop .30cal AP and is slightly differant than the variable armor. I have
both vest and they are heavy and not flexable. The Gunner's vest has bigger plate than the Variable, but no soft later, just
plates and a padded carrier.
I have a wealth of info on body armor and a stack of vests now pushing over 20, that will be for sale on eBay when I get my
new camera next month.
It is near impossible to stop a .50cal with anything except and armored vehicle and that's tough. The .50cal was developed as
a tank stoping round. It is capable of disabling an M1A2 Abrams if used properly and that's the most advanced tank in the
world. If you are being shot at with a .50 you are probably already dead or will be shortly. If not, dig a hole, a very deep hole.

Since we can now upload pics to some threads, here is a section view of my armour.
Normally it should be angled so that the effective thickness is higher than if it is flat on to the threat.
As described in my opening post, I think this should stop most threats.
Using the high powered capacitor electric armour effect, the material in the center should be quite dry, to stop shorts. I would
go for dry granite stomes, for reasons described below.
Ok, there are several different types of anti-armour projectile:
Kinetic energy
KE rounds kill by virtue of the speed and weight of the round. Sadly, we aren't going to stop a KE tank round with this stuff.
However, multiple layers will be effective against lesser threats, such as 27mm Arden cannon rounds. I reckon this armour
would be quite effectice for it's mass, as the high hardness of the granite filler means that non-AP projectiles should get
utterly fucked up by it. The non-uniform nature of it means that poorly stabilised rounds will get tumbled, and hopefully
stopped by the thicker back layer.
High Explosive Squash Head

HESH rounds slap a big bit of explosive on your hull, then go pop, using the shockwave to "spall" metal fragments into you,
without having to hole the armour. This defeats that type of attack, as the thinner outer plate gets deformed, and hits the
stones. However, the stones are quite large, with air gaps between them, so they are very poor shockwave conductors. Any
that hit the inner steel will shatter, rather than defeat the plate, and the fibreglass liner (green) should hold any minor spall
anyway.
Shaped charge
As most members know, these use an explosively formed jet of molten metal, normally copper, to "drill" a hole through the
armour. This armour should disrupt the jet after it has defeated the first plate, as the plate is not flat on the inside. Also, the
granite is randomly arranged, so causing external forces to act on the jet. Finally, as the jet reaches the inside plate, it
completes the circuit, which dumps many amps of power into the jet, disrupting it completely.
Molatov/Napalm
Whilst not strictly defeating the armour, if you burn to death you have still lost. This armour defeats this type of attack by use
of an air gap, and granite, which has a low heat conductivity. This means that while the outer plate gets hot, and conducts heat
away, the inner layer stays cool.

Ok, just followed the links above.
Apparently, these are the salient points:
Military 5.56 rounds -
1967-82, M193 Ball, Copper Jacket lead bullet, weight of 55 grains

Penetrates 1mm RHA Steel
83-95, M855 Ball, Steel core and copper jacket, weight of 61.8 grains
96-now, M995 Ball, Tungsten core and copper jacket, weight 62 grains
NightStalker December 7th, 2003, 06:23 AM

An interesting type of armor was developed to replace concrete for ships during WWII. It was called "Plastic Armour" and
consisted of several inches of asphalt poured hot into forms built around the vulnerable deck structures. It was backed with
3/16" mild ste el hard ly what you'd call armor plate.
The ingenuity lay in what was mixed into the asphalt: clean, sharp, " granite gravel, about 1 part to 2 parts of asphalt. Once
the mixture had set the forms were taken away, and this stuff proved quite effective at stopping machine gun bullets and
even 20 mm shells.
It worked because the gravel tilted on impact, pivoting inside the asphalt matrix and inducing keyholing by the bullet, which
spent its kinetic energy going sideways instead of straight in. The mild steel backing flexed inward, spreading the shock over a
wide area and thus preventing penetration.
When we recall that some German aircraft MGs fired ammo the equivalent of proof loads, that's an impressive level of
protection. 20 mm shells were similarly defeated. Strafing attacks suddenly became less lethal, and Plastic Armour was in
great demand by bridge and deck crews.
Similar armour is described in a military FM about field fortifications around the time of the Vietnam war. It was made from tar,
gravel, and corrugated sheet metal and would stop shell fragments and AK bullets, so that'd be a suitable starting point to
build up.
NBK wrote an article that's floating around, called Security Architecture, where he describes the use of earth berms and concrete
rubble to fortify house walls to discreetly proof them against .50BMG and lesser caliber threats.

Very densely annealed Al2O3 is also used in armor, because it shatters upon impact, absorbing a great deal of KE.
What's wrong with Ti sheet metal? It's not that expensive.
If you really want some nicely improvised stuff, boronnitride is an option, as it can be made by BCl3 + NH3.
concrete feet December 10th, 2003, 10:43 AM

Admitedly, i have little to offer this thread, but i thought i'd venture to comment on the subject of gravel/stone layers in field
fortifications.
This pertains more to fortifications constructed in advance of any threat to the combatant, as in home/property protection
against any invading force [unlikely in this contry at present, but not so in others]. The time and resources used to construct
said fortifications could be stretched out over time and procurement could thus be made less problamatic.
Stone/gravel layers for the displacement/absorbtion of shockwaves, dispersal of directed flows of penetrating material and
such could maybe be enhanced by use of volcanicaly expanded mineral material such as perlite, goelite or even lavarocks or
similar. These will be irregularly shaped [except in the case of geolite, which are round pelletts of volcanicaly expanded clay
but better at heat insulation due to a more regular distribution of air pockets] and should be capable of displacing directed
volumes of compressed air. They would be harder, but fragment more easily than, many types of gravel, due to the fact that
they are mostly air but i think they could help also help counter the problem of the heat generated by the explosion. I do not
know how well this would work, but i thought i would bring it up in hopes that soembody might find it useful.
There was more i wanted to write on the subject, and i will if i find the time, but for now i'd just liek to see what others think.
[edit: edited for spelling]

concrete feet,
don't worry if you feel you have little to add, if you have some useful ideas that aren't present in, but are related to, the
thread, chip in. You won't get in trouble if you are trying and aren't stupid!
I don't think that lavarocks (pumice?) would be up to much, as they would have a very low density, and so little bullet stopping
or turning ability. Having said that, it is a very light ceramic, almost. This might be worth testing.
If you have the ability, give it a go. Get a sack of pumice or whatever, and do a few comparison tests with concrete, granite
gravel, etc. and let us know on the boards, in this thread.
The idea of laying in low key defences over time is pretty tricky. I haven't looked at the NBK2000 file mentioned above, but, in
my opinion, it is generally better to find a good spot first and foremost, then set about making it even better.
Things like arcs of fire, river bends, tree lines, etc. tend to be critical, and so it is better to find a good place, and tune the
area, rather than getting something you can't do anything about, like other houses, etc. and trying to then make the best of a
bad thing.
Some of those really fancy landscaped gardens you see in films are a joke, and if i were some big league drug or (illegal) gun
dealer, I would ensure that the cover, etc. worked in my favour, with sod all for any attackers to hide behind within 50 meters
of the house, and subtle range markings for various lines beyond that.
My parents place has a superb defensive structure, and would stop an MBT from one direction, with any attackers coming from
o'er t' hills (mad cows and rabid sheep?) could be picked off with a rifle as they cross a good 600 yards of light scrub and open
field, with sod all cover.
From the other side, the same attackers would be utterly concealed, and upon the place with a few seconds notice, as the lie
of the land would conceal them very well. Any attempt to "bunker" the place would be pretty obvious from one direction, but
not from others.
Enough waffling.
Even if you set up walls of nice granite, etc. they aren't going to be anything against artillery or airstrikes, unless they are
carefully banked to deflect blast, etc. and don't forget, gravel is effective shrapnel at close range.
In other news, I saw an interesting idea. It is basically a wall of interlocking lego type bricks, which are then filled with water or
concrete or whatever, and are used as ballistic protection. IIRC, the plastic is 18mm thick walled polypropylene, and the bricks
are 2x1x.5 m, and interlock so there aren't any direct paths through it. The concrete filled ones are for permanent structures,
and the water ones can be drained and moved. They are the same brick, just different fillings.
Apparently, they will stop a direct artillery strike, when in the proper walled structure, two deep. They are designed mostly for
stopping snipers with .5BMG knocking bits off parked jets and helicopters, etc.
Vulture,
have you ever made any boron nitride? How do you make it into a solid plate, rather than a powder?
---
The quick post ate my signature

Lets try and look at stopping bullets this way.
What has .50BMG ammo got going for it?
-The ammo shreds most conventional armor
-The bullets are pretty big
-Fairly high velocity.
-High stopping power
-long range
Correct?
Now what does the .50BMG have thats a liability?
-The weapon itself isn't hand held
-Bullets aren't as readily avaliable
If you can figure out the .50BMG this way, there might be other ways to out do this weapon.

Vulture,
have you ever made any boron nitride? How do you make it into a solid plate, rather than a powder?
Negative. BCl3 is a bit hard to get and somewhat nasty to work with, but it can certainly be done.
Under normal conditions it indeed forms a powder, but most of it is being used right now to coat metal substances, eg surgery
scalpels. It seems to condense and adhere to metal fairly easily.
Now I know that you'll only get a thin layer, but it might be enough. It will be harder than most materials used in bullet
penetrators, so it'll scratch and deform the AP part of the bullet, greatly reducing effectivity and changing it's flight path.
thrall December 11th, 2003, 03:05 PM

I've once seen the production of helmets.The people were using glassfiber and some resin to make the thing.It is
simple.Take a sheet a glassfiber and mix the resin with some catalyst and soak the glassfiber in resin and put the layer on
whatever you want to make.You can put layers over layers to make more and more and more thick.As I was told in the same
manufactury that the glassfiber if thick enough can stop a bullet.The main benefit is that(what I was told) the strenth of
glassfiber is more than 10 times in terms of weight.Plus one doesn't need to melt anything.you can manufature the thing at
home as well.The only problem in the resin and catalyst.I'll search and post later but this interesting idea to pusue.

Vulture,
If it is hard to get and only makes a thin layer, it isn't going to stop a bullet in an improvised system.
Boron Nitride is ultra-hard, in its cubic form. As far as I know, it is attached to metal substrates by plasma or vapour phase
deposition in a vacuum chamber. I don't know how it is grown any other way, either. As a powder, it would be useless, unless it
could be sintered.
thrall,
fibreglass is very tough, and very light for how tough it is. Carbon fiber is even better, but about ten times more money. You
can get kits from bodyshops/auto body repair places to do small sections, but the best way is to go to a wholesaler, and blow
20 on a litre of resin and some CSM (Cut Strand/Sheet Matting), as well as a load of release agent, wax, a roller, etc. Go on
a Sunday and pay cash, is my advice, and you just might get small amounts tax free.
Now you can coat about anything with wax, then release agent, then a surface gel coat (but only if you care about the finish)
and then glue layers of CSM together, rollering well, and bingo, 12 hours later you have a bullet-resistant sheet.
It is very tough stuff - some years back, I was told a story about a test at a range of 100yards, when a friend of mine shot
three rounds into a plate with 7.62, and they didn't penetrate it.
Here's an idea: A common practise with boats is to use a handful of sand to roughen the surface by sprinkling some on just
before it cures. Another solution might be to take the BN and use that instead. If you then layered a second layer of fiberglass
over it, and so on, it might be even tougher than before.

Exactly,you can make any shape thats waht I was thinking.What about making Mediaval time body armor ;) .Thanks for the
information that it DOES stop the bullets.The best part of this thing is that it is very lite and one can wear such suit(homebuilt
of course) and can run as well :).No matelergy,all meterials commonly available,any shape,light weight,cheap;).I'm going to
build it soon.But there is no way to test since I don't have any fireweapon and none of whom I know(alas! I live in India).

Something interesting to loo k into: I just fo und out that some ceram ic suppliers will sell SiC and BN. SiC wa s about 20 /kg.
That's a very good price IMHO. Trouble is both of these materials require quite high temperatures to be adequately sintered.
But as compressed filler, they might be worth considering.
If it is hard to get and only makes a thin layer, it isn't going to stop a bullet in an improvised system.
Boron Nitride is ultra-hard, in its cubic form.
It's also very hard when deposited in a thin layer. It won't stop the bullet, but it will deform it. A scratched AP bullet is worthless
against armor, since it will deform itself considerably once it hits something, in this case your second metal layer.

thrall,
yes, you could do that! Not a bad idea, but take care! I have looked at, and handled, armour from around the world from
various times. Most of them were designed as a halfway house between stopping arrows, and stopping bullets. The
"traditional" stuff was sheet steel, generally made with one or two plates welded together in the forge. Some had a third plate,
too, sandwiched in. Basically, the newer the armour, the thicker it was, until the stage, around 17thC, when they realised the
bullets were too fast if they were close, and the arrows too heavy. Also, if the plate was dented (mainly by a bullet, the wearer
had to unclip the armour to breathe, leaving him exposed.
There was also chainmail, but even with modern materials, it wouldn't stop a bullet, but was great for blunt swords or
hammers, etc.
There was platemail, which simply linked the plates with chainmail.
A neater cross between the two was a little known type called scale or lamallar. This was first found with the Romans, who used
many small plates that overlapped, and was so called because it was made up of individual scales. After the fall of the
Romans it disappeared.
Many years later, it was rediscovered, and in a slightly different form. Where before the scales had only been attached at the
top, like slates on a roof, and hung downwards in the same way, the newer type was made of square plates, secured via one
hole in the centre. These were sewn to the backer in such a way that each plate overlapped the others, so that there was
always two plates covering the backer. These plates were made from hard steel, and were very effective considering the
simplistic nature of the design. It is my belief that the person who re-invented it got it right, and after his style was copied, the
more common newer variant was made, which was similar, but offered far less protection for the same weight!
Anyway, enough background. For your version, I would recommend carbon fibre, if you can get it. Forget the holes through it,
as you are going to be able to pass thread right through it before you coat it with resin and cook it! Next, get whatever the
strongest, hardest plate you can is, be it Boron Nitride or carbon fibre/fibreglass with sand (Aluminium Oxide - grinding wheel)
and layer that over the front, offset nicely as described. You will have a lot of trouble making those holes if you buy something
without holes, though! They don't have to be squares, but triangles would stab when you bend, and other shapes need more
cuts. Circles, of course, would never close the gaps. Now sew the lot together. You got armour! The old stuff used squares
about 3.5 cm wide, to try to avoid you being punctured by a plate that got banged hard.
Of course, the old days had armour piercing arrows, which were slow and heavy, and soft lead balls doing ten times the speed
but weighing a lot less. Today, we have very high speed armour piercing bullets. Your mileage may vary. I would suggest
bigger plates and a tough cut-proof backer with shock padding. Otherwise you might stop the bullet, but you will be killed by
the transfer of KE through the vest!
I have also heard tell of body armour that will stop .50 BMG, up close. It is a rigid shell of glass fibre, half an inch thick, which
is spaced away from the body, and built into the truck that is being driven. The driver can just about drive, but the armour is
effectively part of the truck!

I was thinking about making a copy of as you said "traditional sheet steel" armor that I saw in the museum.Since fiberglass
never get daunted so no breathing problems.It can only be pearced but even then no breathing problems;).As for feet simple
copy of leg guards that are used while playing hockey.But well I was only thinking of making the one for chest .That is the
largest area exposed.Covering limbs is not a good idea since it will hamper agility.And about shock,Putting some sponge
behind armor(between body and armor) will help?Or something else that you know about?BTW half inch thick fiberglass armor
can be built at home as well(I'll make mine 1/2" thick).

thrall,
No guarantee on that half inch thick fibreglass!
I would recommend something a bit more high tech than sponge. Try Sorbothane, the stuff they use for shock absorbing
insoles. A heavy rubber would also be good. Sponge would collapse too fast, and take little energy out. (Technically, you aren't
trying to really take energy out, more you are trying to spread the impact in the time domain.)
stickfigure December 27th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Flake2m here in the US .50cal is really easy to get ahold of. You can actually buying pre-linked in black-tip AP at most good
gunshops or pawnshops and the cheapest rifle I've seen is under $2,000 more like $1,500 which is pretty reasonable for that
kind of fire-power. .50 cal is firepower that is best avoided if it's aimed at you. The average civilian won't be able to find armor
to protect against it. But if you do have $100,000 to $200,000 a brave person could buy a 1960's to 70's era MBT that would
help.
Mike76251 December 29th, 2003, 08:47 PM

To stop .50 cal............forget it. Unless you want to weigh 500 lbs.
To stop RPG's........ A old trick in Nam was to put out chain link fence to detonate the round before it got around you.
scooter12589 January 1st, 2004, 11:43 PM

quoting from the US army improvised munitions handbook
inches
5.56mm .30cal .50cal
mild steel (structural) 1/2 1/2 3/4
mild alum. (structural) 1 1 2
pine wood 14 22 32
broken stones cobble gravel 3 4 11
dry sand 4 5 14
wet sand earth 6 13 21
(ball ammo at ten feet)
nbk2000 January 2nd, 2004, 12:47 PM

That was back in the '50's or 60's.
Ammunition has vastly improved since then, so I'd double those figures, especially if I was on the receiving end. ;)
Anthony January 2nd, 2004, 02:28 PM

I'd forget polycarbonate unless you need it for transparency. It's much more expensive than mild steel and much less
effective. That and mild steel won't go brittle and subsequently shatter from exposure to sunlight!
Penetrating a manhole cover is impressive, but remember that manhole covers are cast. So much less effective than mild
steel, which is much less effective than RHA.
Posted by Jack's Complete:
"I am amazed that the Tungsten 5.56 went through 4.5" of aluminium"
I think that what PHAID meant by: "A .223 SS109 round will penetrate 4 1/2" Al plates and mild steel up to 1/2" was that the
round would penetrate 4 x 1/2" plates, i.e. 1" total, rather than 4.5".
AFAIK, bullet resistant glass (for armoured cars etc) are all glass (what looks like one thick sheet rather than mulitple
laminations), save for a thin polycarb backing which stops spalling. Materials and construction might vary from manufacturer to
manufacturer though.
Armoured cars seem to be quite good at what they do. I don't recall any stats about 50BMG AP resistance though! Surprisingly
good against anti-tank mines though.
Pumice is excellent at absorbing blast energy from explosions. Obviously a good backing is required though.
PHAID January 2nd, 2004, 07:57 PM

Yes you are correct Anthony it was 4 1/2" plates and the only reason i counted it as penetration on the last plate was because
the tungsten penetrator tip was sticking out 1/16"
I didnt catch it earlier or i would have tried to reword my post to better explain
probity January 4th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Kind of off topic but very interesting none the less...
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/
"During a telephone interview last month, Thomas said the bullet he fired struck one of the attackers in the upper left
q u a d rant of the buttocks, killin g him immediately. Under most circumstances, a 5.56mm bulle t striking a perso ns b uttocks
wouldn t be expected to create a fatal"
"Designed to release max imum energy in soft tissue, the armo r-piercing lim ited penetration ammo will bore through hard
targets, such as steel and glass, but will not pass through a person or even several layers of drywall."

probity,
I think this is just the usual drivel. The reason the 5.56 doesn't expand is because it is against various treaties to use
expanding ammo in wars. That's why they use the stabilisation trick instead. Also, the guy didn't really get shot in the buttock.
Sure, that is where the entry wound was, but it hit his stomach and gutted him, just like you would expect for a quartering
target like that.
Also, hitting someone with body armour (standard stuff) will cut through them the same as anyone else from 100 yards.
Besides, do you know anyone with "ass armour"?

If you are looking to defeat projectiles, then try rounding the armor, or by angling it like on a tank, this increses the chance
that the round will glance off and that you don't have to rely solely, on the strength of the armor material. This was pioneered
by the Russians on the T-54 in world war two, it really screwed with the german panzers, seeing as how they kept shooting, but
the soviets kept coming. I hope that helped a little.
Cheese March 9th, 2004, 04:40 AM

There a major problems with attempting to stop ANY kind of munition specificly designed to penetrate armor. Primarily
because unless your willing to go to extream lengths, its already been done, and its already been defeated.
For example, with most kinetic energy armor piercing munitions, the principal is to place as much stress on the point of impact
as possible(Stress(Nm^-1) = Force( / Area(m)). So they make the projectile pointed, and dense, in order to maximise the
force over the minimum area.
If you ever find yourself up against a REAL armor piercing round(http://remtek.com/arms/steyr/amr/amr.htm) then almost
nothing you can make(a reactive armor system might have a chance) will save you.
nbk2000 March 10th, 2004, 01:37 AM

Chaotic armor can defeat 30.06 AP bullets at point-blank range, while still being vest-able. Patented, even.
Utilizes a matrix embedded polymer layered with spectrashield. The bullet impacts the matrix and, by altering the direction in
which the bullet travels by even a minute fraction, sets up destructive shearing forces within the bullet that causes it to
disintegrate into fine dust. :)
Remember, bullets are rotating at like 250,000 RPM, so even a slight unbalancing within the bullet causes incredible stress to
it. This is why hot-rod varmit rounds sometimes disintegrate in mid-air.
This armor principle is being developed for the "Land Warrior" project armor. But, as effective as it might be against projectiles
that are spun by rifling, you could defeat it by going retro, back to smooth-bore projectiles.
Just like tank KEP's aren't spun, a smooth-bore firing saboted flechettes would be able to penetrate chaotic armor, as the
penetrator might be deflected, but there'd be no chaotic shearing to disintegrate it. :p

Many things need to be said. But first, all due respect to NBK, but the rotational forces on a bullet are nil compared to the
impact forces. Bullets may be spinning incredibly fast, but are still only going one rev in 10 or 15". Think of the total velocity of
a particle on the edge of a bullet. The rotational component is tiny compared to the forward component. Every time a ricochet
makes that whirring noise as it bounces off someplace, it's almost certainly because it's direction has been altered in such a
way that it's no longer spinning on axis.
Now: Ceramic armors absorb some energy by fracturing. Specifically, they form radial and shear cone (opening away from the
direction of impact) cracks. A mass of fractured cemaic is thus pushed against the rigid backing. Those of you who adhere to
the nearly correct belief that sharp points are necessary for penetration will understand how this affects the projectiles ability to
penetrate the backing.
Even ceramic bathroom tile will stop some bullets if properly backed. (specifically, I was fucking around one night and found
that tile would stop .22lr out of a rifle when backed with wood. Most of the time. When backed with wax to test the hypothesis
that rigid backing was needed, the result was a 1/2" hole in the wax with manyy bits of tile embedded in the sides. I believe
the bullet shed the mass of tile it pulverized while passing through the wax.) Somewhere on the net there's some experience
by a kewl who made a vest with tiles wrapped in duct tape and backed with cardboard. I'm surprised it could do it with
cardboard, but if it had double layers of tile then one layer could have backed the other. The duct tape is probably a good
idea for stopping spall.
Ceramics also blunt projectiles significantly, especially soft ones, but even a tungsten core will be significantly less effective if
it's nose is expanded to 1.5 times it's original diameter. Note that this is irrelevant to long-rod penetrators. At the velocities of
tank rounds and above, it is said, and probably accurately, that dynamics overcome the strength/hardness of any materials
involved and behavior is determined mostly by fluid dynamics.. The heads of long-rods mushroom out anyway, and one of the
real reasons DU works better than tungsten is that the mushroom shears off around the sides and leaves a 'sharper' head with
less contact area.
Anyway, a good 2-layer armor would be a plate of a hard ceramic like alumina or the alumina/TiB2 SHS composite that's been
spoken of a lot lately, and a thick plate of hardened grade 5 titanium or alloy steel. Boron nitride (By which you mean CUBIC
boron nitride, not normal BN) is not a good idea, since it costs way the fuck too much. Alternatively you could use a thin plate
of hard metal and a thick layer of high performance fiberglass.
To stop rifle rounds this would probably be 1/2-3/4" thick. For reference, I saw a composite armor structured APC on paper
that was designed to stop .50 rounds; it had about 1.5" thick tiles and 2" thick fiberglass behind them with 1/2" fiberglass on
the outside as a spall shield. It could probably stop a .50 SLAP.
Speaking of composites, there are three ways to arrange the reinforcing fibers of a composite: woven plies, 3-dimensional
weave, and unidirectional. There is also the other, non-woven 'cloth' with fibers running in all directions randomly, but by all
accounts it's crap. I have a nagging fear this is the "scm" referred to above. Anyway, 3-d weave and unidirectional have about
the same ballistic impact resistance, which is somewhat better than woven plies. The problem with 3-d of course it it's a huge
pain in the ass to make, so I'd go with unidirectional (alternating plies, probably by 30 degree increments) if I could get my
hands on oven cure unidirectional prepreg tape. It's starting to become available.
As for suspending body armor on sorbothane, it's probably not necessary. The armor will absorb most all of the kinetic energy
unless it dents in and hits you, which it shouldn't if it's rigid. You will recall that for a given momentum, the energy must be
Greater for Smaller objects according to how small they are (masswise). This is why a gun does not recoil with the same energy
as its bullet, but only a fraction therof, equal to the mass ratio between the gun and projectile. The bullet must transfer its
momentum to the vest, but if the vest weighs more than a few pounds it won't hit its wearer that hard. Helmets don't weigh
very much, and they have suspension systems to transfer the impact impulse to the wearers' heads as smoothly as possible.
One big problem with armor, though, it how hot it gets inside it. Sorbothane would make that worse. If you're afraid your
breastplate will dent in, maybe isolating it on a few blocks of foam rubber with about a 1/2" air gap would be best. Possibly
even with a battery powered CPU fan to force air through it, since you may as well go all-out. You could use a bunch of thin
walled flexible plastic tubes held under low pressure by a fan as the actual isolation pad.
One other comment: I have yet to hear exactly what the theory is behind electric armor, but I do know a 'heavy duty spark
generator' is not nearly adequate. Ever heard of a 'pulsed power supply?' That's what you'll need. We're not talking about
anything that can be called a 'spark generator', but more like a 'giant capacitor bank suitable for a large rail gun.' This is why
electric armor, like ETC and rail guns, is not presently on European or American military vehicles. Irregular shapes will also not
have any effect on shaped charge jets because only the bit at the very front will even touch the irregular surface; that bit will
be smeared around the part of the bore hole it makes, producing a channel larger than the jet itself. The remainder of the jet
will continue to penetrate the armor. ERA can disrupt jets and displace part of the jet after the tip detonates the explosive,
causing fragments to hit different places and not go as deep, but ERA uses shockwaves you can't get much of any other way.

Even ceramic bathroom tile will stop some bullets if properly backed.Very true. Dinner plates are better, though, in my
experiance.
There is also the other, non-woven 'cloth' with fibers running in all directions randomly, but by all accounts it's crap. I have a
nagging fear this is the "scm" referred to above.Yes, it is, but it is CSM => Cut/Chopped Strand Mat. Pretty cheap, but useful
for most low-type apps. Bullet resistant clothing is NOT one of those, but it would suffice for backing plates and the like.
As for suspending body armor on sorbothane, it's probably not necessary. The armor will absorb most all of the kinetic energy
unless it dents in and hits you, which it shouldn't if it's rigid.That is what any soft body armour does, hence the suggestion.
Obviously not a problem with rigid armour, unlike moving!
One big problem with armor, though, it how hot it gets inside it. Sorbothane would make that worse. If you're afraid your
breastplate will dent in, maybe isolating it on a few blocks of foam rubber with about a 1/2" air gap would be best. Possibly
even with a battery powered CPU fan to force air through it, since you may as well go all-out. You could use a bunch of thin
walled flexible plastic tubes held under low pressure by a fan as the actual isolation pad.Good idea. Keeps you warm when
waiting, and cool on the move!
One other comment: I have yet to hear exactly what the theory is behind electric armor, but I do know a 'heavy duty spark
generator' is not nearly adequate. Ever heard of a 'pulsed power supply?' That's what you'll need. We're not talking about
anything that can be called a 'spark generator', but more like a 'giant capacitor bank suitable for a large rail gun.' This is why
electric armor, like ETC and rail guns, is not presently on European or American military vehicles.Not quite true. The reason no-
one uses electric armour is because it was only invented about last year. It works using a large capacitor, and only doubles the
electrical load on a small IFV, while making it immune to any form of shaped charge.
It works because the white-hot metal has a very low resistance, and forms a dead short, which causes a huge current to flow,
which makes the jet act like a quick-blow fuse.
Irregular shapes will also not have any effect on shaped charge jets because only the bit at the very front will even touch the
irregular surface; that bit will be smeared around the part of the bore hole it makes, producing a channel larger than the jet
itself. The remainder of the jet will continue to penetrate the armor. ERA can disrupt jets and displace part of the jet after the
tip detonates the explosive, causing fragments to hit different places and not go as deep, but ERA uses shockwaves you can't
get much of any other way.Irregular shapes don't help as part of the overall design, but a very ridged surface will, as it
disrupts the forming of the explosive shock cone and the creation of the jet, due to upsetting the stand-off distance, and the
path distances. Stand-off wire mesh has been used, as has the low-tech idea of having matresses strapped to the tank!
I was, however, talking about irregular shapes within the armour itself, in the form of other density materials, such as ceramic
rods, which resist the jet, and push it off line slightly. This reduces the effectiveness a long way, similar to blunting a
penetrator. This is used in Chobam type armour, and the ceramic helps with rod type penetrators as well.
A way to beat a long-rod penetrator would be to use a set of shaped charges that were angled away from the armour, but not
normal to it, so that when it hits, the charge detonates, cutting or seriously damaging the rod, or even shattering it, or, best of
all, knocking it off line, so that the rod hits sideways, and fails to penetrate. This would require some development work,
however!
nbk2000 March 11th, 2004, 02:26 AM

Joe, AP bullets are designed to withstand impact forces, but not angular shearing.
Bullets are essentially tubes. Strong in compression, weak in lateral, like empty soda cans. You can stand on top of a soda
can, but don't try that on the side, as it'll collapse.
Also, there's a reason why it's called "chaotic" shearing, that being that it's *chaotic*ly applied and not even. The armor
induces directional changes in different parts of the bullet, so that parts are heading in different directions at once, causing the
bullet to tear itself apart.
Much smarter people than you or I have figured this out already, so denying that it works doesn't keep it from working. :)

A search for "chaotic armor" doesn't seem to have turned anything up, but the theory still sounds flawed, unless these "chaotic
forces" are applied by embedded high explosives. An AP bullet is rather the opposite of a tube, structurally.
Jack: I don't know how long the jet-bursting electric armor you refer to has been around, but American defense research has
included some kind of 'electric armor' for the past several years. Yes, this approach is easier than the kinetic version seemed
to be, but it's still going to need a bigass capacitor bank. In the one of the articles that came up in my search, it compared
this system to ERA by saying it would add "only" a few tons to a vehicle, whereas ERA would add a few tens of tons. This may
be an exaggeration, but the fact stands that you need a capacitor that can destroy not a bridgewire but something like the
14GA copper used to wire your house. The leads of the capacitor bank will therefore have to be about 1/2" wide to handle the
current without vaporizing, and the electrode plate will have to be thick enough to transport this current to the impact point.
Furthermore, have you ever seen a computer model of a hollow cone charge detonating? The jet is almost entirely formed
before it leaves the warhead, most of the compressing/extruding happens at about the front of the charge itself and the only
other function of standoff is to alow the jet to stretch to the greatest length before beginning to consume itself on the armor
(the jet, which is solid, by the way, liquids just get blown into useless clouds, has a velocity gradient such that the tip is
travelling away from the tail; the reason the standoff has an upper limit is that the jet breaks up, another thing it would not do
if it were liquid). The relevance of this is that armor geometry has very little effect on jet formation. The reason standoff cages
work is probably that most of the time the RPG gets snagged before its nose fuze hits anything hard and the grenade doesn't
even go off. I have yet to hear a truly reliable account of exactly what Chobam armor really is, but I can definitely tell you that
the only property of a material that really matters to an SC jet is its density, and the irregular changes in hardness made by
embedded ceramic rods will not mean much. You cannot deflect the jet. The tungsten rods might do something to it, but I'm
willing to bet that ceramics will act like hard rock. Shaped charges are pretty good at going through rock.
http://www.logwell.com/tech/shot/index.html
I guess I should try to sum up the understanding of shaped charges I have developed to explain, for future reference, why
the jet cannot be deflected. A shaped charge jet is a rapidly deforming piece of solid copper that has so much energy
distributed so unevenly along it's length that it undergoes spaghettification just from its own irregular momentum. It behaves
somewhat like a jet of water would at more normal velocities, although its tensile strength and other characteristics do play a
part in determining when it begins to break apart. When the tip, which may be travelling several times as fast as its tail,
impacts the surface of the armor, it is said in many places that the surface in contact with the jet has such velocity imparted to
it that it opens to a diameter several times as big as that of the jet, and that the part of the tip that imparts that velocity is
spread all over the inside of the bore. Obviously, from kinematics, the velocity to which the armor material is accelerated to,
both in front of and to the sides of the jet, depends on the mass (thus the density) of the material. Denser materials resist
jets better. Strength is irrelevant.
I guess the operative part of this is, the front part is always consumed and smeared all the fuck over the place. Introducing it
to a funny surface, which it will obliterate anyway if it's standing in front of it, will perhaps affect which way that very front part
splashes, but will have no effect on the remainder on the jet at all.
Sorry about the lecture, but it's the only way I can come up with to explain my thoughts on the subject.
As for the active defense system with shaped charges, you mean linear shaped charges, right? They might be able to weaken
the rod and cause it to buckle.
nbk2000 March 12th, 2004, 03:23 AM

A search for "chaotic armor" doesn't seem to have turned anything up, but the theory still sounds flawed, unless these "chaotic
forces" are applied by embedded high explosives. An AP bullet is rather the opposite of a tube, structurally.
Your search skills are weak!
I found it as the 9th listing on the first page of results on Google, using just the generic term. Using more specific
terminology, and using only words I've used in my description of it (not anything pre-known to me), I got it as the forth result.
Remember, just because you don't find it in 10 seconds worth of Googling (although I did :)), doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ;)
If you still can't find it, just admit it here and I'll post the URL so everyone can see it for themselves.
Also, not all results pop up on the first page, like with the patent search. It was #64 there.
So you're either impatient, or inexperienced, when it comes to searching, but neither one is my problem.
Anyways, it's not theory, as its now fact, having been built and tested, and licensed for production with the US military.
And please break up your post into smaller paragraphs than you have been. It's difficult to read these huge text blocks in one
go.

JoeJablomy,
What can I say?
As far as I know, the jet is not solid copper, it is semi-liquid. Since it is very, very hot, and explosively formed, it is under
enough pressure to not boil away. IIRC, it is about 6000K. "Limited spalling is a telltale characteristic of Western-
manufactured weapons designed to defeat armor with a cohesive jet stream of molten metal. In contrast, RPG-7s typically
produce a fragmented jet spray." - http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php
http://www.danskpanser.dk/Artikler/power.htm will tell you a bit about the armour, as will http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/
54/26728.html. Invented about 18 months ago.
If you want to post some links to correct me, I will read them.
Regarding the use of a trauma liner for vest, see http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?p=58280#post58280 ,

where the denting of the armour is clearly mentioned.
NBK2000,
please tell me how you avoided the millions of roleplaying gamer pages when searching for "chaotic" - I blanked out nine
terms, but obviously not RPG, and got some really interesting stuff (which may get posted after I check the site for duplicates)
but nothing worth much on "chaotic armour".

While searching for bulletproof vests I found the following link through google.
http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/20030611sbulletmainb4p4.asp
This vest is claimed to be repelling AP rounds. While traditional soft vests stop /catch the bullet, this vest is claimed to be
"pulverising" it by means of so called hypersonic compression waves, thereby never allowing the projectile to reach the target!
Anyway it was an interesting read. ;)
While I was researching the bulletproof vests on the net, I came across a material called spectra armor. More researching into
it, I determined this substance is actually polymeric compound called UHMWPE (Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene), a
thermoplastic polymer. This armor material is much more stronger than kevlar and another advantage it is castable though
casting weakens its stopping power and strength (since it deteriorates its crystal structure).
While kevlar is hard to spin since it requires special equipment to spin it (you have to either boil kevlar with sulphuric acid to
soften it which impairs its performance or use special substances /catalyst (I am not sure which) to keep it liquid crystal state
during synthesis and after spinning the fibers baking the fibers to render them to solid and rigid state), Difficulty in handling
kevlar (in terms of converting it into a fiber and then fabric and finally a ballistic vest), renders it hard for improvised vest
applications. In addition, using used ballistic vests is a little bit dangerous and tricky since performance of a used kevlar vest
may be very impaired and I even do not mention about impossibility of finding such vests in underdeveloped countries)
As I stated above, UHMWPE is thermoplastic substance which can be molded into shape. This makes it ideal for new type of
ballistic vests though it is already used in medical field.
In addition, AFAIK kevlar is vulnerable to angle shots and multiple shots, while spectra armor vests are one piece items which
can resist multiple shots and angle shots better then kevlar vests.
Once I had a link to synthesis of UHMWPE, but I cannot find it now.
Now idea is SWIM may make a composite sandwich archaic type armor which consists of layers of carbon fiber and UHMWPE.
IMHO this type of vests might be equal to that of commercial vests even if not better. Rgrds.
nbk2000 March 13th, 2004, 05:20 AM

In Google, type in:
chaotic armor rifle
And that brings it up as #9. :)
Using:
chaotic armor rifle "armor piercing"
Brings it up as #4. :D
The pdf contains the patent number.
The name of the contractor in the pdf brings up results at www.dtic.mil/ndia/ where the contractor posted a powerpoint
presentation about it.
Amazing what you can find when you LOOK for it, rather than expect it to be spoon fed to you, like I just did. ;)

NBK2000, do you mean http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~hthomas/Ballistic.PDF ?
Doesn't that diagram look *really* like my one? Using the odd geometric shapes to deflect the nose, and turn the round
sideways, thus increasing the odds of stopping it.
Looks like something you could try at home, too. I was talking about larger stuff, but very hard ceramic or rock would certainly
do the trick. Shame it doesn't say what the deflectors were made of for this test. To be honest they look like steel ball
bearings, on a solid backing with raised welts.
I would say that there is a whole load of pseudo-science in that report - it was probably written to get more funding from
someone! The fancy "science" words behind the fact it works are bizarre. "Generation of multiple simultaneous paths" is a
weird one - the simple fact is, there is only one path taken, from the many possible ones. The side torque they put on the
nose is in a random direction, sure, but so what? I would be interested to see what happens with a non-perpendicular strike,
too. What I can't understand is how they are defeating an AP round by having it destroy itself in such a short distance. I think
they are cheating, and making it non-flexible.
Any other thoughts?
This might be handy, too:

<table border=1><th>NIJ Standard Ratings</th><th>01.01.04</th></tr>
<tr><td>Velocity (Ft/Sec)</td><td>Weight (Grains)</td><td>Projectile Description</td><td>Caliber</td><td>Threat Level</
td></tr>
<tr><td>2880</td><td>166</td><td>Armor Piercing</td><td>.30-06</td><td>IV</td></tr>
<tr><td>2780</td><td>148</td><td>Full Metal Jacket</td><td>7.62 mm NATO</td><td>III</td></tr>
<tr><td>1430</td><td>240</td><td>Jacketed Soft Point</td><td>.44 Magnum</td><td>III-A</td></tr>
<tr><td>1430</td><td>124</td><td>Full Metal Jacket</td><td>9 mm</td><td>III-A</td></tr>
<tr><td>1430</td><td>158</td><td>Jacketed Soft Point</td><td>.357 Magnum</td><td>II</td></tr>
<tr><td>1205</td><td>124</td><td>Full Metal Jacket</td><td>9 mm</td><td>II</td></tr>
<tr><td>1055</td><td>180</td><td>Full Metal Jacket</td><td>.40 S&W</td><td>II-A</td></tr>
<tr><td>1120</td><td>124</td><td>Full Metal Jacket</td><td>9 mm</td><td>II-A</td></tr>
<tr><td>1055</td><td>95</td><td>Full Metal Jacket</td><td>.380 ACP</td><td>I</td></tr>
<tr><td>1080</td><td>40</td><td>Lead</td><td>.22 LongRifle</td><td>I</td></tr>
</table>
http://www.usbulletproofing.com/Ratings.htm gives somewhat more complete ratings, for Underwriters Laboratory 752 (UL 752)
and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), as well as some other interesting stuff.
nbk2000 March 15th, 2004, 02:46 AM

Yes, that's the link.
There's nothing "psuedo-science" about the phrase that you quoted. It simply means that the bullet disintegrates, as various
parts of it go in different directions. :)
You spend enough time reading the stuff written by defense contractors and it starts becoming second-nature to understand
what they really mean.
See, why say "It goes BOOM when you push the button." when you can say "Upon activation of the manually-acutated MITL
command detonation circuit, the energetic material releases a copious amount of potential energy in a highly exothermic
reaction.", and make yourself sound so highly intelligent that the military would be fools not to use your latest "vunder
veapon". ;) :D
If you read the patent, you'll see that it IS steel ball bearings in the picture, as the material is simple to get, and is as hard
(or harder) than the projectile it is intended to stop.
While it's likely not to be feasible (yet) for a flexible vest, though inserts are still practical, there's no reason you can't use the
principle to uparmor your car, as vehicles are flimsy to rifle fire.
Oh, and I remember reading about a test conducted by a cop magazine, where they tried shooting vehicles with various types
of weapons to see what would pass through them.
The interesting thing I got out of it was that pistol caliber bullets wouldn't penetrate through the thread of car tires, either
bouncing off or getting stuck in the rubber, without actually penetrating. :o
Tires are free for the having. :) Cut, overlap layers so there's no gaps, and fix into place.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > grenade
Log in
View Full Version : grenade
roux D e c e m ber 9th, 2003, 09:15 PM

first post for me. dam n 2 hour wait. ive been designing weaponry and studying chemistry for a yea r or so. this post is for a
grenade i designed.
m aterials:
-threaded pipe (fairly small, 5 inches long, 2 in ch dia.)

-threaded caps to fit the pipe
-metal tube (4" long, 1/4" dia .)
-safty fuze (6-8" long)
-non-electrical blasing cap (or some kind of prim a r y e x p l o s i v e c a p a b l e o f d e t o n a t i n g a H E )
-high explosive
-wood strike anywhere match(optional)
-strong glue
drill a 1/4 inch hole in the center of one cap. insert the m etal tube into the hold so that if the cap were it be skrewed onto th e
pipe , the tub e would be on the inside.
glue the fuse to the blasting cap (but im not sure, neve r worked with blasting caps)
glue the blasting cap to the end of the tube that would be inside the pipe, and be sure that the fuze sticks out of the other
end of the tube.
skre w the pipe onto the cap with the m e t a l t u b e s o t h e t u b e i s o n t h e i n s i d e o f t h e p i p e .
fill the pipe with the high explosive.
skre w the other cap o n the pipe.
to use: light the fuze and run/throw
the m atch is used to m ake what i call a "strike anywhere fuze". just line the m atch head u p with the end of the m atch so the
fuze runs down along the m atch. now all you have to do is tape/tie it in place. when you strike the match, the fuze will light.
i hope this will benefit the forum.
Blackhawk D e c e m ber 9th, 2003, 11:36 PM

W hile that would work, it is just a fused pipebom b, with HE's no less. The problem y o u m a y have is that the HE det m a y g o o f f
on the im pact after you throw the thing, which would not be good. However there are 168 topics found after searchin g the
forum for 'grenade', several of which you could have quite easily tacked this on to. Furthermore you didn't capitalise the I when
reffering to yourself and you made your first post a new topic, the future is not good for you my friend, I advise that you read
the rules and apologise, while you didn't ask a question/be rude/be an idiot, I still think had you read the rules you woudln't
have posted this as it dosn't really merit a new topic.
Of course I may be wrong here, but I am trying to help a fellow newb who dosn't seem ...that.... bad.
Hang-Man D e c e m ber 10th, 2003, 12:13 AM

I d o n t know if you n o t i c e d , b u t m o s t o f u s s e e m t o b e abov e the "fill contain er with e x p l o s i v e , l i g h t , r u n " s t a g e o f o u r p y r o
lives.
but im not sure, never worked with blasting cap s)
I m going to write a program t h a t s c a n s posts f or "i", "ive" "Bom b" "Anarchis t" an d any co m bination of the words "prim ary"
and "throw". Then it sends the poster a virus. But seeing as we are on the topic of "Stuff we never really did" and "types of
fuse " (the only part o f you're post that wasn't redundant as hell), what if you took the flash unit out of a ca mera, you know,
that thing that charges until it has allot of energy then fires it to the bulb ? what if you took that and used it as its own timer,
you could hook it up to a watch battery or som e s m all p ower source and to som e NiChrome wire, instead of building a
complex digital tim ing device you just press a button to complete the circuit and run, it discharges when it reaches X energy
and BANG! I ll try it on the weekend unless som e o n e c a n s e e a r e a s o n n o t t o .
ossassin D e c e m ber 10th, 2003, 01:12 AM

H a n g - M a n , d on't send them viruses. Mods, be nice to the guy. :) Many p eople com e to this forum full of m isconceptions about
the field of e xplosives. It is our duty to show these people the truth so that our reputations can be s a l v a g e d . W h o k n o w s ? H e
m ight turn out to be a well-respected mem b e r s o m e day!
Tuatara D e c e m ber 10th, 2003, 04:15 AM

Not with a po st like that. 1st p ost, new topic, => hasn't read the rules. Something h e ' s d e s i g n e d b u t o b v i o u s l y n e v e r m a d e .
Roux, if you were to supply some pics of the re al thing in action you m ight gain som e respect, but telling everyone how you
think a chuckable pipe bom b should be made ... :rolleyes:
Also: learn to spell 'screw', and locate the shift key on your keyboard - its very useful for putting capitals at the start of your
sentences.

I a m sorry. i did not read the rules. you all were right. b ut i doubt that sim ple gram m atical and spelling mistakes are worth
c o m m enting on. but i have been reading the forum s a while before i m ade this post. i have not tested this like you all
a s s u m e , b u t t h i s i s a f o r u m for discussing ideas, corect? i had seen a few posts for things like butane grenades and other
s m a ll ineffective explosive devises. bu t i had never seen a post on a well built grenade. som e m ay have a closed pipe filled
with blackpowder and a fuze sticking out. but m y design is m uch better. for one, it is harder to keep from exploding when lit
( u n l i k e s i m p l e p i p e b o m bs), which can be an equally better or worse thing.
ossassin D e c e m ber 11th, 2003, 11:12 PM

Thrown grenades have pins, levers and internal fuses. If you want to know how a real grenade works, go here (http://
people.howstuffworks.com/grenade2.htm ). The diagram at the bottom of the page is interactive, and it rea lly helps you
understand the whole process.
FragmentedSanity D e c e m ber 13th, 2003, 03:02 AM

Roux - try searching the archives - just beacuse you havent seen a recent topic dosent m e a n w e h a v e n t h a d a l o t b e f o r e .
here is a cou ple of threads you m ight be intere sted in:
tri-grenades (http://roguesci.org/thefo rum /showthread.php?s=&threadid=642)
sim ple handgrenade designs (http://roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=678)
there are dozens of other posts - have a look and then try and tell us there arent any "we ll built grenades"
If your too lazy to search, too lazy to read the rules and spouting off about some thing you have no real kn owledge of - just
h a l f b a k e d i d e a s a n d t h e o r i e s , t h e n y o u a r e n t b e n i f i t i n g t h e f o r u m . You could also m ake your posts a little clearer. If you have
b e e n r e a d i n g t h e p o s t s h e r e f o r a w h i l e t h e n y o u s h o u l d h a v e s o m e i d e a of the g eneral standards and protocols when it com e s
to posting - Does your post sound m o r e l i k e s o m e t h i n g f r o m one of the Mods or regular posters or m o r e l i k e s o m o n e f r o m the
BFL section? Just som ething to think about.
roux D e c e m ber 13th, 2003, 11:42 AM

i see. the tri-grenade looks like a nice design, and there were som e instructions on how to assem b l e o n e . b u t i t l o o k s a s i f o n e
w o u l d n e e d a l o t o f e q u i p m e n t t o m a k e o n e . i p o s t e d m y design for a grenade for its simplicity. anyone could purchase at
least half of what you would need to build this grenade at a local hardware store, and little or no skill is required for it.
THErAPIST D e c e m ber 14th, 2003, 03:49 AM

The tri-grenade is as sim p l e a s i t g e t s . . . T a p e s o m e cardboard triangles together to m ake the casing, fill it full of HE, stick det
in. For shrapnel glue bb's to the sides or make a beakable plate thats full of imbeded bb's. You tried to help a little which I
like to see, but it wasnt too needed. Another thing that makes the tri-nade an ingeneuos thing is the fact that it only fucks
over the people who are very near to it as anyone furthwer away is misse d by the projectiles (since they're traveling upwards)
while your design is just as da ngerous for the thrower as it is for the intended target.
Rocket-Boy October 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 0 7 : 0 1 P M

W e just bug bom bed our house with "Raid - Co ncentrated deep reach fogger", with an active ingredient of "Cyperm ethrin", I
was wondering if these little cans (about the size of a pop can) could be used as an im pro vised chem / g a s g r e n a d e ? T h a t i s a l l .

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > AOW .410 & 380 flashlight guns
Log in
View Full Version : AOW .410 & 380 flashlight guns
Randy D December 12th, 2003, 04:07 AM

I'm probably going to get in trouble for this post but I have serched everywhere even tryed the U.S. Patent site.
I am instered in how these work.They are VERY NEAT I'm sure it's like a simple zip gun but the flash light still works.
1. How is the shell contained?
2. Fireing pin
4. Trigger mech.
5. Operation of flashlight?
Any healp would be great
You can view these at url www.autoweapons.com/photosv/dcellgun.html

www.autoweapons.com/photosv/dcellgun.com (http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/dcellgun.html)
www.autoweapons.com/photosv/flashlights.com (autoweapons.com/photosv/flashlight.com)
I hope I did this right if not go easy on me

Randy
y2kminuteman@yahoo.com

From looking at the photo, they just look like a normal torch (flashlight to you Americans) with a zipgun mounted on the butt end of the handle.
It shouldn't have been too difficult to figure this out.
As for how it works, look around the forum for zipgun designs, although I have a feeling you may not be around much longer...

Lo all - SWIM is currently working on a small .22 version. Swim is going to use a couple of button cells in place of the AA batteries to power the torch so that the firing
mechanisim and barrel fit inside the torch.
Look up pen gun plans - all you have to do is fit one inside the torch your want to use - that should also answer all the questions you had - except for the opreation of the
torch, which you can work out yourself as it will be different depending on your own projects dimensions. Besided if you cant work out how a torch functions you probably
shouldnt be making one that fires bullets.
My suggestion would be to make one for .22 first - .410's are not reccomended for improviesd firearms as they generated too much pressure which can be dangerous.
Ill put up some pics of SWIM's just as soon as he gets motivated enough to finish it. So if your still around youll be able to see exactly how it all goes together.
Ammonal December 13th, 2003, 01:59 AM

This .410 torch without a grip would be very hard to a) hang on to when fired and b) be very difficult to hold and roughly sight your target and if the torch is turned on, you
would be shining yourself in the face? Granted it is a pellet munition the aim is not that important but the controllability of this weapon could be questioned (I recall firing a
winchester 9" barrel and single shot action by hanging onto the barrel in front of the action, there was nothing else just a one piece barrel and action, and there was a
significant amount of muzzle rise which cannot be moderately controlled without some form of grip) , and the website does not give any explanation of how they are fired/
held/aimed etc. An email to the distributor/ sales person might yield something more useful than the question that opened this thread.

FragmentedSanity, a .410 shotshell operates at a lower pressure than a .22LR does, the pressure generated by a .410 shell is high when compared to other shotgun
ammunition, but is low when compared to rifle ammunition.
The reason that the .410 uses higher pressures is because there is less area for the pressure to act on and therefore a higher pressure is required for the shell to function
properly.
.410 shouldn't give you any trouble so long as you make sure that the barrel is strong enough. People use 3mm walls for .22LR barrels (just over half the bore diameter), so
you should be fine with .410 if you keep the barrel walls at least 6mm thick.

xyz: Ill take your word for it about the pressure of the .410, although it dosent seem quite right from my limited experience with .410 shotguns, but Ive been wrong before - I
was simply going by what Ive read in improvised firearm books - they mostly reccomend avoiding the .410 due to the pressure/possible dangers. Obviously if you make an
adequate barrel and chamber you can use whatever cartridge you fancy. Id still go for the .22 first tho, but thats just my preference.
I'll get SWIM moving on his little torch - hopefully there will be pictures soon - its nothing flash - more of a novelty - Ill still be interested to hear peoples opinion when Its done.

Yeah, .22 is always the best cartridge to start with, are you using one barrel or several?
They say to avoid the .410 because you can't safely use pipe as the barrel (like you can with 12 gauge), it is fine if you make a stronger barrel though.
Axt December 13th, 2003, 06:51 AM

The problem with pipe sizes is that they are never rated to the same pressure, youll actually be able to find a stronger pipe with a .410 bore then you can with a 12ga bore as
the smaller diametre pipe doesnt need to be nearly as thick as the wider pipe to hold the same pressure. The chamber pressure of the .22lr is also low when compared to other
rifles, cant remember any figures but I think its about half that of most centrefire cartridges.
This means holding the pressure for a .22lr is actually quite easy compared to anything else.

Ive heard of people using old car areiel's - one part of the sectional tubing fits a .22 nicely - as a barrel for a zip/pengun. It dosent sound like a good idea to me but - its safe
to say the pressure is lower than other rounds if a piece of thin walled al can hold up. Ive never tried it myself tho - so thats purely heresay.
Spec's for SWIM's torch;
2 AA battery Aluminium torch ($2.00 from a discount store)- about 15cm total lenght. A single barrel - thats all that will fit, its about 2 inches long and made out of a section of
a "push rod" - con rod or somehting like that out of either a holden or a valiant - the walls are a bit thin - but the push rod is made of pretty sturdy stuff so it should be OK.
SWIM is going to put something else around the barrel tho - maybe laminate it with another peice of pipe or something similar.
All told - this torch is a little small to turn into a gun - the button cells probably wont drive the globe all that well either - prehaps it could be replaced with a small LED - but for
now SWIM will just get it firing to do a few test runs before shooting it from his hands.
SWIM should have pics in a couple of days

Car telescopic aerials are stainless steel. Hence they bear pressure well.
Also, could people please try looking at the pressures involved from a proper source before spouting off? .22 isn't half the pressure of a centerfire round, as there is no pressure
standard!
.44 magnum is capped at 12 or 14 tons per square inch, and 7.62 is either 19 or 20, depending on the exact spec. .223 is about 31. There is a .729" round with a proof
pressure of just 3 tons, and that is a nitro load. .410, for info, is 1200 bar, or 8.7 tons per sq.in. proof load.
Anyone know the pressure levels of a .22? I think it is about 6 tons, but I haven't found anywhere to confirm or deny this. So is it half? of what?
(The more firearms aware of you will have noticed that .729" is a 12.)
FragmentedSanity December 23rd, 2003, 08:52 PM

Some (possibly most) car areials are made out of stainless, but I have come across some that are just to flimsy to be stainless - my best guess was aluminium. But even
stainless steel with walls that thin seems a bit under strenghth to me - An idea would be to keep a few of the outer sections in place over the section that fits the round
correctly, making a sort of quick and easy laminated barrel - the inner section could be examined after firing to check for stress or splits. The outer sections would help a bit if it
decided to rupture on you.
Its nice to have a few figures to throw around, just to illustrate how much pressure some rounds can generate, but for simple zip/pen/pipe guns its not all that important to
have accurate figures - just use common sense and stick to low pressure rounds like the .22 or a 9mm or a 12gauge then err on the side of caution when it comes to material
selectiion.
Obviously - if you have a half decent workshop and invest in decent materials there is no reason you cant make anything you want. High pressure rounds simply require a
higher level of sophistication.
For anyone thats interested, a quick update on SWIM's torch, I had hoped to have pictures by now - but swim had a few setbacks, namely in misplaced (and "borrowed") tools
- But its coming - Sorry for the delay - I hate when people say that they will post something then dont. I will have a complete writeup for you all before long.
Bigfoot February 3rd, 2004, 04:28 PM

Sardaukar Press distributes the plans for a MiniMaglite mod to fire .22 rimfire. Barrel for it and the pengun is cut from a .22 barrel liner from Brownell's. The liner is less than
2mm wall thickness.
Some online outfit I stumbled across a few years back was actually manufacturing weapons based on some of the Sardaukar plans. MiniMag, Boltgun, a few others.
Zoth February 13th, 2004, 01:47 AM

You might want to look into a book called "Zips, Pipes and Pens," I believe published by Paladin or someone similar.
Do a search on soulseek for the title; it's really not worth more than a looksee unless you are some kind of aficionado.
All kinds of stuff like this, most of it good. Some plans in there as I recall.

I know this might be a stupid question but couldn't you wrap wire around your "barrel" to give it more strength? (I ask because I watched a Show that was talking about how
they wrapped cannon barrels and then they slipped a tube over the wrapped barrel. (I guess to give it a nicer appearance))
This would then give you more tubes to chose from since you don't need a certain thickness?
They also made one by putting rings around barrels that they forged. (equivilent to slipping washers over a thin tube from top to bottom) this could probably help centre your
barrel in your flashlight too if the are the same diameter of the light's "tube"
NickSG February 15th, 2004, 09:38 PM

If you want a strong barrel, just drill a 7/32 hole through a steel dowel rod.
If you want to increase the strength of a barrel, just drill a hole large enough to fit the barrel in a steel dowel rod.
zaibatsu February 15th, 2004, 10:38 PM

Of course, why don't we just drill through a steel rod? I never realised it was so easy to make a barrel! :rolleyes:

Yea I made the mistake of thinking hardened steel was easy to drill through too a while ago. Figured that I could drill through a bolt that I found along the tracks. (was going
to make a small cannon with it). Let me tell you after spending 5 minutes making a "dent" (is the best description), I cut my losses. Figured giving up was better than getting
a nice hot broken drill bit in the eye.

Um, if you have the proper machinery you can do it. I cant recall what the name of it is, but in my high school metals lab we had a large drill machine. It could easily drill
through steel rods, in fact thats what I did.
I dont see why you guys thought I meant a handheld drill.

Um, drilling a hole through a steel bar requires a deep hole drilling machine incorporating an oil pump etc. I can't understand why your high school metals lab would have one
of them - there aren't that many applications for them, or rather that I know of. Therefore, I am assuming you just mean a drill press. If you can drill a hole through the center
of a steel rod using standard drill bits for the length of the rod, and end up still on center, with no wandering of the hole, I'll be extremely suprised.
Of course, even if I am wrong in my judgement of this, you were still misleading in your comments - "just drill a 7/32 hole through a steel dowel rod". Either you are very
gullable to think it's that simple, or you are an extremely proficient machinist and this is like a walk in the park to you.
Crane February 16th, 2004, 07:44 AM

I know it might sound sort of dumb, but couldn't you just buy tube rather than rod ? It would certainly reduce the amount of drilling / machining required for the end product !
;)

Yes, you could. But if you can't get a close fit to the calibre you're using, you might as well not even have a barrel. That means you'll either be doing a hell of a lot of lapping,
or you're going to have no support around the round of ammunition. Plus, just using tubing you'll have to pick a straight walled cartridge, like .45ACP unless you want to start
cutting a chamber, which kind of defeats the point I think. Also, tubing doesn't often have sufficient wall thickness. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions to that, but you see my
point. You're either going to do it well, or "make-do". Once you've decided which, you can decide your own path.
I have to emphasize now that there is little point in rifling the barrel of an AOW like this, so that doesn't work against the concept of using piping. But, anything I'm going to be
holding in my hand, I want to make sure it's pretty damn safe.
I dont know what makes it seem so hard to you. Yes, in fact I did this several times during high school. It did take some time, and the oil had to be spread by hand, but it got
the job done. The bits would only wear down if you went to fast or if you didnt put any oil down. Of course you couldnt drill a barrel any longer than 2 inches or so, but I wasnt
planning on making any high tech sniper rifle, just a little zip gun.
I dont mean to offend anyone in anyway, but I just dont see why you are so surprised that I did this?

I'm not suprised you could do a 2" barrel, when you said barrel I anticipated you meant something a little bigger, because when you take into account the OAL of some
common pistol cartridges, it's hardly a barrel at all, merely a chamber with an inch or so over!
You didn't offend anyone, I just wanted to clarify things for people. Don't worry, in a couple of weeks I'll have some real info on the topic that I'm sure will interest you.

I look forward to what you have.
Sometime in the next year I will be making a blowback style .22 short pistol. I have the design drawn up, and when I have time, I will post it on here. It is extremely simply,
and doesnt have any more than 20 or so parts. The gun will not have an ejector, but instead, when the slide moves back, the casing drops into a small space located within
the grips. There will not be any magazine spring, but instead, the magazine will be located on top of the gun and will feed by gravity. It should be around 4 1/2 inches long and
4 inches tall, weighing no more than 12 ounces. So far there isnt a trigger, but instead, you pull the hammer back and release to fire. Im trying to figure out a way to get a
trigger in somewhere, but I dont have much free time to work on this. The .22LR version will be slightly longer, and at least 50 percent heavier since tougher materials will be
needed to stand up against the higher pressures.
I might look into building my own 4 shot revolver. The cylinder will be made just like you would a barrel (like I posted above), and the firing pin would be on the hammer. This
would be a little harder for me to make since these parts will have to be from solid metal rather than heavy guage sheet metal like the blowback gun.

Bigfoot, you mentioned the plans of Sardaukar Press. I,m looking for that plans, but I dont know where I can get such plans. Do you know, where I can get such detailed
plans of weapons like canegun, bolzgun, buckler, etc.?
bipolar September 27th, 2004, 12:57 AM

I am also looking for the Sardauker plans that were mentioned in zips pipes and pens but can't seem to find it anywhere, a search on google for Sardauker Press only yeilded
this thread. I may try to figure them out from the isometric drawings and draft some drawings myself if no one knows where to get these plans. I am especially interested in
the zapper and the buckler belt buckle gun.
FragmentedSanity October 15th, 2004, 11:53 AM

Ack! Id completely forgotten about this thread... the info at the top of the page tellls me I havent been here since june 5th - And from memory that was when I managed to
make it home for a couple of days. Anyway now I feel like a fool for failure to proudce the pics i promised. As Ive said ealier it really isnt anything special - but I said Id deliver
pictures - and I wlll just as soon as I make it home for a few days... life turned odd but thats irrelevant. From memory the torch only requires assembly... and maybe a few
minutes with the dremel I dont really remember. I dont know when Ill make it back though so I cant make any promises. I can make up some basic diagrams and post them
for the time being - but the concept was fairly clear from the posts I made, and there are bunches of designs for .22 zip/pen guns - so the basic sketches may well be
redundant. If theres any interest ill make the diagram, if not Ill still make a little web page with a write up and post it - when I get home.
Sorry all.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Prim er m ine
Log in
View Full Version : Primer mine
Garbage D e c e m ber 27th, 2003, 01:31 PM

I would like to know your opinion if this detonator could work in a mine.
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/g a r b a g e l i v e / m i n e / m i n e . j p g
steyr D e c e m ber 27th, 2003, 02:00 PM

It's better to do it with battery, and when you stand on it, battery connects with explosive and boom.
Your m ine couldn't work in som e ways, because you mu st stam p on it ha rd, or run on it.
Sarevok D e c e m ber 27th, 2003, 02:00 PM

If to o m uch dirt gets in between the T-shaped piece and the mine, the nail wouldn't hit (or would hit weakly) the prim er, I
think. You could make instead the mine found on US Patent #4218974 (http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?
PN=US42189 74&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EP D) (also found on NBK's p df); its much cheaper, safer, simplier and functiona l.
Sparky D e c e m ber 27th, 2003, 02:31 PM

Y e s , a s p e o p l e h a v e s a i d , t h e t r i g g e r m e c h a n i s m i s n o t u p t o s n uff.
No point in trying to reinvent the wheel, you m ight as well just look at existing designs. Mines I have seen on
howstuffworks.com often use a "button" configuration in stead of a T shape. This way no dirt can prevent it from firin g.
W hat is missing from your design is a bellville spring or at least some other mechanism to make sure the firing pin is coming
down hard enough. Take a look at:
http://people.howstuffworks.com / l a n d m ine1.htm
for what a bellville spring is, not to mention the rest of the docum e n t a b o u t m i n e s .
The electrical system m i g h t b e a g o o d i d e a , m aybe easier than trying to get a be lleville spring. The only th ing I would be
worried about is reliability - that is things like corrosion, when the mine gets raine d on, the battery going dead etc. OTO H
having an electrical system introduces the possibility of turning the m ine off by re mote. That's placing a lot of trust in your
eletronics though.

I solved the problem of the dirty with a plastic or m etal cone:
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/g a r b a g e l i v e / m i n e / m i n e 2 . j p g
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/g a r b a g e l i v e / m i n e / m i n e 2 . 1 . j p g
W ith it the m ine will stay sealed.
Hang-Man D e c e m ber 27th, 2003, 03:34 PM

I was thinking of m a k i n g a m uch m ore sensitive m ine, what I had in m in d was letting AP crystallize am ongst ball-bearings. If
s o m ething disturbs the bearin gs, causing them to grind etc, BAM. It would need to be set up in advance, fill container with BBs,
pour in hot a cetone/AP solution, walk away, in a few hours the acetone will evaporate and the AP will form large (because it was
hot) crystals between bearings.
McGyver D e c e m ber 27th, 2003, 07:05 PM

Is a shotgun prim er really that sensitive? Try testing the primer by itself and tell us your results...

I t o o k t h e i d e a f r o m a sim ple Vietcong booby trap:
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/g a r b a g e l i v e / m i n e / m i n e 3 . g i f
If trod can activate it a vehicle could do it too.
I would like to test. but now in m y country every thing is forbidden, guns, knifes, explosives (any kind). If I want to do it I
h a v e t o m a k e every piece o f it
FragmentedSanity D e c e m ber 28th, 2003, 09:19 AM

T h e p r i m e r s h o u l d g o off if en ough pressure is put on it - your n ail would tear through the prim er which sho uld cause
detonation. You would want a com pound detonator with a sensitive prim ary under the prim er.
The design would be greatly im proved by m aking the nail / firing pin spring loaded, using the pressure plate as a "trigger" -
this would ensure detonation when tripped as you are basically recreating the conditions for firing the prime r in a bullet.
M e c h a n i c a l l y d e t o n a t e d m i n e s h a v e s o me advantages over electrically fired m ines, like no batterie s to go flat. It also has
s o m e drawbacks, like not being able to incorpo rate things like tim ers. It is really a m atter of personal preference, a nd how you
plan to deploy the de vice.
To test how easily the prim ers detonate you could just use a live round - as in the booby trap shown - with a weight dropped on
it from above via a rope and pulley. Use several rounds to test things like how much weight you need and from wha t height it
falls to reliably fire the round; if it will go off with a heavy wieght being slowly lowered onto it or if it actually takes a sharp
im pact. A few simple tests should answer all your questions - and give you som e d a t a y o u c a n s h a re.
Ive often thought a m ine that used primers as the fragm ents - instead of - or as well as BB's - would be interesting, probably
not overly effective - but it would cause masses of sharp high velocity shrapnel - almost like mini fletchets.
Cyclonite D e c e m ber 28th, 2003, 01:55 PM

You should have the T part under spring tensio n, a sm all detent will hold the spring until someone c o m e s a l o n g a n d g i v e s i t a
little knock. Kinda like a m ouse trap in a way. Also when doing this put a pin through the top of the T as a safety pin and tie a
strin g to it. Go behind som e cover and pull the pin gently out an d its good to go.
aXiate D e c e m ber 28th, 2003, 04:47 PM

that should work, maybe if you had a m ore reliable way of detonation... such as the electronic one
t h a t s o m e p e o p l e h a v e a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t . b u t i s u p o s e i f y o u l i v e d o n a f a r m and wanted to blow the neighbour o ff his
tractor :D... then it migth work :)

i think a plastic bag would work alright to keep dirt out of the trigger m echanism. i know it isnt the best solution to the
p r o b l e m , but it is the easiest.
Serj05 D e c e m ber 30th, 2003, 12:40 AM

I think McGyver is right. a shotgun primer has a good chance of not going off under some weight. Also from what i see in your
picture, it looks to m e like the nail and prim er m ay be too close to each other. Maybe if you spaced them farther apart the nail
could build up m ore speed to set it off.
SMA G 12B/E5 D e c e m ber 31st, 2003 , 02:53 AM

Garbage, your system will function well if you take Cyclo n i t e ' s s u g g e s t i o n a n d u s e a spring-driven firing pin. Make the firing pin
s e p a r a t e f r o m the pressure pin or plunger. Instead of a spring detent, use a copper shear pin. Pre ssure from the target to the
plun ger bearing on the firing pin shears the copper shear pin releasing the firing pin which is driven by spring energy into the
percussion prim er.
T h e V i e t C o n g "toe popper" often failed to fire. The VC filed the cartridge base and prim er in order to reduce the primer
thickness. This reduced the am ount of force required to crush the prim er.
Cyclonite D e c e m ber 31st, 2003 , 06:38 AM

A sh ear pin would work well and be less hazardous but keep in mind this is im provised and a shear pin would be m ore likely to
fail than a detent due to it not being the right thickness or som eone that was a little to lig ht and they dont break it..
Skean Dhu D e c e m ber 31st, 2003 , 02:03 PM

Solu tion: while readin g this thread, and hearing people tell you that to m ake it re liable you need the trigge r to be u nder
pressure from a sprin g i thought of a center punch. you could use the ones for making divots before you start drilling, glass
p u n c h e s f o r e m rgency extraction/evacuation of a vehicle or any other readily availabe center punch for that m atter.
EDIT: Spellin g
Garbage January 1st, 2004, 05:09 PM

I h a v e m a d e s o m e triggers fo r clay m ore m i n e s s o m e t i m e a g o :
Both use the electrica l system. They work bette r than th e m echa nicals in a short period of time. After some m onths the battery
become to suffer corrosion. The electrical m i n e s m u s t b e s e a l e d t o a v o i d water from rain (short circuit).
H e r e is som e d r a w s o f two m ines with string s trigger, the first is electrical and de s e c o n d u s e s t h e m echanical system .
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/g a r b a g e l i v e / m i n e / m i n e 4 . 1 . j p g
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/thegarbage/trip/d2.jpg
I m n o t s ure in the s e c o n d m in e t h e n a il with the string in the trigger will hit the prim er. I h a v e n t t e s t e d i t .
torgo January 2nd, 2004, 02:14 AM

I t s e e m s l i k e s o m eth ing like this would be m ostly safe and functional, useful for theatrics and the like:
http://boom . g o d n a t t . n o / m agic-show.jpg
A "safe" m ode is obtained by either not arming the plunger or obstructing the lever. A mode requiring only a pin release would
involve only transposing the spring to the other side of the lever.

torgo,
that is a great design !
As a safety feature, drill a hole in the nail, so you can p ut a pin/clip through it, then it can't go off by accident. Obstructing the
lever I would not class as "safe"!
Also, try to find those nails that have a washer halfway along them, as that would m ake it easier to do.
Finally, m ake sure the angle of the release pin is NOT rounded slightly, like you show! This would likely cause it to slip! I am
talking about the bit behind the arrow "2". The design you have drawn would likely be dan gerous as the pin would b e n d o v e r
tim e, and even a tiny bend would cause it to fire. The pin should stay fairly straight.
OP, I would use a firearm prim er rathe r than a shotgun one. Turn it upside down, and put the nail (bluntened) alm ost into it,
then surround with explosive. This will ensure a crushing action, rather than piercing.
Garbage January 5th, 2004, 11:28 AM

I t r e a l l y w o r k s , I h a d s o m e p r o b l e m s t o k e e p t h e h a n d s p i k e f i x e d (silver tape). Don t u s e a string too strong or t h e nail will
escape from t h e h a n d s p i k e .
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/g a r b a g e l i v e / m i n e / m i n e 5 - 1 . j p g
This trigger is very se nsible but is m uch better for the m ine.
Fergus January 20th , 2004, 08:50 AM

The problem with the viet cong toe popper is that it has no barrel to build up com pression for the bullet to do any harm . W e
tried m aking them in the army and at best all we got was a m u f f l e d p o p a n d n o r e a l d a n g er to the p e r s o n s t e p p i n g o n t h e m .
Jacks Complete January 30th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 1 : 3 3 P M

Ferg us,
M i g h t I s u g g e s t h a m m ering the bullet back into the case a bit then? The pressure goes up dram atically if you do that, so the
whole round m ight just blow up, causin g m o r e d a m age than otherwise.
I n a m m o, the overall length is strictly observed, as if it is too sh ort, the pressure in the ro und increases dram atically, and th e
breach can blow!
zeocrash January 30th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 1 : 4 8 P M

w h i l e w o r k i n g o n m y s m o k e g r e n a d e s i d e c i d e d to experim ent with smoke m ines, the principle for m y detonator was simple, a
phia l full of pottasium perm anganate was placed in a bag with glycerine. in the to p of the mine was a nail. the phial was
positioned directly under the nail. when som e o n e t r o d o n the m i n e t h e n a i l w o u l d b e p u s h e d d o w n b r e a k i n g t h e p h i a l a n d
m ixing the perm anagante and glycerine, causing the mixture to ignite. T his is som ewhat slow for a landmine, but a sim ilar
m ethod could be done using conc sulphuric acid and chlorate or similar
Baughb January 30th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 5 : 2 3 P M

Another idea for an firing device would be to have the central plunger's core drilled through, so that when you step on it, it
allows a spring-driven spike to fire the primer. It seem s a good bit sim pler than a lot of designs posted so far, and is easily
adju stable for various trigger pressures. A sim p l e d e s i g n w o u l d b e s o m ething along the lines of the following.
_________________ - pressure plate

| |
| |
______) (______
|===*| | @
-------- --------
W here the )( area is the hole bored through the rod, = denotes the spring, and * is the firing pin, and @ is the prim er.
W hen the pressure plate is stepped on, the hole in the rod is forced down to the firing position, wh ich allows the coiled spring
t o e x p a n d t o normal length, driving the firing p in through the hole and impacting the prim er.
A sp ring could be added under the pressure plate with enough forces to return it to the default 'at rest' position, if d e s i r e d , a n d
a s a f e t y p i n a d d e d u n d e r n e a t h t h e p l a te to pre vent accidental triggering while in storage or during placeme n t . T h e d e s i g n c a n
a l s o b e m a d e r e m arkably com pact, an d by using a spring of sufficient force the p rimer will fire quite reliably. It also conform s
to the KISS rule, I believe.
lumberjak5010 February 1st, 2004, 0 2:10 AM

In central am erica during the eighties, we found mines constructed m u c h l i k e t h e v i e t n a m e s e t y p e p o s t e d b y G a r b a g e . T h e s e
m ines were of the sam e concept, but used an artillery shell sitting in a coffee can or a larger, empty shell casing. In the
bottom of the can, a piece of round plate steel was placed. In the center, there was a piece of hardened rod, ground to a po int
and welded into place. A certain size of rubber hose was cut to a length just slightly longer than the "pin" to support the weight
of the shell. Stepping on the shell would collapse the rubber hose "grom m et". and cause detenation. The artillery shell
projectile was cut off flat and deeply fluted lengthwise. Atop the flattened portion of the projectile was another piece of plate
stee l, also deeply fluted in a hex pattern, several feet square with about a 1/8" h ole in the center. A screw held it to the center
of the projectile. The shell was placed in the can with two or three soda cans shaped in a cresent to hold the shell in the center.
Around the e ntire device, they usually packed vegetation to keep is stationary. On top of the fluted plate, they taped nasty
s c r e w s a n d n a i l s a n d h e a p s o f b r o k e n g l a s s o r g r a v e l i n a m o u n d . T h e s e a d d i t i o n al projectiles were often dipped in a
c o m p o u n d o f s o m e sort, (I can't remem ber what it was) that ma de you very sick or killed you after the projectile penetrated
your skin. Some of the guys told m e that if the m ine was fresh, that you could sm e l l t h e t o x i n t h e n a i l s h a d o n t h e m . I noticed
the m ine was usually an inch or so below the trail surface, covered with burlap and dirt. It was a devastating m i n e . W e t h o u g ht
initially that it was prim arily an anti-vehicle m ine due to the power it had. However, that depended on the shell caliber, etc.
Many of the m ines were later found on trails too narrow for vehicles. So, they m ust have a l s o b e e n intended to be anti-
personnel. Hope I didn't break any rules for m y first tim e.
Jacks Complete February 1st, 2004, 0 5 : 2 7 P M

lum b e r j a k 5 0 1 0 ,
not at all, that was a good first post!
Ok, a nice th eoretical design:

I h a v e t h o u g ht about this a bit, and m y conclusion is that an explosive "automatic" centerpunch would work really well. Take a
piece of stee l bar, drill a hole in the end of it the diame ter of the rod you want to use. Cut that rod to the depth of the hole,
plus whateve r you want to use as a spike to face upwards. Check it slides nicely, you want it like a piston.
W ork out where halfway is, and drill a hole that far down for your safety pin.
T a k e t h e p r i m ary of your choice. Put som e in the bottom of the hole. Carefully slide your piston down to halfway from the
bottom (obviously being careful not to hit your primary!) and hot glue or melt wax around the piston part. Do this whilst it is
still on its side, as even with a close fit you don't want to risk any getting inside the piston . Turn it over on the long axis, and
seal the other side. Give it a tug to m ake sure it is sealed tight.
Set into a sm a l l h o l e , p o i n t e d e n d u p , a n d r e m ove the pin. The force of a foot on it should shear the wax and force the piston
onto the prim ary, crushing it and causing an explosion which drives the p iston up into the foot of the victim.
Any thoughts? I am not expert on prim aries an d t h e u s a g e o f .
A va riation would be to use a prim er or two. How hard can you crush one without to going pop? W ould it be reliable?

Y e s L u m berjak, good 1st post ! the ne wbies can learn from you.
O n t o p o f t h e f l u t e d p l a t e , t h e y t a p e d n a s t y s c r e w s a n d n a i l s a n d h e a p s o f b r o k e n g l a s s o r gravel in a mou n d . T h e s e
additional projectiles were often dipped in a com p o u n d o f s o m e sort, (I can't remem ber what it was) that m ade you very sick or
killed you after the projectile penetrated your skin. Som e of the guys told me tha t if the m ine was fresh, th at you could sme ll
the toxin the nails ha d on them .
The nasty toxin was only pig or hum an m anure , m a y b e s o m e b l o o d , w h i c h m i x e d with the shit becom e s s o m e n i c e a n d g o o d
spot to tetan u s a n d a d s s o m e sticky abilities to the putty. The sm ell was stronger when it was fresh, but wh en it grows old, it
becomes less powerfull.
All o f t h o s e k i n d s o f m i n e s a r e i n t e n d e d t o A n t i - p e r s o n n e l u s e , a n d o n l y s o m e c a n d i s a b l e a n m otorcicle or an light vehicle.
By the way, where are you from ?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Improvised Handgun - some thoughts
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised Handgun - some thoughts
zaibatsu January 3rd, 2004, 09:56 PM

Recently I've been thinking about how to design a pistol so that it could be made with relatively simple tools but still be able
to handle cartridges of moderate power (9mmP and higher). The problem with this is you need some way to decrease the
speed with which the slide opens. The first way would be to increase the weight of the slide, but this would lead to a pistol that
was far too heavy and there'd still be problems with extraction.
The other method would be something like the browning tilting barrel system. Firstly, I would modify the barrel to correspond
with the design of a glock's - no link with a diagonal slot which could be driled out and dressed with a file. The part of the slide
containing the firing pin etc could be machined from a block of steel and attached using appropriate methods. I think gas-
delaying systems such as in the steyr pistol would be too difficult/require too much R&D to be feasible.
Then there is the problem of the construction of the slide. I think it would be a good idea to make this from stamped steel, as
this would decreased the amount of time spent milling steel and also the cost of the handgun. I think it'd be possible to
construct a hydraulic press with the potential to do some serious bending in a similar way to the construction of a hydraulic BP
press.
Next, the locking lugs. These would require quite a bit of time and accuracy, so I think it would be best to use the same
method as in the SIG P226 and use the ejection port of the pistol as the locking lug, with the breech block of the pistol
protruding. I envisage the barrel being made from a cylindrical blank, and the end threaded to screw into a block which acts as
the locking lug and the barrel dropping slot.
The frame could possibly be made from laminations of steel riveted/screwed together. This would remove the need for most
internal milling. I would style the trigger mechanism after that of the "Tiny Tom" pocket pistol, as that seems to be very
simple and as it is double-action only we could probably forget safeties. Magazine would be single stack to increase reliability
and decrease the overall size of the handgun. Also a single stack mag is easier to make than a double stack.
This is just a brief idea of what I have been thinking of and I'd like to get feedback from other people on it. Remember we're
not looking for ideals, we're looking for practical and "good enough" methods.
guerrero January 3rd, 2004, 10:58 PM

Zaibatsu, reading your thougts about the problem with relatively high powerd cartridges in a improvised handgun I
remembered the spanish Astra pistol of Worl War II. The problem is soluted with a relatively short barrel, a very strong spring
and a relatively havy slide. It worked very well with different types of ammo (9mm largo, 9mm para, even 9mm short). Most
parts are made with a turning-lathe. So I think this construction with some simplifications as hammerles construction in DAO
like the german HK VP70 would be a very good one for home-production. What do you think about?

Could we try and limit the number of parts that require lathe and mill work? my reasoning for this is that these are two pieces
of equipment which are a) highly useful and accurate for this kind of work, and b) expensive and hard to come by in some
areas. Point a) is just acknowledging the quality of work that can be performed with such equipment but as we are looking to
improvise this design which parts are an absolute must for milling and turning? As you have said the slide can be either be
machined for a high quality and strength product, or press it from sheet metal. The breech is not particuarly hard to make if a
drill press and a good assortment of files can be aquired. The barrels, providing that a chamber reamer is available can be
reused from a number of rifles, one that comes to mind is my old 20" barrelled .357mag lever action; if you took the barrel
from it you would have enough barrel for approx 6 handguns based on a 3" barrel. The barrel and the magazine would be the
components which I would hold in highest priority to the overall design but then I would think all parts are important. Point b)
is for if the user decides to outsource the machining, and the machinist doesnt like the look of what he has been asked to do
then there could be some serious trouble with police, etc are brought in by the machinist.
Next as this is going to be improvised, would you seriously consider going right through and making this, I know SWIM would
be interested in prototyping what he could, and I reckon it would be pretty damn nice if the forumites could come together and
build, I mean propose a useful design that could have in some cases very good uses; because really single shot weapons just
dont cut it when it comes to an enemy armed with automatic or semi automatic weapons.

I have a design very similar to the grease gun of WWII. It would cost about $50 to build and would be fully automatic.
For your barrel you could simply use a peice of seamles high quality pipe for it. It would be smoothbore but with a 3" barrel,
accuracy obviously isn't a consern. I havea .38 special/.357 mag. improvised handgun taht I made this year in my machining
class. I'm lucky I ahev a nice shop teacher cause in my excitment of being finished I essembled it during class and everyone
saw and knew what it was. I have a Mac not a windows computer so I dont know how I could shot you plans or pics but I'll try.
My friend has a camera but I'll have to download teh softwere onto my computer. I'll try.
jonesy January 4th, 2004, 04:02 AM

First of all KEITH if u can send me the pics and info u have i will convert them to work on a PC, im sure the software is on my
computer somewhere for that, if u can zipit up or what ever. Send me an email daleks_placebo@hotmail.com to discuss
further. Id love to see what u have.
On the subject of Homemade pistols i think what we need to do is take the two ebooks 'Home wrkshop firams 2 pistol designs'
and 'Expedient SMG' and read them through. As one book requires only home tools and the other a lathe andmilling machine.
I hear alot people mention about very simple and dangerous designs for firearms receivers, slides, triger assemblies etc but
then rfer to it having a part or two that requires machining. To me this seems quit silly, as whty make a shity gun then risk
being cought by out sourcing machining. Even know not many machine shaops would even know what a bold for a gun looks
like especialy in australia.
This is why i have decided to theologicaly design a handgun bassed on the two books mention abouve. Yes one of the the
books refers to a SMG but the basic principles remain the same.
One example being the lower receiver instead of making it from two peices of shaped steel weleded together, u could use
sqare diameter steel tube of similal thickness, cut to the apropriate shape.
Refer to the books to see other items that can be substituted.
Personaly im finding the hardest part being the ejection of the cartrige and smooth loading of a new one.
thanks
--------------------
Don't use ghetto language!
Rhadon
zaibatsu January 4th, 2004, 07:14 AM

guerrero:
I don't think it is the ideal situation to use a heavier slide and increased strength spring. Straight blowback cartridges have
problems with the extraction of higher pressure catridges, often requiring either case lubrication or a fluted chamber. With the
design I suggest, .45ACP is possible, but I'm not sure it would work with the Astra design. I also think the Czech pistol "Little
Tom" has the simplest trigger mechanism, I think trying to create a hammerless pistol will only add to the trouble of producing
it and increase complexity. Unfortunately I can't find a cutaway on the internet to show you what I mean and my scanners
fucked, although it is available in some books.
Ammonal:
I don't believe the barrel is the most important thing per se, reliability is more important that tack driving accuracy. Because of
that I'd suggest the most important things are feeding and extraction. The pistol I'm thinking of could be made from scratch,
including the barrel. I see no reason however for the barrel to be less well made than a commercial barrel. For prototyping it
would be easier to use ready made barrels.
Unfortunately at the moment I have neither the capabilities nor the wish to actually produce this, although it would be very
nice to produce a set of blueprints for the construction of the device, and see what others can do.
Keith:
I don't quite understand your description, it sounds like you are talking about some kind of machine pistol. That's not what I
imagine building, as we'd be breaking no new ground

I know exactly what you mean zaibatsu, my importance in the barrel is mainly from experience with single shot weapons which
you HAVE to rely on a degree of accuracy from your barrel (not that the barrel makes all the difference, it is more the hands of
the user that create accuracy) because you only have one shot and that shot either has to buy you enough time to reload or
get your victims weapon.
The thought of making a compact semi auto handgun is quite inspiring, I have dreamt of getting my hands onto something
like the Smith & Wesson 2213, because it is small, in .22LR calibre which is ideal for my application and plentiful amounts of
ammo, my only other option is to make something in .357mag, which is not something I am wishing to dive into without some
experience with handguns and operation/mechanism/etc.
If we could develop a relatively small and compact handgun with single column magazine of 5-7 rounds, which was reliable and
could be made from scratch with common and some machining (I believe for the reliability to be high that the feed/action/
slide will more than likely be machined) and was capable to be manufactured by people who know what they are doing (ie not
fools that cause accidents) Then the forums could really have something to show for those who whinge, complain 'my gun laws
are too strict, etc, etc, etc' that you only have to use your head to get
from point A of being oppressed and unarmed to point B of being self reliant and defended.
I mean how many people would love to make one to just have to show off in your living room, and be able to say "I made
that"; I know I sure as hell do!

Well here is a simple pistol I just thought up for this post its made out of .75" steel tube to simplify construction the whole
pistol is square steel tube. It only requires a drill, some taps, and some screws, and a file/hacksaw.
A: fireing pin striker

B: Boltface/weight
C: firing pin/return spring
D: recoil spring
E: barrel
F: trigger/sear/hammer/hammer spring
The other parts are self evident, this is just a diagram I leave finding the dementions to you.
ill add more of this in a minute but i got change batteries in this laptop, are sorry if the drawing is a bit big this damn fake
computer im useing wont let me change it.
Skean Dhu January 4th, 2004, 01:01 PM

an interesting read, although it is more for rifles, I'm sure its easily adaptable for handguns
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks6/rifle/index.html
I am in the process of building a small hobby foundry and i have been considering casting my own handgun blanks which
would make an improvised weapon such as this even more reliable

Jonesy, I will mail you the gun itself if you would like. I'm not paying shipping though. I dont want it anymore and I have lost
the spring that operates it. It is a bitch to operate and gives you one hell of a sore wrist but if you want it it's yours. I'll take
pics and post them using my friends computer but I'll have to get him a membership on the E&W forum so it'll take
sometime. You had alota spelling mistakes. Im a bad speller too so it's ok but I dont want to mail the gun out of the country
is why i mentioned that. You dont live down under do yeh mate? I'm in the states.
guerrero January 4th, 2004, 10:01 PM

Zaibatsu, of course you are right. The construction of the Astra is not adecuate for a cartridge like
.45 ACP or even mor powerful. The 9mm Para ist on the limit for this type of construction. But
whats the advantage of the .45 compared to the 9mm? The 9mm is verry powerful. The bullet energy of the .45 ACP is
nearly the same, it is more expensive, heavier and in most parts of the world mor dificult to get. Besides the capacity of
penetration of the 9mm is superior to the .45. For me, the most important aspects of a handgun are that it is reliable and
works well and the access of ammo. The energy is important but I think, that the energy of the 9mm is sufficient for defence.
Both handguns in 9mm with an unlocked system which I know, the Astra and the Heckler&Koch VZ70 work well. The only
disadvantage is the weigh t and the stron g spring, but for a real man with strong hands norm ally that is no problem. The
advantage would be the simplicity of construccion. T here exist another pistol model, the g erman S a u e r 1913 , which I have in
my collection. Its a pocket pistol cal .32 ACP with a simple design and a hammerless construction (SA). The slide consists of
a receifer tube and a simple breech block. I think, these three well working constructions (Astra, Sauer1913, VP70) contain a
lot of interesting elements for designing a nearly ideal improvised handgun.
john_smith January 5th, 2004, 09:12 AM

Also 9mm is usually the most easily available cartridge in countries that restrict ammo sales, because the army uses it. A
kewlish idea about construction: maybe a delayed blowback system like on Steyr GB could work? It looks like it could be made
from a couple of concentric pipes. Sealing it might be a bitch, though.

Just a thought does this gun have be semi-auto? A winchester lever type action is very easy to make, and has the added
feature of a breach that is locked shut while firing (good for silencing) it also can be fead shells from a clip or tube anywhere
round the barrel it could have a gravity mag like in the british bren gun or a side mag like in the sten. If you need to know
anything about a gun like this go to google and search under the smith&wesson "volocanic pistol" it was the first pistol ever to
have a caseless round it fired a lead mini-ball that had the powder and primer in the end of the case, it was similar in form to
the 'gyro-jet" round from the 1960's just a 130 year earlier. And that was your tales of the gun history lesson for class.

A-BOMB, even if it doesn't get used for this thread, I am still interested in your design and I'm sure that others would be too.
pest3125 January 15th, 2004, 03:47 PM

If the purpose of this pistol is to get a better firearm but we don't want a single-shot "Liberator"
style pistol, how about a 4-shot multibarrel derringer like the LM4 and LM5 "Semmerling" pistols?
The striker mechanism to fire each barrel in sequence is tricky, so maybe we can make it
a "manually operated" repeater" - the striker is in one position, so the 4 shot barrel block can be slided up, rotated and put
back in to fire the next shot.
There was a very small 2 shot derringer made by "Feather Industries" (now discontinued) that
worked this way - after firing one shot, you'd simply slide out the barrel block, flip it, and slide
it back to fire the next chamber. You can also buy a spare barrel block and preload it.
Narkar January 16th, 2004, 08:58 AM

If you want a reliable handgun you could try a revolver. Easyest to build should be something like Nagant(solid frame and
fixed), where the reloading was done one-by-one via a loading gate at the right side(could be a problem since its slow). Or the
break-open. Something like Enfield or Webley.
zaibatsu January 17th, 2004, 02:12 AM

Skean Dhu:
That book is available in the UK via a different retailer. I've been thinking of buying it, but not managed to get round to it yet.
Hopefully I'll soon own it.
guerrero:
I think the wound channel caused by the bullets is very important. Penetration is a relatively bad thing in this situation, as
we'd want all energy to be expended in the body, and any half decent vest will protect against 9mmP anyway, so it's not of a
great advantage in that respect either.
I have a book detailing some pocket pistols, I will look that one up. Check out the "little tom" pocket pistol for ultimate
simplicity in the trigger mech though.
john_smith:
That's not correct in all countries. Some forbid the use by civilians of the same ammunition as their army uses.
A-BOMB:
Have you seen the book by Walter Muller? That's got complete blueprints for a falling block rifle, but it seems quite complex
to make. It is very complete though. I believe semi-automatic to be important in this pistol, as if this was used in my
percieved situation (Urban operations) a follow up shot or two could be very useful. Plus, better to try and advance peoples
ideas a little. Naturally though I am interested in all firearm-related projects you do :)
Jack's Complete:
Skean Dhu was, I believe, talking about frame blanks, not cartridge cases. Rifling machines don't seem difficult to construct,
but the deep hole drilling bits do. I've got a booklet with some diagrams in, although no scanner at the moment. I've also
had a new, improved, idea for delayed blowback, which I will detail at the end of this reply.
pest3125:
The hardest part of this pistol I'm thinking of is the trigger mechanism, everything else is just tweaking. The firearm you
describe seems to have a complex trigger mechanism with little advantage.
Narkar:
Yes, a revolver may be stronger than a self-loading pistol, but it would be very difficult I think to make sure all the chambers
are alligned correctly with the barrel, and require more machining operations than a self-loading pistol.
All:
I've been working on a new idea for delayed blowback. I'm still messing with a 2D cad program so no diagrams at the
moment, but I'll explain the concept. The barrel of the pistol is fixed, threaded to a block which is pinned to the frame, with a
spring around the outside of the barrel. To visualise what the block would look like imagine a one piece scope mount. Now, in
the middle, or the gap between the two "rings" would be a metal sleeve, free to rotate but not move much forward and
backwards.
This sleeve is a piece of metal tubing with a helical cut in. This helical cut would be, say, 4mm wide which corresponds to a
threaded pin in the slide. When the primer is struck, and the bullet accelerating, the slide starts to move back, and the
threaded pin must rotate the sleeve round till it is at the end, at which point it can move off the sleeve and recoil fully. At the
end of it's travel, the spring around the barrel brings it back forwards, and the whole thing is ready to go again.
The reason I devised this method is that it seems fairly simple to make, reduces the height of the slide from the fram due to
no extra space free for a dropping barrel. Also, a fixed barrel contributes to accuracy and easier stripping. I am also designing
a new upper to fit to it, so it can function like a compact, closed bolt machine pistol. The new upper will bolt onto the frame,
incorporate and internal overhung bolt, and use the existing magazine feed and hammer. Ideally it would use the same
frames as the pistols, but I'm not sure that's possible with the hammer mechanism, but they should be extremely similar.
So, more feedback appreciated.
bigshoe January 19th, 2004, 09:17 PM

Hey why not just go down to the shops get a meat pie and one of those shitty little chinese cap gun revolers?
Then go home take it apart and work out how big you want it and make a formula for blowing up the parts (into a blue print
off course) then as you lay the parts out on the table and finish your meat pie. Think about what types of mateiral you whould
replace everthing with.
In this type of gun we would see no mags and none of this extraction crap. The only problem that I can think of is that the
barrel lining up with the bullets would have to be dead on.
Remember that revolers came out long before the other hand guns.

bigshoe, I can tell you have no idea wtf you are talking about. A semi automatic pistol is much easier for the home builder to
construct than a revolver.
Why bother getting revolver blueprints from a shitty cap gun when there are plenty of already drawn up semi auto blueprints
available free on the internet?
Read Home Workshop volume 2 to see just how easy a semi auto can be to construct, and this thread is all about making it
even easier.
bigshoe January 22nd, 2004, 06:40 AM

I see that you have no idea what your on about. First rule in engineering, keep it simple. Know why the hell would you make a
semi-auto like a redneck that has all the abbilty to rattle appart in your dumbass hand and blow your fingers off. Getting you
in time for the six o'clock news looking like a retard?
If you all think that just because you have your blueprints that it will make it go smoother then you got real problems. Even an
idot has more of a chance recognising that somthing with more parts is gonna go up shit creek faster.
Let me ask how many of you have a metal lathe, a mill, a drill press and a oxy-torch. I reckon about three, but hold on you
can get your hands on them in a friends work shop? well thats ok but there is alot more chance or you getting caught making
16 parts instead of 5 (keeping in mind that you will screw most of the complex parts up more than once).
Aslo xyz let me ask you this, you got a engineering certifcate sunshine? Well I can tell you that I do and learning crap from a
book isn't skill.
So maybe you could consider not asking me like some little smart arse if i have any idea, you have no clue.
Sorry if i spelt any thing wrong guys but I dont sit inside on the computer all day like a nerd. Unlike the rest of you I'm no
fence sitter.
Rhadon January 22nd, 2004, 08:42 AM

Bye bye...
smokepole January 22nd, 2004, 02:48 PM

XYZ
You said to read Home Workshop volume 2 to see just how easy a semi auto can be to construct. Where can I find a copy to
download. I have been looking a enlarging some pinfire guns (like the Kolibri 2.7 mm to .22)

There is a copy on the FTP, I don't know of any other places you can download it from.
It is basically a design for a simple semi auto pistol that has interchangeable barrels and magazines so that it will fire .22LR,
.32ACP, and .380ACP. It also has information about a single shot design for handling more powerful cartridges.
Bigfoot January 22nd, 2004, 11:10 PM

For those looking for a "quickie" improv pistol, and don't mind single shot, PMJB Vol 2, p.67 has a brief article on using a 25/
26.5mm flare pistol as a foundation. SWIM that I met made one/showed it to me, test fired it with a .22 rimfire cart. She used
a British flare pistol, a 26.5mm to 12 ga adapter from Orion Signal, and a .12 ga to .22 adapter from http://www.mcace.com.
Not bad little shooter, and just like the PMJB article said, contact silencer.
guerrero January 22nd, 2004, 11:29 PM

Zaibatsu, I hope youll excuse me, but again I have to defend my favorite handgun cartridge 9 mm Parabellum. Of course,
the normal FMJ bullet does not penetrate modern safty vests and although its stoppingpower isnt very high. But with a
hollowpoint bullet its stoppingpower is very high and there are although penetrator bullets. The french THV e. g. is very
effective in both aspects (at short distance): It is an extreme manstopper and penetrates most types of safty vests. I dont
know why they stopped the production. If you want a handgun cartridge which is very effective in both aspects and as well for
distances of more than 50 yds, I know only one: The 4,6mm For the PDW of Heckler&Koch. Its the very best choice within a
high penetration capacity and stopping power up to 200 yds. and a very low recoil. Its only disadvantage is, that for civilans in
the most parts I know it is almost impossible to get it because it is relatively new and till now dont exist any civil handgun in
this cal. (as I know). Therefor I think The 9 mm Para is still the best choice because of its ballistic capacity and accesibility.
FragmentedSanity January 23rd, 2004, 07:19 AM

There is an active thread atm called Weapon Plans. In this thread is a post by a member called Garbage - which links to a web
page with a couple of downloads - those being the .22 machine pistol and the two pistols out of Homeworkshop 2 - the zips
arent the best but they are available without FTP access.
I could post a direct link - but If you cant find it yourself with those instructions then you dont deserve the files or more likley
couldnt read them anyway.
zaibatsu January 23rd, 2004, 09:39 AM

bigshoe:
I have a Saxby and Palmer air cartridge revolver which I could dissemble to get some dimensions. They are (in contrast to
Brocock revolvers) very sturdily built, having been built upon similar tooling to real revolvers. Unfortunately they are no longer
in production and now being outlawed by the government. I do understand the benefits of a revolver, but I don't think they
are the most appropriate for home manufacture.
The chamber of a self-loading pistol can be accurately centered using a lathe, whereas the line up on revolvers, while possible,
is more troublesome, and an off-center hole could be disasterous. The high capacity of most modern semi-automatics is not
necessary for police, but I feel it would be for people operating outside the law, if only to provide covering fire while attempting
to escape.
Guerrero:
Of course I welcome and anticipate your views, as you understand what you are talking about. I've seen pictures and reports
on the french THV, it is very interesting, although I'm not looking for a long range pistol cartridge. I'm not looking to make
this pistol into a PDW, as the old saying goes " A jack of all trades, a master of none". However, if we remove ourselves from
the debate on the 9mm P, you will appreciate I hope that it is far better to have a system capable of handling higher powered
cartridges.
In my mind, I see the dual armament of a semi/full automatic carbine handling large calibre pistol cartridges and a handgun.
The extended tube of a carbine would really boost the velocity of the cartridges, and the handgun would not need to be too
long range. The carbine would employ a type of dealyed blowback I'm thinking about currently, similar to the useless Blish
lock on the Thompson smg, but hopefully a little more effective.
As to the .45ACP or other larger calibre pistol cartridges, I think it is a lot more damaging to the person it hits, and has a
higher chance of breaking bones through a ballistic vest than the 9mm P. 9mm P cartridges that have a hot loading do
expand quite well, but I think the same is true of the .45ACP. Also, the type of recoil system I am talking about would allow
the pistol to be made in a much more compact form without having it extremely heavy. Also, realise that while the 9mm P is a
better choice for calibre because lots of military units use it, but while you may be able to aquire military surplus rounds, they
will be FMJ and therefore not very effective.

The 9mm is IMO a much better choice than the .45 for many reasons. First, it allows more rounds in a smaller magazine.
Second, it gives better penitration through barriers and flesh, not to mention it will punch through a steel helment at 4 times
the distance of a .45. It has less recoil, less noise, and less muzzle flash so you can operate it easier, and not deafen and
blind yourself while shooting at night. Its is also nearly twice as light, so you can carry more ammo.
Bigfoot February 3rd, 2004, 03:46 PM

For the record, and any firearm neophytes who bother to read:
It is true that the revolver predates the autoloader. But the concept took several years of R&D to become functional. The
reason the wheelgun had to come before the autoloader is simple: ammunition. The ammunition at the time was loose-
component: percussion cap, powder, and ball. An autoloader that could handle that would be impossibly complex. But the
revolver is essentially a multiple-chamber firearm, whose chambers are loaded in advance. Hence, when cartridge ammo was
introduced, adapting the revolver to use it was fairly simple. The development of an autoloader was dependent upon reliable
cartridge ammunition, using clean-burning powders.
Note: clean is a relative term.
Part of the initial slowness to adopt the autoloading pistol was due to the need for much TLC to maintain reliable function,
especially with propellants available during 1H 20th Century.
Sam Colt today would favor the autoloader for its simplicity of design and manufacture, and reliability. After all, he designed
the revolver for antipersonnel use.
So everybody cut it with the suggestions for a homebrew revolver already!
I assume it's pretty obvious why we're not discussing pump, lever, or bolt-action repeating pistols. Although the lever could be
a viable pistol option, if designed for use in Governor Schwartzenegger style (T2).

Bigfoot,
What you say about the history is true, however, for personal defence, I would always choose a revolver as my back-up gun. I
would have a revolver as the backup gun to my semi-auto pistol.
The semi is great for high capacity and faster shooting, but the odds of a revolver failing, even after much abuse, is far lower.
After all, semi jam, rounds fail to go off, etc. With a semi it is two hands to fix, and precious time. A revolver lets you thumb
the hammer (or just pull the trigger) and try again. And again. And so on. The semi leaves you looking like a right noddy for
your last few seconds on earth. The revolver gives you something to talk about later ("Sodding cheap ammo went click!")
Swerving dangerously back to the topic now...
I thnk arguements over the calibre are silly, since the design will be for a semi-auto centerfire pistol - makers will choose
whatever ammo they have access to, be it 9mm, .45, .357 or .44, or even odd stuff like downloaded .223 or 6mm pinfire!
What we need to do is come up with a good enough design that it can handle whatever is asked of it. Perhaps the only thing
to settle is the "rimmed vs. rimless" debate, since extraction is different on the two types.
Normally rimless cases, like .45 and 9mm are used for semi-autos, but I don't have any access to them, so the design would
be far better being something like .38, a great revolver cartridge, but rare in semis due to stacking and feed problems due to
the rim.
What we should work on is the system spec, not the detail!
We need to quote on what capacity of mag., what style of mag, size, barrel length, action type, and design it from there.
I vote for a fairly short action, suitable for rimmed ammo, (.38) in a 1.5 stack, holding about 10 rounds, barrel about 4.5" and
locked to the frame (not moving under recoil) with integral muzzle brake and hopefully some kind of delayed blowback.
Do we want it to be a standard-ish design, or do we want it to be something radical, like ultra-high cap mag., front grips,
empty case storage?
I like the idea of all three of those, in quite a radical design.
We could design it to be caseless, or semi-caseless, but I doubt it would be expediant.
Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Jacks Complete:
While I admire your wish to get the topic back on track, calibre does have implications - higher powered cartridges change the
type of action we could use. The lower power the cartridge, the simpler it'll be to build.
Also, having a revolver as a backup to semi-auto seems a little daft. The trend in law enforcement is to to use smaller models
of the same semi-auto handgun. Think about - same controls, can use the same mags, some similar internal parts. I guess
it's all about interchangibility.
But, that aside, I admire your attempt so I'll join in!
Calibre: .45acp, or 9mm P
Magazine: single stack
Size: big
Barrel: 5"
Delayed blowback through the sytem I previously mentioned.
Reasons for my choices:
Calibre: Only real choices for calibre in an handgun which intends to be reasonably powerful. Rimmed cartridges weren't
designed for self-loaders, learn from that. If you are in the UK, and have access to .38, then you've got access to rimless
cartridges.
Magazine: increases reliability, which is nice to have in an improvised weapon.
Size: Having it larger means less risk, as it will generally be stronger. Also, it's a lot easier to make.
I'll be interested to hear what other people think.
Jacks Complete February 22nd, 2004, 09:59 PM

Hope you don't mind this style of reply.
Jacks Complete:
While I admire your wish to get the topic back on track, calibre does have implications - higher powered cartridges change the
type of action we could use. The lower power the cartridge, the simpler it'll be to build.
I realise that, but the difference in power between 9mm and .45 isn't enough that radically different designs will be needed.
Also, having a revolver as a backup to semi-auto seems a little daft. <snip>I guess it's all about interchangibility.
I would go for a seriously big revolver for my back-up gun, if I were in a position to do so. Purely personal preference. :) .457
Casull or some other "wrist breaker". If I ran out of 9mm and/or the guy was wearing some kind of armour suit, I might just
need it, as either we wouldn't be in Kansas any more, or my other gun broke. Of course, I would also choose when to use it,
as it is a fully functional cannon on it's own, and then, of course, the semi is the back-up gun.
But, that aside, I admire your attempt so I'll join in!
Calibre: .45acp, or 9mm P

Only real choices for calibre in an handgun which intends to be reasonably powerful. Rimmed cartridges weren't designed for
self-loaders, learn from that. If you are in the UK, and have access to .38, then you've got access to rimless cartridges.
Agreed. Not so sure about availability of ammo, but YMMV to mine. As a choice of the two, I would go for .45 ACP. More
intimidating to look at a .45" hole, and the pressures are lower, plus the round is subsonic, and so can be fitted with a
silencer, which is important for practise, etc. when the sentence is 5 to 10 years for simple possession! (.45 is 11.48mm)
Magazine: single stack

increases reliability, which is nice to have in an improvised weapon.
I agree regarding the reliability, but I think that 1.5x stack should be quite possible. Some reading and experimenting may
be required.
Size: big
Having it larger means less risk, as it will generally be stronger. Also, it's a lot easier to make.
Agreed. Obviously too big would be clumsy and obvious, but again, it is more intimidating.
Barrel: 5"
Delayed blowback through the sytem I previously mentioned.
A 5 inch/127mm barrel will be quite tricky! That extra half an inch means that drill bits are suddenly harder to get hold of. It
will be good for accuracy, power and pointability, though.
Delayed blowback, for reasons as above - Agreed.
Ok, so, how do we go about making the important parts?
http://custom1.farnell.com/cpc/product.asp?
catalog%5Fname=CPC+Catalogue&category%5Fname=Tools+and+Maintenance+%2D+Tools+%2
D+Hand+Tools+%2D+HSS+Drill+Sets&product%5Fid=274284
is a nice drill set in Cobalt Steel, which includes both 9mm and 11.5mm bits. I haven't found anywhere that sells 11.5mm long
or extra long bits, and the 9mm only comes in long. Sadly, the CPC/Farnell site fails to mention the (second) most important
bit, which is how long the bits are!
AmmoGuide tells us the bullet for .45 is actually 11.48mm, and the case is tapered from 12.01 to 12.09mm, and 22.86mm
(.9") long. Hence we need a drill bit that is 4.1" (104mm) long and 11.5mm dia. if we can drill from both ends. From the other
end we can drill with a 12mm bit, and only drill down 0.9", and it should be fine.
Anyone want to work out barrel wall thicknesses, etc.? I am going to bed...
zaibatsu February 22nd, 2004, 11:27 PM

That style of reply is good, it makes it easier for me!
Point 1: Difference between 9mm P/.45ACP not enough to change design
I don't agree. As posted before, 9mm P handguns have been made with blowback, just with a big spring. I don't think .45ACP
could do that, but as we're both in agreement on delayed blowback, it's a moot point.
Point 2: Big revolver as backup
Well, at what point does a back-up gun become a main pistol? I assumed it was believed that a back-up pistol shouldn't be
bigger than the original handgun, but the definition of back-up includes it I suppose. But I know this, if we both ran at each
other, got within 10m and found our rifles were empty, I'd rather pull out a double-action glock 33 than have to swing a heavy
single-action revolver onto target.
The fact that you need a back-up pistol in an urban situation (which is most likely) tells you trouble is close and fast. You
need to shoot quickly, and come back on target quickly. If the guys wearing a vest, I'll shoot for the head, or mix my ammo
with some AP rounds. Moot point again though, as this isn't being designed to be a back-up pistol, although I believe my
design allows this.
Points 3: Availability of ammunition
I'm sure you can have access to pistol ammunition within a couple of days. Don't forget all components of a pistol round are
available legally and without the need for a licence, it's just putting it together that causes trouble... We can't buy any
ammunion designed to expand in the UK though, which makes me wonder about swaging weaknesses into a FMJ.
Point 4: Diff calibres
The pressures are lower in a .45ACP, but a .45ACP will give the frame a bigger hammering than the 9, which means you have
to have to be more careful with the manufacturing. The easiest way for most people to get ammunition is through reloading
supplies, so the people could load up subsonic ammuniton. Although a silencer would be most useful for practising, but
wouldn't replicate completely the handling of the pistol, although it would be nice to just have the pistol :(
Point 5: "Double" stack mag
My reservations on this are for a couple of reasons. The first is that I expect it would be more complex to manufacture, and
would take a bit of experimenting. Not out of our league of course. But the second is something I read in a Bill Holmes book,
that I'd never considered before. What happens if you drop a pistol with a double stack mag and the bullets rearrange
themselves in the mag?
Point 6: Barrel length
A 5" barrel will come from a much longer barrel chopped down, allowing one place to manufacture barrels in quantities
sufficient to supply a couple of workshops finishing the pistol. The barrel will be bored with a deep hole drilling attachment on
a lathe. All the parts for the deep hole drilling attachment can be made on the lathe, and possibly a bit of milling.
Now, about making the pistol. As stated at the beginning, zip guns are fine, but they are not this. But the different parts of the
pistol are coming into my head like this:
Slide - pressed steel, with the internals made of steel attached through something like threaded bolts.
Frame - Made from laminated steel sheets cut to correspond to part placement, could be constructed in many places through
the use of templates pasted on and roughly cut to shape, and then taken to spec with a file. If found who would think they
were for a real firearms - "Just making some toy guns officer"
Magazine - pressed steel
Barrel - As previously mentioned.
Internal parts - I dunno, the most difficult bits will be in the trigger mech, everything else can be made by hand or through the
use of a mill and lathe.
I don't know about barrel thickness, but something like 4mm should be fine for 9mm I think, depending of the quality of the
steel.
There's my next installment :)
JoeJablomy February 23rd, 2004, 11:52 AM

Zaibatsu: a few concerns
Barrel: Why deep-hole drill a long barrel blank just to cut it down? Deep hole drilling is very specialized, and making a deep-
hole drilling rig to do a 30" barrel would seriously increase your capital costs over one for 4" or 6" barrels. Doing the barrels
individually would increase the number of operations, but would also reduce the amount of effort to drill each inch of bore and
reduce the number of screwups.
Frame: The laminated sheet metal thing probably works a lot better if you have a giant sheet metal press. Also if you have
craploads of sheet and plate around. Cutting all the plies by hand would be nearly impossible unless you can drill them in jigs
early on and rivet them together before finishing them with a big f*cking grinder. Even so, shear strength between the plies
would of course be no more than that of the rivets, i.e. much less than solid metal, and structural sections would probably
have to be very thick or have very complicated, hard to produce shapes, so the product might weigh a lot.
I would reccommend that parts like the grip frame and such be machined from chunks of aluminum (much like that guy did
with the AR-15 receiver), and the frame rails milled from steel bar or pressed and ground to shape. A lot of the contouring and
such on the aluminum could probably be done by hand, perhaps by the end user.
I'm kind of attracted to the idea of pressing metal with a hydraulic jack or the equivalent, but I'm still pretty worried about the
dies you'd have to make. How many gun parts are machined and how many are more economical to press depends on how
many guns a given person wants to produce, so for personal use a single gun should be all-machined, since the dies would be
useless evidence after one use.
Slide: How do you plan to make this from pressings? I don't think anyone else has ever done it, although I could imagine
using tube stock.
Operating principle: I really like your idea, but I'm afraid the sleeve would have to be made very thick around the barrel
because of the groove in it. If the groove cuts all the way through, the sleeve might not be strong enough to stand up to
recoil; if it doesn't, the sleeve will probably be at least 4-5mm thick on top of the barrel breach, meaning you have a pretty
big gun.
Also, have you heard of some of the newer makarovs where they cut threads inside the chamber to grip the casing while it's
under pressure? It's a very crude idea, but very simple.
zaibatsu February 23rd, 2004, 12:33 PM

JoeJablomy:
Firstly, the pressed slide. Sig do it, I believe either walther or mauser started doing it around the 1950s. If you think about it,
it is just a metal channel, with the differences being metal blocks than you can attach to the slide. I should think a 4mm slide
should be sufficient, although experimentation would be necessary.
Secondly, the deep-hole drilliing. I'll discuss that a bit more once I finish something I'm doing, that should reveal a bit more
on the process.
Thirdly the frame. That's just my idea of how to speed stuff up, and not have to do a lot of internal milling. I think it'd only
have to be made from 4 or 5 plies of relatively thick metal, and I think if you use steel, it shouldn't be significantly thicker
than a commercial design, and if aluminium frames can handle the wear and tear, I should think a laminated steel frame can
do the same.
Fourth, the delayed recoil idea. I don't think it will make the pistol too big, at least not from the plans I've drawn. Don't forget
that the barrel itself won't move, so unlike a conventional browning system you don't need to allow space in the frame for it to
drop. What size walls do you think the barrel should have around the breech area?
Fifth, the amount of dies needed. Yes, there may be a lot, but what I was thinking was to find ways of producing fairly similar
pistols in a semi-mass production. If people have access to better tools then that's fine, but I'm trying to find the most simple
ways of doing things.
Great to hear more input into this.
NickSG February 23rd, 2004, 02:31 PM

A double stack magazines reliability would be questionable, but a 1.5 stack magazine would be much more reliable like
mentioned above.
With a 1.5 stack magazine, the inside diameter of the magazine is 1.5 times that of the bullet. This allows the bullets to rest
on eachother, but not beside eachother. Feed lips can be made for the magazine which also increase reliability (take a look at
Glocks magazines).
Jacks Complete February 23rd, 2004, 07:41 PM

Point 2: Big revolver as backup In certain situations, I would use it as the primary, as it wouldn't leave a shell casing behind!
Also, for intimidation, you have the step of cocking the hammer, which, like the slide on a pump gun, must surely be a pants-
wetting experiance when aimed at you...
A double stack magazines reliability would be questionable, but a 1.5 stack magazine would be much more reliable like
mentioned above.
Agreed. It also increases the ammo capacity, which is good. Most modern after-market mags are 1.5 stack, from what I have
seen.
Secondly, the deep-hole drilliing. I'll discuss that a bit more once I finish something I'm doing, that should reveal a bit more
on the process.
If it is a way to make deep barrels without the need for a lathe, excellent. I have a well-stocked toolshed, but no lathe, and
no milling machine. Having said that, I think I would make a 5" barrel regardless. Why waste barstock? Another option might
be for a longer thicker bar, and to turn it so that there is an internal cavity, then turn down the outside, forming an integral
silencer. Obviously this could only work with some way to bore a very long hole! (and centrally, at that) It would be kind of like:
==============
=======\ |
\______|
so that the supressor was actually built in, perhaps in a triangular shape, or perhaps in the form of a long hole off-center, then
a much larger hole centered on the bar, then the rest of the bar either turned or cut away.
As regards the pressing of stuff, I have bought a 4 ton hydraulic jack, and am looking at turning it into a barrel sleeving
machine, or some kind of press. In another thread I posted the link, MachineMart, and they sell up to 20 ton off the shelf. Of
course, pressing is a bit tricky, so multiple tries will be needed, and making the forms will also be tricky, as it will require either
milling or grinding the steel forms.
Without messing about with a press, you can fold and bend up to about 2mm steel with a hammer and a good bench vise. It
would be a bit slower, but for a single operation you wouldn't require so many tries, and you would soon get good at it. A
simple tap and die set will let you then use threaded rod to hold the thing together nicely. Another way would be to do as Luty
did, and use preformed steel tube, and cut or grind it.
Personally, I would stay away from building forms and pressing. It may be that several other ways to achieve our aim are
possible.
As for building a form or body out of laminated steel, I think that would be more complex than most ways. It would take a lot
of work to get them arranged correctly - It would probably be as easy to do the tap and drill thing. Also, there is little that
would need a laminated approach, and it is used commercially mostly for the money saving. I would prefer to work on a solid
block, and use a Dremel or other grinder to remove the metal that way, as I would likely be using a Dremel tool to cut each
layer of the lamination anyway. An alternative might be to cast it out of brass, which would be plenty strong and heavy
enough.
NickSG, the idea of cutting grooves into the chamber to delay cycling may sound good, but I think it will wreck the brass, and
cause a whole lot of grief with the action, as it snags. Also, forensics would match you to it far more certainly with chamber
grooves. (There is a company in the states that now offers micro-machining of ID numbers into the chamber, stamping every
case on firing!)

The feed lips are on the magazine, not inside the gun. They act as a kind of "funnel, so that only one round is fed at a time.
As for the wheelguns, I occasionally carry a .44 magnum (S&W 629 6 1/2 inch barrel). Thats what i call intimidating! :) 300
grains of lead traveling 1175 FPS will take care of anything (its also a great hunting round).
Jumala February 23rd, 2004, 08:54 PM

Does anyone really want to make own barrels? I doubt that someone can make a useful barrel, rifled, polished and with the
nessesary precision at home. The material for nitro barrels is a very hard stuff, too hard for many standart tools.
Ive tryed to make a little blackpowder barrel a lot of years ago.
I used a lathe to drill and ream it. The result was bad. The inner surface was very rough.
Now I buy my BP barrels I need here
http://www.lothar-walther.de/
They have really all kinds and calibers. The only annoying is the price.

The barrel doesnt have to be rifled but it helps. With a smooth bore you should still be able to get reasonable accuracy out to
about 25 yards, that is, if there is a tight fit.

It's 5:30am, I've just got in, and my hangover has already started, so please bear with me if my replies are a little lacking.
NickSG:
What Holmes described was the gun being dropped, the spring compressing itself, and the rounds rearranging themselves in a
pattern that doesn't feed. To me it seems feasible, although whether the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, I don't
know.
Jack's Complete:
You can rifle barrels without requiring a lathe or milling machine, but to make the rifling machine you need a lathe/mill... catch
22 but I'm afraid there isn't much other way to go, if you want an accurate barrel. I've got some info at the moment to make
a hydraulic rifling machine, but I want it to be complete before I post it.
I'm not an engineer, but I wouldn't like to make the type of barrel/supressor combo you're talking about. It's a little pointless,
and would require more operations. A simple supressor should be a quick task for someone with a lathe, or even with just
some tools.
I think you could cast the fram from aluminium, but you can't ensure there are no voids in your casting. Brass seems a bit of
a strange choice for a frame, that gun is going to be *heavy*.
Jumala:
If walther would export to the UK, I'd be very happy. Unfortunately they don't, even though unchambered barrel blanks aren't
restricted in the UK.
NickSG:
The riflings the relatively easy bit. Getting the barrel to the required diameter and relatively smooth is what causes problems.
Jumala February 24th, 2004, 01:49 AM

Yes, smooth bore barrels can give good results. I have a .75 flint lock musket. With a well patched and greased round ball I
can hit small targets at 100m distance.
In modern weapons the bullet will be pressed through the barrel. If the inner surface (rifled or not) is rough a lot of copper
from the jacket or lead settles in the barrel. It becomes harder and harder to press a bullet through it.
I bought once a .31 blackpowder barrel from walther. A 50cm long piece costs approx. 40$. The inner surface looks like a
mirror.
Edit:
Walthers homepage supports several languages. No need for that if they sell only in germany. I think there is a distributor or
something else in UK.
Here is an overview in english
http://www.lothar-walther.de/english/indexaz.htm

All I know is that I emailed Walther asking for air rifle barrel blanks, and they asked for a firearms licence, perhaps it's
possible they didn't understand me, although the quality of the english in the reply was good.
MP5Guy February 25th, 2004, 04:44 AM

http://www.ershawbarrels.com/
MP

Comments:
http://www.border-barrels.com/
Based on the England-Scotland border these guys have a crap website with great content. The articles on barrel making I have
already saved out - lots of interesting history and technique. They use both cut rifling and button rifling. Stellar reputation,
very very good barrels.
http://www.lothar-walther.de/english/info.htm
Better designed website, some dodgy English, based in Germany. Use button rifling. Little technical detail.
http://www.ershawbarrels.com/
Slightly heavy website, but useless for content. Based in the USA. By far the cheapest of the three.No Technical details that I
could find.
JoeJablomy February 26th, 2004, 10:21 AM

zaibatsu: I tried to post this yesterday, after a few days away from the forum, but my internet connection was out and the
fucking forum software is really good at losing information entrusted to it. So I'm probably forgetting something.
1. My specific worry about the 'delay collar' or whatever we'll call it is that it will rupture under the stress of firing unless it is
built Really thick, in which case the pistol could easily be 1.3-1.5" wide or more. Maybe that isn't unusual, but I thought I'd
mention it.
2. The equation for wall thickness of a tube under internal pressure is something like
t= 2rp/S
where
t=wall thickness
r=bore radius
p=max operating pressure
S=tensile strength of the steel you use
2=safety factor
Note that this is reconstituted from old, old memory, and so may be shit. It is similar to a rocket casing equation I just looked
at, though.
3. I still think aluminum is a better choice for the frame because it's lighter and easier to shape, and could be made stronger.
If you cut matching grooves and ridges into the mating surfaces of the parts and epoxied as well as screwed them together, it
would almost certainly be stronger than laminated steel. The steel would still be too thin for stuff like this. An alternative would
be to press the grip, which has the most difficult contours, as two halves and weld them together.

JoeJablomy:
Delay collar - perfect term for it I think. I've been doing some thinking about this and one potential problem I see, although I
still think it's ok, would occur if the chamber walls are too thin, or a very high power cartridge was used in the pistol. This could
cause the chamber walls to bulge, and stop the delay collar from rotating. This would at best jam the pistol, at worst force the
corresponding pin to snap, releasing the slide too early and damaging the frame. I don't think the slide would fracture and fly
off, so the danger would be limited, but something I think needs to be considered.
Anyway, onto your points.
1) Delay collar rupturing: the delay collar isn't intended to hold pressure, the chamber section should be sufficiently sized to
hold the pressure. I don't think it should make the pistol too large, because if you look at a breakdown of a standard pistol,
the chamber area isn't much wider than the rest of the barrel. From that I'm guessing that the walls can't be too much thicker
than the rest of the barrel, so additional dimensions would only increase overall width of the pistol by 8mm, assuming the
sides of the slide touch the barrel, which they don't. This leads me to think that the delay collar won't increase the size of the
pistol much.
3) Fine, that's still a valid method of manufacturing. I was hoping to find an easier method, but if that's necessary, then that's
what we'd have to do. There would still be ways to speed up the manufacturing process, for example making the frame
modular like a STI frame.
Everyone else:
Check out the books I'm listing in literature and links, SWIM has got some useful books on barrel manufacture, with a book
on a hydraulic rifling machine to follow.
guerrero February 29th, 2004, 06:32 PM

Has anybody experiences with the accuracy of pistol bullets in smooth barrels? I know that, acording to my experiences, a
"Brennecke" gives good results from my shotgun up to 100 yds. Although I think that the design of the Brennecke is created
especially for shotguns and a FMJ- or Lead-bullet with round neck is not the same thing. Maybe a wadcutter could be relatively
accurate in a smooth barrel. For a handgun acceptable accuracy up to 25 yds is enough, bat what about a submaginegun? I
think acurracy up to at least 50 yds or better 100 yds is required. Is that possible with a smooth barrel?

I get fairly tight groups with a smoothbore 12 guage shotgun out to about 50 yards (with 1 ounce slugs). Ive heard of hunters
getting perfect heart shots on whitetail out to 150 yards though.
MP5Guy March 1st, 2004, 01:39 AM

JoeJablomy:
Anyway, onto your points.
1) Delay collar rupturing: the delay collar isn't intended to hold pressure, the chamber section should be sufficiently sized to
hold the pressure. I don't think it should make the pistol too large, because if you look at a breakdown of a standard pistol,
the chamber area isn't much wider than the rest of the barrel. From that I'm guessing that the walls can't be too much thicker
than the rest of the barrel, so additional dimensions would only increase overall width of the pistol by 8mm, assuming the
sides of the slide touch the barrel, which they don't. This leads me to think that the delay collar won't increase the size of the
pistol much.
3) Fine, that's still a valid method of manufacturing. I was hoping to find an easier method, but if that's necessary, then that's
what we'd have to do. There would still be ways to speed up the manufacturing process, for example making the frame
modular like a STI frame.
Everyone else:
Check out the books I'm listing in literature and links, SWIM has got some useful books on barrel manufacture, with a book
on a hydraulic rifling machine to follow.
Note the Ball Detent which engages a corresponding notch made in the bolt of a converted Ruger 10/22 Full Auto Select Fire.
This is done to stop Bolt Bounce in conjuntion with a Free Moving Weight which is machined in to the bolt itself. The amount of
detent pressure is controled via a tunable spring which loads the detent from below. Ajustment is made with a allen wrench.
Just thought this might be an easier avenue to what you are trying to achieve.
MP
Jacks Complete March 1st, 2004, 09:18 PM

zaibatsu,
The "heat" of a set of cartridges is one problem that is really hard to fix in your hardware design, regardless. A low powered
cartridge will not cycle the action, and a really hot one will destroy it, as the slide slams back and breaks off or rides over the
back, often shattering the slide and/or really messing you up. This, however, needs to be addressed in the reloading stage,
not in the hardware design.
I agree that if the design uses the power (case expansion or whatever) to hold the collar until a certain point, a marginal
round that fails to make that collar engage fully may shoot you in the head with your own slide! The recoil buffer/spring must
be capable enough without the collars assistance. This must be in the hardware design!
guerrero,
I have experiance with smoothbore muskets and pistols. Generally, the most noticable thing about the accuracy is how hard
you have to work to get it! Don't forget that the shotgun your slugs come out of has a barrel at least 2 feet long, and a
shoulder stock, whereas this pistol will have a quarter of that barrel, at the absolute maximum.
NickSG,
never forget, I can tell you some "miracle" shots I have had, but over the course of the years, you will get some. I once shot a
comp at 800 yards, with a total group vertical dispersion of less than 1/4 minute of angle. I put all the shots into the top of
the five ring, scoring 48.2. That really shouldn't have been possible with my old rifle, and I did it under competition rules at a
major event. Want to buy my rifle?
Of course, I don't tell stories of the times I have trouble holding the black, and I am sure that it isn't me... Nor do those
hunters.
Brenecks are only good to 80 yards for most guns. Old patched muskets can be good to 500+!
Anyway, rifling is something you really want, and you should only go smoothbore if you have no other choice.
zaibatsu March 2nd, 2004, 12:53 PM

I hate to keep going over my idea, I think it may bore people, but I don't think you understand it. The delay collar doesn't
expand and stop the slide recoiling, it just slows down the slide movement by making it move over a "longer" path. By forcing
the peg in the slide which corresponds to the groove in the delay collar to move along the helical path, it has to travel straight,
but to do this the collar has to rotate, so that the peg always moves straight. Not quite sure if this explains it a little better.
Jacks Complete March 3rd, 2004, 04:13 PM

All:
I've been working on a new idea for delayed blowback. I'm still messing with a 2D cad program so no diagrams at the
moment, but I'll explain the concept. The barrel of the pistol is fixed, threaded to a block which is pinned to the frame, with a
spring around the outside of the barrel. To visualise what the block would look like imagine a one piece scope mount. Now, in
the middle, or the gap between the two "rings" would be a metal sleeve, free to rotate but not move much forward and
backwards.
This sleeve is a piece of metal tubing with a helical cut in. This helical cut would be, say, 4mm wide which corresponds to a
threaded pin in the slide. When the primer is struck, and the bullet accelerating, the slide starts to move back, and the
threaded pin must rotate the sleeve round till it is at the end, at which point it can move off the sleeve and recoil fully. At the
end of it's travel, the spring around the barrel brings it back forwards, and the whole thing is ready to go again. Ok, I think I
get it now. I read back over the above, and the rest of the thread again.
The collar has a fairly tight twist on it, so that the locking lugs/pins (or whatever) have to turn it a bit before they unlock,
hence delaying the slides blowback for a fraction of a second? Is that what you are saying? In which case, if the pins shear or
ride out/over the collar, the energy that would normally be used to turn it would need to be dealt with by the recoil spring.
The collar rotates- In which case, what does the collar hold on to? Is it just round the barrel? If so, two pins would be better, to
help balance the torque. Is the collar spring loaded? or is it heavy? Also, binding may be a problem when it gets driven into
the rear stop.
It is a good idea, as it moves the recoil gear forwards, which will make it nose heavy, which will counter muzzle rise. I might
have to see a drawing before I am totally convinced, though I can see what you are getting at.
Dave the Rave March 3rd, 2004, 05:42 PM

On the rotating collar idea, what about one fixed upper receiver and an fixed barrel, and heli grooves on the bolt ? Maybe one
bold made of two pieces, one fixed and one mobile, with the grooves.
When the recoill initiates, the bolt moves rearwards and its mobile part is forced to rotate by pins on the upper receiver. The
fixed part of the bolt holds two pararell guiding rods, with the springs. As the weight of the recoill is held by two springs, the
springs can be smaller and the system is safer.
Part of the force of the recoil is used to rotate the bolt, and then, when the pressure is falls to safer levels, the rotational
movement stops and the final recoil works as regular, on an linear path.
The construction of an 2 pieces bolt can be easily done, and the fixed upper can be like the mauser shnellfeuer pistol.
Indeed, I think that all the design can be used, as it simplifies the hammer / trigger design, taking out the transmission bar,
and making easy the double system, also it puts the magazine in fron of the trigger, which will stabilize the weapon, making it
more precise, opening the space to put two springs instead of one.
What do you think ?
zaibatsu March 3rd, 2004, 09:24 PM

Jacks Complete:
I'm working on a simple paint diagram for you. Till then, think of it like this. The barrel is threaded at the breech end, and
threads into something shaped like a U, open topped, with the sleeve placed in the top of the U, and the barrel then threaded
into the U. The bottom of the U is thick enough to pin it to the main frame. So you place the delay collar into the open topped
U, and the barrel then threads onto the U, leaving the collar free to rotate.
You're generally right in your understanding of my idea, which means it can't be too strange. Binding may be a problem, but
I'm sure you can reduce the friction caused be the sleeve rotating through the use of some coating, such as hard chroming.
Dave the Rave:
I had a similar idea for a recoil system for a grenade launcher. Basically, in my idea you have a two part bolt you have an
"internal" part, which includes the locking lugs and fits inside a second part. Inside the second part are some helical grooves,
which correspond to grooves on the internal part. Upon firing the cartridge, the barrel moves back a distance, pushing on the
"internal" bolt, which causes it to move backwards inside the second "external bolt". Because of the grooves, it is forced to
rotate, disengaging the locking lugs, seperating the two part bolt from the barrel (the locking lugs lock into a barrel extension)
which is then allowed to recoil fully.
Inside the "external" bolt is a spring which presses on the "internal" bolt, causing it to move forwards in the grooves, rotating
so that the lugs can then move back into the barrel extension. Obviously the main recoil spring is stronger than the "internal"
spring, so when the "external" bolt comes back to a ready position it is forced to compress the spring, and in doing rotate the
"internal" bolt to a locking position in the barrel extension, ready to go again.
Fucking hell, I need to learn CAD, my English isn't good enough to explain it properly.
Dave the Rave March 5th, 2004, 11:15 AM

All of us Zaibatsu, all of us...
I also need to learn CAD, my english is awfull and I have an serious lack of words to fully describe my tougths.
But I understood what are you talking about. I like the idea of one inside spring, it could simplifie the idea of rotating bolts,
and we can use commercialy made rectangular tubes to uper and lower receivers.
Did you ever reard about one pistol caled the "royal" pistol ? It was made on the shape of the mauser c92, with an fixed
magazine, but the main idea is that all the pieces are stamped and the uper and lower receiver were fixed on each other by
sleeves and grooves, the only pin being the hammer and trigger pack. It worked on the 7.63 mauser cartridge, but also used
the
9mm parabellun.
Its very simple to build and reliable to use. Maybe we can use some of their ideas, and if you think its good Ill scan and
post some pics, plans and the manual.
xperk March 5th, 2004, 01:01 PM

Jumala,
I am curious as to how you manage to buy from lothar-walther - I thought they only sold to dealers.
Could you perhaps post a german dealer or otherwise reveal the method of acquisition?

Well, with a schotgun there is no problem. I killed serveral wild boars and a deer with my Remington 870 and Brennecke slugs
at a distance of about 100 yds, but pistol bullets are not the same.

Here's a little drawing to clarify what I mean. Please note when viewing this picture I made it with a mix of CAD and MS Paint :)
Obviously not to scale, and quality is low because it is unimportant, while filesize is important.
Jacks Complete April 2nd, 2004, 08:06 PM

zaibatsu, can you talk us through it?
zaibatsu April 2nd, 2004, 09:09 PM

Ok, here goes.
Well, the upper most dark grey thin rectangle is the pressed steel, with the lighter grey part on the left manufactured from Al
and screwed into the slide. The lower dark grey thin rectangle at the left is part of the frame, ignore that. Now, in the middle of
the slide, there is a small light grey rectangle. This is the pin which corresponds to the helical slot in the delay collar.
The delay collar is the the medium grey rectangle with the slots cut in. If you look at the slot you can see the dark grey barrel
through it - this is screwed into the light grey "U" shaped piece of steel, which is pinned into the frame. This "U" is threaded
straight through, and the barrel screws into this bit.
Surrounding the barrel is the recoil spring. To assemble the barrel assembly, you first place the delay collar into the U shaped
piece of steel, and then screw the barrel in. The barrel would probably be pinned into place after this, or fixed with silver
solder.
Hopefully this should clarify the diagram a little.

That seems to make sense.
Thanks.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > one-way bulletproof glass
Log in
View Full Version : one-way bulletproof glass

Haven't found this on the search.
I rem e m b e r s e e i n g a d e m o of this on Tomorrows World , back when I had TV. The way it was m a d e w a s a c o u p l e o f s h e e t s o f
plastic, bonded together.
Basically, the trick was, to glue the two types of sheet so that the hard one was on the outside, and the soft was on the inside.
The bullet from the outside hit, and was distorted by, the hard o uter sheet, which flexed the inner sheet, absorbing the energy.
The shattered bits stayed in p lace, on the softer sheet, held by the glue.
Bullets from the inside hit the softer la yer, and pushed through it, then shattered the hard outer layer, which was then pushed
away from th e glue and the softer layer, letting the bullet pass through. The hole would then shrink as the inner layer pulled
back in, with the hard bits still glued to it.
Hence, one-way bulletproof glass. Obviously, it wouldn't be as strong as normal m ulti-layer polycarbonate and glass would, but
it could be designed for the required threat level. Of course, you would need the occupants to be a rm ed with something potent
e n o u g h t o p a s s c l e a n ly through the ou ter layer, or you have one hell of a ricochet danger! It does, however, allow the option of
shooting back, unlike the "fish in a barrel" approach otherwise em p l o y e d .
Suggestions for the m aterials, anyone? I would think glass would do for the outer surface, and perhaps polystyrene for the
inside, and some kind of superglue. Anyone know for sure? Any better suggestions?
I can't wait to make some! It is som ething I never got round to.
Rhadon January 4th, 2004, 05:41 PM

W e already had a thread that dealt with this topic:
one way bullet proof glass, self healing too! (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3168)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R eplacement of the stinger?
Log in
View Full Version : Replacement of the stinger?

A new British invention could replace the 'stinger' device currently being u sed by U K police forces.
The X-Net punctures tyres, then snarls up a car's wheels with a m esh of super-strong fibres.
T h e G o v e r n m ent's m ilitary research com p a n y , Q i n e t i q , h a s b e e n working on the device for years.
T h e m e s h m e a s u r e s 2 6 f t x 8 f t a n d i s m ade fro m Dyneema - the world's toughest fibre. It's 15 tim es stronger than steel and is
u s e d t o m a k e b u l l e t - p r o o f v e s t s a n d m ooring ropes for super-ta n k e r s .
T h e X - N e t c a u s e s o n l y m i n o r d a m age to the car and can be cut away with a knife.
Project m anager Philip Dandy said there has been interest from police, security agencies and m ilitary from around the world.
T h e X - N e t h a s b e e n t e s t e d o n cars travelling up to 70mph and has stopped a five-tonne truck, says the Da ily Mail.
Story filed: 0 9 : 5 0 W e d n e s d a y 2 6 t h N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3
http://www.ananova.com /news/story/sm _84165 4 . h t m l ? m e n u =
---
This was a pain to find. It seem s t o h a v e v a n i s h e d , I o n l y f o u n d it becau se it caught my eye, and I saved it out.

Rather than shooting out the tires, cops now want to surround th e car on all sides or pinpoint exactly where he will be at a
certain tim e and deploy the net at that given point. Is that right?
And when an angry m ob of tree-hugers, drunk collage students or gang of spics is terrorizing a city they want to net them
carefully instead of m aceing them or shooting them with painfull rubber bullets?
They should use it on aircraft carriers to catch jets or on downhill freeways to stop runnawa y trucks, not crim inals.

I think the idea is that the wires in the net are far stronger than the steel and rubber in th e tyre, so it acts like chee se wire,
and rips the tyre to bits.
S h o u l d b e f a i r l y e a s y t o m a k e ne out of Kevlar or such...

ripping the tyres to bits doesn 't sound like m inor dam a g e t o m e and if it did rip the tyres to bits what advantage wo u l d b e i n g
able to cut it away with a knife be?
Might it not be that the wheels just get snarled up in this stuff, preventing them from turning properly and so slowing the car
down.
If a car was approaching one of these things at 70m ph, alm ost m anaged to avoid it, and suddenly found two of the ir tyres
shre dded on one side I don't think it would make for a very safe stop.
Jacks Complete January 10th , 2004, 11:27 AM

I think the idea is it cuts the tyres to b its, and then jam s the wheels, and since the net is so wide, it gets all four at the same
tim e, so effe ctively doing an emergency stop for you.
I t h o u g h t t h e s a m e, and the first mechanic I asked said "you would need to replace the wheel hub s, as they would abrade
without the rubber there, you would need at least new front wings either side, and you might well have trashed the drive
system as well."
You would be almost instantly stalling a car doing 70+ miles an hour in top gear, which is doing 30 00+ rpm , and so you m a y
well find the clutch starts slipping instead, and the engine keeps going hard as you try to keep your speed. Personally, I
wouldn't like to be the one in the target car.
However, to stop your pursuers...
DimmuJesus January 12th , 2004, 04:40 AM

Check out this thread :
This concept could be integrated here.
ibuprofen January 12th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 6 : 2 5 P M

http://www.qinetiq.com /m arke ts/autom o t i v e / m a r k e t s 1 . S u p p o r t i n g I n f o r m a t i o n . 0 0 0 1 . d o c u m e n t . p d f
X-NetTM System Operation

The X-NetTM system can be rapidly
deployed across a roadway in
seconds to arrest a vehicle. Unique
barbed spikes on the leading edge of
the net pierce the front tyres, the net
then envelops the fro nt tyres and is
pulled tight under the vehicle to stop
the wheels and bring the vehicle to a
stop .
This is achieved at a similar rate of
retardation a s i n a n e m e r g e n c y s t o p .
Follow up action can then be made in
a n a p p r o p r i a t e m a n n e r a s t h e vehicle
is im m obilised.
X-NetTM System Specification

1 0 k g t o 1 5 k g ( subject to spec)
Packed size - 0.6m x 0.4m x 0.2m
(subject to spec)
Deployed size - typically 6m o r
8 m x 2.5m
Ava ilable in a variety of colours to
suit military or police applications.
T h e Q i n e t i Q X-NetTM is unique as it
does not rely on a single technology
for its effectiveness.
In the unlike ly event of the net failing
to engage and arrest the vehicle, the
secondary tyre puncturing system
acts as a backup.
X-NetTM System Features

Non- lethal technolog y
Lightweight and m a n p o r t a b l e
Full arrest o f vehicle
Minim a l d a m a g e t o t a r g e t v e hicle
Arrest of a range of vehicles
including 4 tonne truck
H i g h s p e e d arrest-
1 0 0 k m /h(60+m ph) within 75
m etres
Quick to deploy
W o r k s irrespective o f 4wd, fwd,
rwd or even if fitted with run-flats
Cost effective.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Bullets without cartridge casing...
Log in
View Full Version : Bullets without cartridge casing...
anthracis January 7th, 2004, 05:38 AM

As far as I know, in a regular fire weap on the firing rate is higher if the spent cartridges (cartridge casings) are rem o v e d
f a s t e r but what if there is n o spent cartridge ? W h a t if t h e bullet is directly attached to a properly designed block/piece of
nitrocellulose b a s e d m ixture, let s s a y (with internal canals for increase d burning rate etc.)? The ignition part m a y b e m o r e
com plicate, but I don t think this is a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m .
W hat do you think about this?
kingspaz January 7th, 2004, 07:02 AM

FUCKING SEARCH
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=596&highlight=ca s e l e s s + a m m o

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > .17 armor piercing?
Log in
View Full Version : .17 armor piercing?
phyrelord January 20th, 2004, 12:54 PM

I was looking at the .17 HMR round the other day and it hit me that it had a very close resemblance to the round used in the
FN P90 and their pistol the FN Five seveN. This round (the belgian one) will penetrate body armor. Does anyone know for sure
if the .17 will punch a whole through Kevlar. If it does what would be the best pistol to convert. I have a walther P22 but it's
magazine capacity is only like 10. I would like to build something similar, albeit much cheaper, to the P90. The magazines
should hold the necked down .22 round without much modification. All this taken into consideration would something like a
tec-22 be sufficient. Any ideas on this sort of PDW (New buzzword all the big companies are throwing around)? Also with a tec-
22, threads already there for a suppressor :)
daysleeper January 20th, 2004, 01:39 PM

Yes the round with a FMJ bullet would easily punch through some vest with no problem, so would a 22 magnm round, thing is
though. Noboby makes or will make a pointed full metal jacket for either of these for this very reason, all of the .17 bullets
are either hollow point or varmit ballistic tips.
But here is a solution for your problem. A .223 armor piecing round is the same diameter as a 22 magnum bullet, and it will
fire through a 22 magnum barrel, I know it will because once in my sleep, dreaming I did it. But first i had to cut down the 22
magnum case length and remove some powder so the longer .223 bullet would fit and the whole thing not be so long it would
not fit in the 22 magnum magazine.
This test of mine was very informal and quickly put together on a whim, but it worked none the less.
So here is the solution to easy to get pistol Armor piercing rounds, to protect yourself against body armored thugs and crooks,
regardless of their employers idenity.
Take a ss109 round from a .223 cartridge, measure the over all length of a new 22 magnum round, then carefully remove the
22 magnum bullet with some pliers, take your time and do not distort the shell to much. Next dump out the powder from the
22 magnum shell, then cut down the shell so that when the new .223 round is installed the over all length is the same as the
22 magnum round un-altered. for proper crimping do a search for " reloading 22 magnum bullets" it was very popular in the
70's and i found the info in 5 minutes. Some powder will have to be remove for the longer bullet also, but don't remove to
much, just enough to allow the bullet to seat without compressing the powder to much. Then use the information to properly
crimp the new bullet and there you go, armor piercing pistol bullet. After all the research is done and a few prototyps made,
one could manufacture these bullets about 100 a day, with very little effort indeed.
But be warned armor piercing pistol ammunition is highly controled, get caught and go to jail, period. So if you are smart only
do these things in dream land, where laws don't exist.
In my dream I used a very small tubing cutter to cut down the 22 magnum case, and neddle nose pliers to remove the 22
magnum bullet, BUT be carful man, these things are rim fire, keep any and all stress away from the rim, fortunately the 22
magnum case is very long and plenty of room to work with before getting anywhere near the rim.
Perhaps even a subsonic round could be made, and since the bullet is pointed and heavy, it should cycle the action of most
autos, and also pierce the armor of your foe.
Hope this helps with your needs for knowledge.

I have a bad feeling about this... :(
The .17 HMR is a necked down .22 WMRF, not LR. It will not fit in any .22LR gun nor magazine that fits into a .22LR firearm.
The bullet is loaded with a small .17 caliber 17 grain bullet, and with around 5 grains of DBSP, it can easily get its bullet going
well over 2500 FPS from a rifle length barrel. From a 8 inch barrel, velocities should be around 2000.
Despite its light weight, it is capable of penitrating level III vest at about 30 feet. However, after defeating the vest it will have
the same energy levels as a 16 dollar BB gun.
It has an explosive effect on small animals, but for SD even a .22LR (130 FPS compared to about 250) is better. The .17HMR
rarely passes through a milk carton filled with water, although it will blow it up pretty nice. In ballistic gelatin, penitration is
about 6 inches.
The .17HMR IMHO is a cartridge you get less than what you pay. Some .22 magnum rounds are capable of spitting 30 grain
JHPs at just over 2400 FPS, just shy of what a .17HMR gets with a bullet half its weight.
john_smith January 21st, 2004, 04:16 AM

Even if you could somehow mod your P22(or any other blowback auto) to acommodate those rounds it will probably blow up
the first time you fire it. At very least you will have a ruptured case. There was a 22WMR pistol (Grendall or Grendell) in
production a few years ago, though, with a double stack mag and all.
A-BOMB January 21st, 2004, 09:30 AM

I think Tarus(sp?) is makeing a .17HMR revolver, And if you want a .17HMR semi-auto, get a 70% complete ruger 77/22(I
think that is the name of the ruger 10/22s, .22WRM big brother) and get a .17 cal barrel for it and finish up the last 30% of
the receiver. The .17HMR is meant to use up all of its energy in the target and not leave the target whole. At the speed the
bullet it traveling when it hits a soft flesh target it pretty much explodes make a big hole. If the target is not wareing body
armor this cartridge would be good, but thats about it.
daysleeper January 21st, 2004, 10:32 AM
Yes John Smith, the Gredal had a 30 round magazine!! But the BS AWB put an end to that pistol.
Also the round I was describing being built is quite safe, since Aquilla is going to be producing a subsonic 22 magnum round
with a 77 grain bullet, built similar to their SSS round, both require cutting down the case length to accept the bigger bullet.
And their ammo is quite safe indeed, so I don't think there would be any blown up guns or ruptured cases, besides cases will
rupture in bolt guns just as well as in autos.
NickSG January 21st, 2004, 01:26 PM

Daysleeper- The problem with your dream is that SS109s bullet weighs 62 grain, compared the the .22 magnums average of
40. A heavier bullet with less powder IMHO wont work. With all the powder, you should be looking at velocities in the 900 FPS
range (with a 6 1/2 inch barrel). Take some powder out and you could be as low as 800.
Heritage Arms has just came out with a SAO 6 shot 17HMR revolver. You can expect to pay anywhere from $130 to $200 for
this gun. I have their .22LR/.22 mag combo, but not the .17HMR.
Like I said earlier, .22 magnum rounds are capable of pushing a 30 grain bullet over 2400 FPS, so switching to a bullet nearly
half its weight is just as waste of energy. Also, some companies do manufacter FMJ bullets for .22 magnum, but like ABOMB
said, dont hold your breath for a FMJ in .17HMR.

So then you would have a very simple to construct, sub sonic round that would facilitate silencer use
for the discreet operator? Where is the negative side? Also most FACTORY made subsonic 223 bullets only travel at 950 fps
so then you can duplicate that performance for one tenth the cost for EBR susonic 223 bullets, which do not even cycle the
action on autos like the AR15.
The only real downside to my idea is that a barrel with a faster twist is required for any type of accuracy past 20 yards with the
ss109 round, 1 twist in 9 inches is the minimum twist rate. These barrels are already available for the ruger 10/22 magnum
and the 10/77/ ruger 22 magnum models.
Your thoughts?

My last post did not make it for some reason, so I'm gonna try this again.
NickSG the EBR factory made 223 subsonic bullet for the AR15 weapons only goes 950 fps, so what is you point?
And it will still penetrate lower level armor and is accurate.
22magnum full metal jacket bullets have rounded noses, thus rendering it not armor piercing.
The only downside to my idea is the need for a barrel with a minimum of 1 twist in 9 inches, but they are already made for
several 22 magnum models.
NickSG January 21st, 2004, 04:02 PM

Even though the FMJ .22mag rounds are RN, they still have the velocity to defeat most armor (out of a rifle barrel of course).
Velocity has more to do with whether or not a bullet will defeat armor than bullet construction. Chances are a RLN bullet at
2500 FPS will penitrate a level II or higher vest. Pretty much anything faster than 2300 FPS will defeat armor.
The subsonic AR-15 ammo is already slow from a rifle barrel, but from a pistol, it could be 25-50 percent slower.
Edit: Is it just me or is E&W acting weird today?
CommonScientist January 21st, 2004, 06:13 PM

Whsat if you customized a .30 shell so a .17 could fit in it? It would be a hell of a neck down but it should give you massive
velocity. NickSG, Yeah it is , either they arnt accepting my posts or it forgot about me :(. It gets annoying though because i
dont know if they are delayed and i dont want to double post. But this isnt the forum or the topic to be talking abuot this in.

I have it on good authority that the SS109 is the only .223 round that will defeat the UK Army body armour, plates and all. In
my thread "Stopping the bullet", I showed how the penetration of the .223 rounds had increased over time.
As for the PDW, from HK, it is quite a nice toy. I have handled it, and it is an awful pistol, but then it changes to a nice
submachinegun in seconds. The red dot sight is nice, too. As for the effect, the bullet is 4.6mm in diameter (that is .17-ish,
.181 in fact), and does 3200+ fps, depending on bullet weight. I have seen a board made of 2mm titanium armour, with 13
layers of Kevlar weave behind it, which was shot from 10 yards to 200 yards, with bullets made from copper, brass, tungsten,
steel, steel coated with Teflon, and various others. It had various exit holes, and a lot of rounds stuck halfway through.
The bullets are so small that they are made in a totally new way. A feeder chuck and a CAM lathe simply machine them out of
solid bar stock. Hence the range of materials. (Normally, bullets are either cast or pressed and/or swaged). I actually have a
copy of the HK product sales leaflet for it, somewhere...
So yes, a tiny bullet, going very fast, made from dense, or at least hard, materials, will zip through a vest. Up to 200 meters
was the design spec. I believe it passed. The whole thing was only a 7" barrel, iirc. I will dig up the sales sheet if anyone wants
to see it. http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg49-e.htm will tell you more.
phyrelord January 22nd, 2004, 10:55 AM

jacks complete that was what i was going for also when several bullets are fired at a target, as in a full auto, will also destroy
the characteristics of kevlar. So a three round burst with a small, fast moving round would surely do damage to anyone in a
vest. Another question how hard would it be to convert a standard 9MM into a double mag 22 or if it's possible to find a round
about the same size as the .22 hornet, which is a round that most old timers swear by but i haven't seen anything really more
impressive than a 22 mag. Ultimately what would be the best way to make a small highly lethal small caliber pdw out of say a
pistol. I would like to try something like the Five Seven from FN. Also does anyone know where i could find a file on ballistics
and other info on various rounds? i used to have one but my computer crashed.
A-BOMB January 22nd, 2004, 12:03 PM

I was able to shoot a Five-Seven, at a product demo shoot a few years ago while I still worked as my local departments
weapons teck, some company had set my a shoot for some local departments and there were some agents from one of the 3
letter alphabet gangs. I can't remember which company had set it up, I don't think it FN. Well, I liked the 5.75mm rounds
contolablity and recoil and the magizine capacity or the five-seven, but I just could not get my head around the polymers and
plastics the gun is made of, I know that a Glock is made of similar think and I know they are good pistols, But I still like the
feel of metal and wood in my hand, If I was still the departments armor and they made a F92 in 5.75cal I'd get one. I'm still
mad that they fired me, It wasn't my fault that my predecessor hadn't cleared the chamber of this old colt1903, he had left a
live round in the chamber, I picked it up and pointed it at my computer which had froze on me again and bang, I lost my job
:mad: , If that old bitch cade wasn't already dead, I would of killed him. Well I can't cry over spilled milk.
daysleeper January 22nd, 2004, 01:26 PM

Here is an idea, what if you took a standard pistol round, just the bullet, and drilled out the base, and inserted steel or
tungsten rods, then just reload the bullet as normal, if it would work then any decent pistol could make a fine pdw, if recoil is
not a deterant.
One note though, I've been shot several times while wearing a vest. When I was much younger and dumber, I let a friend of
mine shoot me 3 times with a Ruger MK2 at point blank range using high velocity rounds, and none penetrated, obviously. I
also let him shoot me with a 32 acp at point blank. The point is that, they all hurt like fucking hell. I would imagine that if you
shot a foe wearing armor with say a .45 acp, it would disable him/her regardless if it went through.
And if it was a heart shot, would stop his heart or cause enough internal damage to kill him.
Third_Rail January 22nd, 2004, 03:06 PM

Personally, if I were to attempt such an illegal feat, I'd ude penetrators from cut-open surplus 30-06 AP rounds; they're hard
steel, pointed and boattailed. They would fit nicely in a .357 -.45 round, drilled out first for the penetrator, then having molten
lead poured over the back of the hole where the penetrator was inserted. Of course, this is very illegal, so don't do it; I didn't.

A 7.62x39 AP round reloaded into a 7.62x25 (which is chambered in a few pistols) would be pretty effective. They two arent the
same size, so you would have to make adjustments.
The problem with reloading unfired cases is that the cases are still crimped. This means that it would be nearly impossible to
fit a bullet of the same size in. CCI sells accessories for reloading rimfire ammuntion. I suggest you guys do that. I used to,
and since the .22 magnum and .22LR bullets are the same diameter, I came up with some petty darn hot .22LR rounds. :) A
32 grain Stinger HP was chronyed at close to 1450 FPS from a 6 1/2 inch barrel. Factory ammo cant compare. ;)
Third_Rail January 22nd, 2004, 08:08 PM

Are there any current production 7.62x25mm pistols? I thought that they haven't been made for ~50 years...

They are pretty rare but if you keep your eye open you might see one at a gun show every once in a while. I never bought one
though, becuase becuase they are usually priced pretty high, and I dont have any reasons for any guns with AP capabilities.
You do know that im HMC dont you?
PHAID January 22nd, 2004, 08:44 PM

They are not that expensive and if you get a copy of shotgun news you will find several places that sell them.
Third_Rail January 23rd, 2004, 12:41 AM

Alright then, but no current productions? Figures.... Oh well, an old Tokarev for me; and no, I didn't realize that you're HMC;
how are you?

Im doing just fine. :p
I would take PHAIDs advice. Most gun shows (around here at least) are overpriced. You should be able to find a better deal
online, but it requires S&H and they have to ship to a FFL dealer.
Third_Rail January 23rd, 2004, 06:01 PM

C&R, my friend, C&R.... I'm actually going to go for a couple of CZ-52s and a bunch of extra parts (especially new production
firing pins) for ~$250.
charger January 26th, 2004, 03:40 PM

Would it be possible to turn your own bullets for the .17 the same way Jack's Complete said H&K does? Brass would probably
be ideal because of its ease of machining and its ballistic properties (later versions of KTW were made of brass http://
www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html) if you have your own lathe I don't think it would be overly difficult, but there are
probably problems that someone might know about.

Just like it says in that file, the brass causes a lot of barrel wear. I am sure that a pure copper bullet would be just as easy to
machine and you shouldn't have any trouble getting it to pierce body armour if you are firing it from a .17 because of the
velocity.
I have attached an image that I am sure you will all be interested in, a pure copper conical bullet outperformed the KTW. The
bullets, manufactured by a company called Arcane, are very lightweight and fast with the .45ACP version doing 1600FPS. Best
of all, the Arcane bullets look extremely easy to duplicate on a lathe.

An easy way around that problem would be to take the brass rod, and coat it with something. You could electroplate copper
onto it, or perhaps dip it into molten lead or zinc or something.
I am sure one of the chemists/metallurgists on the board will know a good way to deposit a few fractions of a millimeter of
something a bit softer onto the rod.
You could also coat it with something like MolyCoat, or any other bullet coating.

A lightweight conical bullet made from hardened steel and then given a copper electroplating should work nicely. It would
however take a long time to get enough copper onto the bullet though and you would have problems making sure the jacket
was the right thickness. You could plate too much on and then machine it back to the desired dimensions on a lathe.
I also had the idea of (I'll use the 9mm as an example here) taking an 8mm steel rod, hardening it, then somehow securing
it (epoxy?) inside a 9mm OD copper tube with 0.5mm walls.
Of course, the dimensions may have to be changed slightly to give the epoxy (or whatever) a small space to fill so that it
works properly. The copper jacketed steel rod would then be cut into small pieces (the length of the bullets) and turned down
to a point on a lathe.
The above is entirely theoretical and there are probably flaws with it such as epoxy not being strong enough (I mentioned
epoxy because the glaser safety slug holds together OK and it uses a modified epoxy) and the rod being difficult to machine
because of it being made of two metals of vastly different hardness.
Chemical_burn January 27th, 2004, 09:27 PM

You could also give a steel conical bullet a lead jacket just mill the round to about .5mm under the bore and them dip it into
lead to build up a jacket on it and them remill to correct bore.
I think this would be far easier to do this than copper electroplating.

A lead jacket will limit your velocity to about 1400fps, you want more than that if you are trying to pierce armour. A lead jacket
will also cause barrel fouling and need frequent barrel cleaning, especially at higher velocities.
I doubt that any lead would even stick to the steel if it was immersed in molten lead and then pulled out.
john_smith January 28th, 2004, 07:33 AM

@xyz: the rod had to be secured VERY well or it may be pushed out of the tube leaving the latter halfway down the barrel, and
on next shot...ka-fucking-boom! Maybe threading the rod and tube might work...

Threading it is a very good idea, I would coat the steel rod in loctite before it was screwed into the copper tube, otherwise it
may loosen during machining.
I doubt that the gun would explode if the jacket did stay in the barrel (well, so long as it wasn't a cheapo POS gun. I have
heard of a mauser being fired underwater and holding together fine despite the fact that it was pushing 3 times it's normal
projectile weight due to the weight of the water in the barrel) but it would be best to avoid the possibility anyway.
charger January 28th, 2004, 11:00 AM

Would the copper tubing be thick enough to accept threading? If it is, then the steel rod would have to be so small it might
not be effective. To keep a decent core diameter, pressing a steel rod into an undersixed tube might work better. or heat the
tube so it expands and then insert the steel rod. The copper will contract very tightly over the rod and should hold.
powdermunkey January 28th, 2004, 04:00 PM

Naah- the way to do it is to use steel rod and a swaging press to swage on a copper jacket. Or do like I do- load discarding
sabot rounds. An SS109 AP in .224 caliber fits into a stock polymer sabot. I load them for my CZ-52, which is the 7.62X25
discussed earlier. The muzzle velocity out of a CZ-52 is pretty decent, although they are not the most accurate rounds, and
they don't feed all that reliably because of the pointed tip and the polymer sabot's exposed shoulder. If you really NEED to
penetrate body armor, use a rifle. My FAL wil shoot through 1/2 inch mild steel, with surplus FMJ ammo.

About the threading, I would use the finest thread possible to minimise the thickness that the jacket needed to be, then just
use the thinnest jacket possible that will still accept the threading. It should still be possible to get a 6 or 7mm steel core into
a 9mm projectile.
If you were going to heat the jacket tube to expand it you would have to make sure it was heated totally evenly or it would
warp. Warping would happen very easily because it is made of thin metal.
TreverSlyFox January 28th, 2004, 08:47 PM

For the US members,
aimsurplus.com has CZ-52 pistols with holster and 2- 8rnd mags for $99.95
also 1,250 rnds of Romanian 7.62x25 for $109.95 due in the 1st of Feburary.
The 7.62x25 is a legendary "Vest" killer and anything less than a Level IIIA with a Titanium rifle plate is dead meat to this
round. Remember the "plate" only covers the center of the chest area so shoot a little low just in case. The plate is only about
8" x 8".
Why re-invent the wheel when there is a perfectly good (and cheap) weapon and ammo to be had. Why gang-bangers haven't
figured this out is beyond me, if they ever do there isn't a patrol cop that would be safe in the US. Most cops wear Level IIA
vests because they'er more comfortable, only the departments that issue IIIAs and demand their use would be a little safer
but that's like 1 in 5.
When I was on the department I wore a Second Chance "Monarch" Level IIA with Titanium plate rated for a .357 mag with a
158gr HP at 1400 fps. I only knew 2 Officers that wore a Level IIIA with a plate and they bitched all the time about them.
phyrelord February 2nd, 2004, 11:00 PM

I recently like this weekend purchased a cz-52 and i'm fucking impressed. The round has balls, i shot at a target about 75-85
yards away and hit it, it was the size of a gallon milk jug. I also shot into an engine block after shooting through all sides of
the car, the bullet actually went through! not all the way but neither will a .308 (shooting from the side of the car so it would
have to travel through 4 cylinder walls.) Thanks i'm pretty sure i could turn out some copper Arcane bullets they look really
simple and you can find copper rods at any hardware store, plus the 7.62 looks really easy to reload plus add a little extra
powder, and voila. big bad hand gun. Another thing i noticed i shot like 10 mags through it and it never once jammed. On
dissassembly i noticed that it uses an operation similar to the mp5 and g3, very bad ass, thanks for the help.
blacktalon February 3rd, 2004, 04:21 PM

phyrelord
Must have been an aluminum block... 7.62x25 gets pretty good penetration but not on a steel block. Lol. A 9 will go through
the cylinder wall of a aluminum 4-banger though. If you want the mack daddy of penetration, they make sabots for 7.62x25
that let you fire 55 or 60 grain .223. Hotload yourself some steel core green tip and you could blow holes through both sides
of a vest and the 12" of ballistic gelitin between them. :D

The idea of swaging a plain steel core on copper jacket its the most economic and quickly way to do, but the shoot will be too
ligth, with no inertial energy to disable the target. Maybe lathing the bullet outside and then drilling a hole inside to swage with
lead will be the best thing to do, and then, paint the outside with a coating of teflon.
At my Country we can purchase liquid teflon at any chemical company, and it can be aplied with an air brush and cooked at an
residential oven. It cooks at 300C, and its fairly achieved by my oven.
The teflon coating will act like the coper jacket, giving something to the rifling to grip, and will help to mantain the bore clean
and smooth, and the lead will add weigth to the bullet.
Or we can just make an alloy of lead and tin, cast the core of the bullet with it and swage it on the coper jacket. Ive made
some tests and this alloy can be as heavy as the plain lead and as hard as some steels. It cant be bended or cut or even
smashed without some hard efforts.

Personally I would go for a moly coat on the bullets. A lot of target rifle people use them, and it reduces the wear on the
barrel, as well as the pressure spike when firing. Check out a gun shop and ask, they will sell you the stuff. Failing that, you
could try a car shop, as some people like to coat the moving parts with it, apparently.
It is basically just molybdenum disulfide powder, which is tumbled on to the bullets before loading the round.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jesse99/moly.html - A simple home method
john_smith February 12th, 2004, 05:26 AM

Steel isn't THAT light, and steel core/copper jacket bullets have been around for a long time. IIRC KTW bullets were steel and
copper with teflon coating, and THV's are mostly aluminium(?!) and actually alot lighter than most other bullets of same
calibre.
Btw the reason why an empty jacket lodged into barrel will blow up the gun is not increased projectile weight, but rather
projectile diameter - the second bullet will act like a wedge and lock the combo firmly in place. A friend of a friend of a friend
blew up a bolt gun (don't know the exact model or calibre) with "homemade softpoints", aka FMJ's with tips filed off.

Yes John S, but it is very ligther than full lead bullets. The ligther the bullet, the less inertial energy it can store, and less
inertia means less penetration.
If you use an hard, yet heavy metal, like tungstein or some lead alloy, you can achieve more precision, penetration and
distance on your shoot, on the other hand, one bullet cast out of aluminium or brass/copper, will not achieve higher veloties,
exactly because it cant store as much energy as can the heavy ammo.
Home made soft points arent so dangerous, Ive made some out of 9mm, 7,62, .38 and even .45. None of it has done any
harm, and probably what hapens to you friend was done by an inappropriated swagged bullet, with the jacket loose or by an
factory bullet filed down too much, wich tends to spit out the lead, leaving one empty jacket down the barrel.
With electroliticaly jacketed bullets, it wont happens, cause the electrical bound are stronger.
Molybdenium can be much better than teflon, it is cheaper, easier to work with and as non adherent as teflon. The best part
about it is that it will not raise suspects as does teflon and can be reached through any automotive parts store.

Dave- You sort of have it backwards. Light, fast, bullets penitrate armor better than slower, heavy bullets. Its the opposite,
however, in flesh. The heavy, slower, bullets penitrate deeper than the light, fast bullets.
The higher velocity lightweight bullets also have more energy than the heavy, lower velocites bullets. The lighter bullets also
have higher velocity for a certain distance, but the heavier bullets tend to have higher velocities and more energy at long
distances.

The impact energy of bullets can go either way. Obviously the best combination would be a heavy bullet travelling very fast,
however you are unlikely to get this in small callibers. A light bullet travelling fast can deliver as much, more or less energy
than a heavy bullet travelling slowly depending on the values of speed and weight. Damage to targets is another thing
altogether. A soft target is generally effected much more by a slower blunt round than it would be by a fast armour piercing
round, this is because the slower round is more likely to break up and become unstable and tumble as it travels through a
viscous material. Once you get to something like the 11.5" long shell from an 'avenger' style cannon though either way you
are red mist :D
"heavier bullets tend to have higher velocities and more energy at long distances"
This would be true if the heavier bullet was the same calliber than the light bullet and fired from the same shell as the light
bullet would have less momentum with which to overcome drag. However a heavier bullet will have a higher inertia to overcome
so a similar powder load to a light round would give similar energy results (with the heavier bullet slower with more momentum
compared to the lighter bullet).

"heavier bullets tend to have higher velocities and more energy at long distances"
This would be true if the heavier bullet was the same calliber than the light bullet and fired from the same shell as the light
bullet would have less momentum with which to overcome drag. However a heavier bullet will have a higher inertia to overcome
so a similar powder load to a light round would give similar energy results (with the heavier bullet slower with more momentum
compared to the lighter bullet).
Hold on, that makes little sense. Yes, the heavier bullet is slower to speed up, but it is then slower to slow down. The
momentum they have, at the muzzle, from the same powder charge, will be the same. By this, I mean that the speed of the
bullet will be proportional to the mass (inertia), and so the sum, the momentum, will be very much the same. (I=mv) This
DOES NOT mean they have the same Muzzle Energy, as kinetic energy goes up as the square of the velocity (KE=0.5*m*v^2).
Let me try to make this clear, and stop any confusion:
A light bullet, fired at the same velocity, in the same calibre (or, more basically, the same cross sectional area) as a heavy
bullet, with lose more energy per unit distance travelled through the air. The muzzle velocity will drop off faster. It will also be
affected more by crosswinds.
A heavier bullet is almost always preferable, due to a higher resistance to being pushed off point of aim by crosswind, and
having a higher KE when it arrives.
The flip-side to this, is that a bullet that is lighter will speed up faster when fired from a gun. This means a higher initial
velocity may be obtained for a given powder charge, without dangerous breach pressures or excessive recoil.
There is a limit to how fast a bullet can be pushed, regardless of weight. This is due to the rate of expansion of the gases at
reasonable pressures and temperatures.
Also, lighter bullets need to be spun less fast, with a longer twist on the rifleing, to be fully stabilised (rather than over-
stabilised, which leads to jacket separation, excessive wear on the rifleing, wasted energy in the rotation of the bullet and very
weird over-penetration in soft materials as the bullet won't tumble, as well as lead bullets fraggin themselves due to
centripetal forces). Under-stabilisation results in keyholing, poor grouping and bullets tumbling before they ever reach the
target. Since it is not possible to change the rifleing on a given barrel, your gun will have a specific range of bullet weights and
velocities available to it, and you, for anything approaching accuracy.
Obviously, when using just one material, such as lead, the weight of the bullet head is determined solely by the length of the
bullet, as the calibre is fixed by the rifle.
For something like a .17"/4.5mm you are going to cut just the one barrel, and I suspect that you will want to settle on the
right bullet mass in the preferred materials, before you cut your barrel rifleing. You can go for a long steel bullet to make up
the mass, but the sectional density is sometimes an issue.
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html gives an interesting insight into the various performances

of different NATO and Soviet Bloc ammo.

I'm still mad that they fired me, It wasn't my fault that my predecessor hadn't cleared the chamber of this old colt1903, he
had left a live round in the chamber, I picked it up and pointed it at my computer which had froze on me again and bang, I
lost my job. :mad:
How many of the four gun safety laws were violated?
1. All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not). If you think it is unloaded, check it again.
Remember to check the chamber as well as the magazine. A semi-automatic gun will load a cartridge into the chamber when
the
slide is pulled back, then released. Remove the magazine, then pull back the slide to eject the cartridge in the chamber.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on
the range, at home, loading, or unloading. Don't point guns at people or animals except when necessary for self-defense or
hunting.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot). You may pull the trigger by
reflex if you stumble while your finger is on the trigger.
4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't
positively identified. Remember that a handgun bullet can travel one mile and a rifle bullet can travel several miles. Bullets
fired into the air will come back down.
You were rightfully fired for negligence in your duty.
A-BOMB February 15th, 2004, 11:14 PM

For all intents and purposes that gun should have been unloaded we weren't even allowed to keep live ammo in that room
and the gun did have its check tag attached (a orange zip tie with the catalog number that we would put through the trigger
gaurd and around the slide to signify that gun had a snap-cap in the chamber and had been checked in and before being put
in the storage rack)

A-BOMB,
that just shows why rule one *IS* rule one!
At least you will not make that mistake again in this lifetime. :rolleyes:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Springfield M-6
Log in
View Full Version : Springfield M-6
smokepole January 30th, 2004, 01:47 PM

Does anybody know where I can download a set of blueprints for the Springfield M-6?
I am facinated by this small .22 / .410 survival rifle and I want to see if I can duplicate it at home.
zaibatsu January 30th, 2004, 02:11 PM

The M-6 is an incredibly simple gun, just basically a break-open over-under shotgun. I don't think that you need a set of blueprints for it.
smokepole January 30th, 2004, 04:32 PM

I guess my main stumbling block is how to create a hammer mechanism that will switch between the top and bottom barrels? any ideas.
zaibatsu January 31st, 2004, 12:13 AM

A double trigger gun? Like some older shotguns had? That was you'd have two trigger mechs, so less chance of the gun being made completely fucked up, and I reckon it'd be
a good deal easier to make
Spartin13 February 1st, 2004, 12:53 PM

M-6 uses a sliding/locable fireing pin built into the hammer. It is capable with flick of the thumb in switching barrels. With practice it can be done quick enough for a follow up
shot. Sorry i have no pics, i'm not sure if i am breaking any rules or not, if so i'm sorry. i believe you can get a idea of the setup if you saw a break down of the rifle. i would
try Springfield or any of the sites that see gun parts. hope this helps
charger February 1st, 2004, 10:30 PM

There are alot of good photos of the gun here http://www.milesfortis.com/church/akc13.htm with cutaway drawings of the action, not very clear on the firing selector though.
NickSG February 1st, 2004, 10:46 PM

I saw a revolver several years ago that was double barreled, but only held .22s. You fire the first shot, twist the barrels 180 degrees, cock the hammer, and fire again. Maybe
you could built a rifle based on this design?
Im definatly interested in the design.
zaibatsu February 2nd, 2004, 12:49 AM

If you look on the link provided, it seems a very simple design, with the barrel selector simply being a protrusion from the hammer face, it's height determined by how hard
you press on the rod (ie move it up or down).
smokepole February 2nd, 2004, 10:13 AM

Thanks for all the input.
I will certainly keep you updated as the drawings develop.
MP5Guy February 2nd, 2004, 04:44 PM

I tried to clean it up with PhotoShop just a bit. You might want to research the Savage Model 24C as well. It too has a simple method of switching from the upper rifle bbl to
the lower shotgun bbl.
smokepole February 2nd, 2004, 06:55 PM

Thanks for all of the input I have attached a PDF of my first attempt at a detailed drawing of how I would build the gun. So far I think it could be accomplished using a drill
press, grinder, and assorted tools found around a good home workshop. Please feel free to criticize the drawings because I believe that is how you learn.

If you can do it without a lathe and some serious machinery then I'm assuming you already have the barrels or a source for them, unless you're going to use a smoothbore
barrel.

The drawings looks all rigth, to an survival gun, where you will have time to change the barrel, as you choses betwin big and small game.
But, whats the purpose of it ? Its only hunt ? Why not use the derringer system ? Or two triggers, like Zaibatsu sugested ?
I believe that, if the first trigger shoots the .22 and the 2nd shoots the .410, the exchange will be easy. Lets say thats only hunt, you see one rabbit, then shoots it with your
.22 - the noise stamps some quails, you can point your gun to them and, going further with finger pressure, shoot the .410, taking many of them down.
The construction can be simple, two pieces of plain steel that can be cut with an saw and drilled with a dremel, same as the triggers, and the springs can be made of piano
wires, on an helicoidal shape, which will be easy to temper than an plain linear spring.
Also the size of the gun can be reduced as there is no need of room to an long spring. As one shot will be rimfire, the hammer can be of center, giving room to the hammer of
the .410 be centered. both hammers can be put on the same pin, and also the two triggers, which will make the construction easy, as you can use the pins to hold the window
of the gun.
Ill draw it tomorow and post.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Beretta 38a tech question.
Log in
View Full Version : Beretta 38a tech question.
xmarinevet February 2nd, 2004, 12:56 AM

Is their any other mag that will work or can easily be m odified to fit a beretta 38a I've got like then of them f r o m w e a p o n e e r
group buys but the m ags cost as m u c h a s t h e g u n s . A n y s u g g e s t i o n s w o u l d b e m u c h a p p r e c i a t e d .
Chemical_burn February 2nd, 2004, 04:34 AM

I dont see why this is posted here it would be beter in the watercooler.
O h h y e a h d o a fuckin g search IDIOT!!!
I bet you never even thought of ordering on online or m ail order from a catalog did you.
xmarinevet February 2nd, 2004, 11:30 AM

Y o u r n a m e s h o u l d b e rub burn, i say thats probably what you should change it to since you spend all your tim e obviously
jerking your dick.
tom haggen February 2nd, 2004, 07:29 PM

Hey dude you don't want to get bitched at for flaming. So what do you mean by " I've got like then of them " Do you m e a n y o u
have ten of them? You have ten berattas? or ten magazines? and if it is magazines, do your m agazines cost as m uch as a
gun? How the hell does a m a g a z i n e c o st as m uch as a gun? these are all questions I need answering to before I ca n offer you
any advice.
zaibatsu February 2nd, 2004, 08:18 PM

Don't worry, the offen d e r h a s b e e n r e m o v e d .

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Mach 1 Paintball Rifle
Log in
View Full Version : Mach 1 Paintball Rifle
phyrelord February 17th, 2004, 01:08 AM

I'm trying to figure out to make a bolt action paintball rifle which uses propane instead of co2 and uses a bolt system similar to the sl-68 made by tippmann. In this system a
hammer is cocked by sliding the bolt segments together and the spring tension between them fires the gun. When the trigger is pulled the hammer end of the bolt slides back
and hits a stem which pushes a diaphram back into a gas chamber releasing co2. How safe or unsafe would it be to adapt this system to propane and put in leads in the bolt
that cause an arc, creating a fireball to propel paintballs or other projectiles. Would i need to place a cut off valve inside of the air chamber so it didn't fire back into the tank and
kaboom, or w ould the pressure of the gas escaping keep it from coming back in? if so w hat could i do to prevent it from doing that when it got low on pressure. I might try it,
basically it would be a repeater spud gun, pump action or bolt. I have an old sl-68 that i might convert if i can. would it be possible to easily convert propane to 1/2" thread
because that's what co2 is. the bolt could probably be easily converted for electrodes, also how could i get a 9 volt to fire across about a 1/8" gap. Any suggestions would be
great.
Beethoven_1983 February 17th, 2004, 09:13 AM

Looks cool, but I think you should do some serious reinforcing\thickening of the combustionchamber where the propane\air-mix ignites...I'm just saying this because I've done
the same myself, and the fuqqer blew up and teared a w allsection clean off our garage...Once again, thank god for rigging a remote testfiring-system...I think you need tw o
separate tanks for the half-auto spudgun, the minimal mixratio for any gas\air ignition is around 15-20% air, and in a combustionchamber(Airthight) you must mix the gasses
from two separate tanks repeatingly for making a repeating spudgun, if you pull it off, please send me some blueprints and some fuelmixes that worked w ell... ;)
phyrelord February 17th, 2004, 12:47 PM

instead of using two tanks i had planned on using the initial pressure of propane to begin to propel the projectile dow n the barrel and once the air mixture is right the bolt w ill
cause an arc. I will have to adjust the timing on this, that will drop the pressure in the chamber, and still push the projectile down the barrel. this will keep something brittle like
paintballs from breaking. it's like cold firing a rocket sort of.
JoeJablomy February 17th, 2004, 03:19 PM

phyrelord: Have I missed something? Where does the air come from? You have a propane tank, valve gear, and the chamber and ball. Would you just be combusting the air in
the chamber? How big is the chamber supposed to be?
Sparky February 17th, 2004, 05:26 PM

It's not very clear what you're going about doing, phyrelord. I think a good diagram w ould do wonders to explain (including what the tippman action is w ould be good too).
Why do you need a 9 volt battery to spark across 1/8"? You cannot use a normal peizoelectric sparker because of timing or something?
Please explain how the flame could possibly "fire back into the tank". If there is no oxygen then the propane cannot burn. There is no oxygen in the tank. Therefore it is
impossible for the propane to burn inside the tank and explode the tank. This strange and stupid misconception has to be one of the most common urban legend type things
around. It pisses me off every time I hear it.
Mostly my post is to take beef with post number two in this thread:
Beethoven, how (the fuck) can you say that he should reinforce the chamber if you have no idea what he is making it out of in the first place?
You are wrong about the gas/air mixture. 20% air and 80% propane is far too much propane. 4% (by volume I believe) propane is just about optimal. To use this amount I
have found it needs to be mixed with a fan in order to light but it does give the best performance. For more information see this excellent w ebpage:
http://ww w.burntlatke.com/
More propane, along the lines of 5% w ill make it easier to light.
You do not have to mix gas from two seperate tanks if you are using air as the oxygen source, as it seems he is planning to do. Instead you w ould have to air out the chamber.
I don't believe your story about blowing a wall off of your garage from a propane explosion. Just how big are you saying your combustion chamber was? Do you understand the
concept that the same amount of gas is produced whether the chamber explodes or whether the gun fires properly? In other words your gun would have pretty much have to be
so big as to blow the w all off even if it fired normally, which is rediculous.

Hi guys,
how come are we all argueing again?
Right, making a paintball gun that pow erful might have some mad results. For christs sake don't turn out to a game and use it against your peers! Hit someone with that, and
you might live with just a few bruises (then again, in the woods...) Only use it on some fucker w ho really deserves it.
As for the mix, try reversing it! Even then, 20% propane is a bit rich. 80% won't even burn, let alone explode. (It w ill burn as air gets to it, obviously)
As for fragging the wall, read the post properly, Sparky! He clearly states that the gun exploded on test firing. He doesn't claim it levelled his house! Plasterboard is not a strong
material, and for a large spudgun, I can believe it. (Think standard plastic sew er pipe, 16" across, well mixed with air - Beethoven_1983 just might be that dumb!)
I doubt that you w ould need to reinforce something like the Tipman, though I don't have my other half's on hand to check. It seems pretty sturdy. The problem you w ill have,
however, is the backpressure, which paintball guns aren't designed to take. You will trash your seals in one shot, and that will be that.
Using a 9V battery to ignite the mix w ill only w ork if you use a coil and/or a capacitor, and so you might have problems with the timing.
The ball, however, will almost certainly be fine paint mist!

in order to mix the oxygen properly i had planned on the ball being about halfway down the barrel then exploding, further accelerating the ball, would this w ork or will i have to
introduce fresh oxygen. I also don't have to worry too much about the seals there is only one of them excluding the o-ring that attempts to seal the barrel off. this link shows
the basic operation of a pump gun http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paintball2.htm any ideas on mixing the propane w/the oxygen would be great. could i use a
different gas that is more forgiving?
Chemical_burn February 18th, 2004, 12:51 AM

As jack's complete has already started your painball w ill be uterly distoyed and your seals will defently be distroyed for sure. Most painball gun operate at 1200psi or less most
800 usually. Also most paintball guns fire a paintball at just under 300fps as they tend to loose acuracy with anything over 300fps not only this but i have had a marker shoot
hot at just under 350fps and my paint was breaking from the friction caused by the air so theres no way in hell your gona get one to go Mach 1.
Not only this but why propane powered just use Co2 or compressed air most high pressure systems start at 3500psi and go up too 5500 psi so theres more than enough
pressure. Just work on fireing a heavy 68cal round like a lead round out of your paintball gun at 300fps as it would make a good high kenetic energy w eapon. I imagine it would
work great on small mamals like squirrls at 100' of closer

chem burn i had not intended on it going mach 1 it's just what i designated the project, like the car. go speed racer, sorry;). Also the reason for this is just for novelty's sake,
plus would be really fun to have a paintball sniper rifle not intended for anything less than 100 yd shot i'm going to try to make special sabot to fire paintball but that's another
thing. also thinking about using .50 cal paintballs instead of .68 caliber. also would be cool to show up at the field with a semi normal looking gun that belched flames. This is
just a project. And thanks for the link to burntlatke.com that helped a lot. I figured out that i'll need at least a 24" barrel to get this to work. it will need to fire when the ball is
about 11.04 inches down the barrel to get right propane/air mixture. or w ill just letting the vacuum created by the ball suck in air work to mix air w ith propane should i make
some kind of venturi to swirl the air around?
Sparky February 18th, 2004, 06:34 PM

As for the mix, try reversing it! Even then, 20% propane is a bit rich. 80% won't even burn, let alone explode. (It w ill burn as air gets to it, obviously)
As for fragging the wall, read the post properly, Sparky! He clearly states that the gun exploded on test firing. He doesn't claim it levelled his house! Plasterboard is not a strong
material, and for a large spudgun, I can believe it. (Think standard plastic sew er pipe, 16" across, well mixed with air - Beethoven_1983 just might be that dumb!)
No, I think even 20% is far too rich. Propane has a fairly small range of flammability. Even for hydrogen I think the upper limit is about 19%. Take a look at that burnt latke site
and you can see some tests they did with propane mixtures.
Hey, accusing someone of not properly reading a post carries some serious disrespect so make sure you mean it if you say it. I think I interpreted the post correctly:
Beethoven said:
"and the fuqqer blew up and teared a wallsection clean off our garage..."
and my response w as:

"I don't believe your story about blowing a wall off of your garage from a propane explosion... In other words your gun would have pretty much have to be so big as to blow
the wall off even if it fired normally, w hich is rediculous."
In other w ords I never assumed Beethoven was claiming the explosion "levelled his house."
Edit: Point taken about the arguing, I was just pissed off at Beethoven's post and the bad start that this thread seems to have gotten off to.
Tuatara February 18th, 2004, 08:23 PM

Ether w ould be better than propane, as it will burn over a very wide range of mix ratios. Thats one of the reasons its so good for starting manky old cars.

problem with ether would be introducing it into the gun, it would probably work better but it would be hard to introduce the gas into the chamber.
McGuyver February 19th, 2004, 12:03 AM

As far as ignition goes a ignition coil from a old car or car shop and 9 volt would last a little w hile. A better system w ould be to just buy a cheap stun gun. Lowes sells a
electronic push button grill ignitor that would be perfect and only uses an AAA battery.
For this w hole idea I'd just rig up a small potato gun sort of thing. Forget about things combusting in a paintball gun, they're just not made for anything like that.

I just cannot understand why you're all (some exceptions) are trying to make us look stupid by drawing your ow n infantile conclusions, Hear us out instead. what I ment w as: If
phyrelord made his combustionchamber for repeated shots, He had to equip his gun with two separate gas tanks,who mixes the gas\air in a ignitable ratio,and regarding the
gun,do what I've been very clear about in at least one of my posts, the secret lies in the lamination. An inner pvc-tube,glued and inserted into a thin coppertubing, this is being
glued and wrapped in a carbonefibered netting,glued, and inserted into barely bigger steel tube, this is glued, and thightly wired with thin steelw ire. Insert this into whatever
design you want, yes, a such device did rip the inner wallsection clean off my garage, if some of you think leveling the house is the same thing, well...bad for you...

Of course, it w as after the incident with my friends when we made the demolition-gun, I started the laminating, scared shitless, not tkaing any chances, my first spud w ith
laminated chamber and barrel looked like a doomsdayweapon. Later I learned to scale it dow n, and use several thin layers separated w ith nets and thightly winded wire, and
lots of maritime epoxy enforced w ith glassfibre. I've recently made a pcp-gun with such barrel,and a scuba, working on the triggering system now...Any ideas? :rolleyes:

Beethoven_1993,
I was backing you up! Anyway, I too was pissed off w ith the arguements. People who are too antagonistic tend to get banned.
Sparky,
Hydrogen will explode at conc.s between about 7% and 97% with Oxygen (iirc). The range in air is very wide, too, in fact about the widest you can get.
I have seen paintball guns doing 400 fps at competitions. I w ent to a walk-on day, which was a bit mad, and they chronoed all the guns after lunch as there had been some
complains. One guy had his set to dead on 400! That is 33% over the limit of 300!! Mine was set to 300, and it gave 301 on a few shots, average about 298. They asked me to
tw eak it down a bit, but I didn't bother, since the higher velocities were after ten shots+ , and then dropped as things cooled. This would never be an issue at close ranges.
If you have one of the better guns, you can simply unlock the adjuster, and turn the power right up. This is to adjust for colder days, when you need more gas for the same
velocity, and hot days when the oppo is true.
If you want blazing velocity without breaking your paint, try getting a venturi bolt. I have one, and you never get broken paint, as the bolt never actually hits the ball! What
normally happens is that the ball gets a smack to start it moving, and the gas then pushes the ball out. The venturi has more holes in it, so the gas gets out faster. Also, your
bolt is lighter, so the gun fires even faster!
I say forget this as a project, and just get a newer, better paintgun. Turn it all the way up, and you will be able to put down 15+ shots per second at 400+ fps, in .67 cal!
Freeze the paintballs hard in your freezer for killing rats!

jacks complete i have a tippmann A-5 w/flatline and e-grip not having a good gun isn't really my problem. Mine is cranked open all the way for all those angel toting yuppies
whose mommy and daddy bought theirs for them:) chronoes about 350-375 now with the new expansion chamber. I just want something unique. The guy at the local field
knows me for this with my 98custom with an underbarrel scattergun. He wanted to buy it from me but ii gave it to my cousin for christmas when i got my a-5. I'm an
individualist, i have to be different. what i'm planning on doing is similar to the effect of a venturi bolt. The 90 psi that propane creates will start to push the projectile down the
barrel once the mixture is right the electric arc will ignite the gas further speeding up the ball so as not to rupture it but gently accelerate the ball down the barrel. I think i've
figured it out i'm going to test it this weekend if it works i'll try to post info.
Sparky February 21st, 2004, 11:39 AM

Jack, I know hydrogen has one of the highest flammability range, that's w hy I used it as an example. It seems I misremembered the actual limit though,
http://ww w.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/hydrogen.htm
http://ww w.hydrogensafety.info/articles/04-feb-04.asp (http://www .hydrogensafety.info/articles/04-feb-04.asp)
The sites agree to limits of 4% to 75%. 18% being the lower explosive limit. It may have a higher range in pure oxygen but I don't suppose there is much point in using pure
oxygen.
I've found it hard to get a good mixture w ith ether (though not unusably hard). So I was surprised to find Tuatara was right about it's w ide flammability range, about 1.9% to
36%
http://ww w.orcbs.msu.edu/newsletters/July1993/haz_mat_report.html
http://ww w.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/ethylether/recognition.html
Compared to propane at 2% to 10%

(http://ww w.technocarb.com/natgasproperties.htm)
I suppose the fact that ether comes out if the can as a liquid makes it easy to add too much.
Not_Osama February 22nd, 2004, 02:47 AM

I think i have a perfect solution to your problem of breaking paintballs...DONT USE A PAINBALL!
I recently aquired a 0.61 inch solid steel ball bearing, and when shot from my tippman 98 reaches 380 fps and easily shatters 2X4's. I w ent online and found a site which
manufactures CUSTOM ball bearings and odered 2000 of them. I'd bet that w ith your propane mod, it's power w ould rival that of my H&K .45 P7M10!!!
Jacks Complete February 23rd, 2004, 07:46 PM

I went online and found a site which manufactures CUSTOM ball bearings and odered 2000 of them.
Have you got a link for them? How much did 2000 cost?? Doesn't it knacker the gun? Hell, what is the recoil like?
I have a spare... :D
phyrelord February 23rd, 2004, 08:44 PM

i've thought about playing hopper roulette with these before http://w ww.pbreview.com/products/review s/1499 they're called t-balls one to a hopper of 200 would make the
game more interesting. i'm not trying to kill things. i want to make a super paintball gun that shoots .68 caliber PAINTBALLS. i still have to get a stun gun shipped in and i'll have
it together. hope it works, i'll post pics when i get it all together.
Not_Osama February 26th, 2004, 02:16 PM

Have you got a link for them? How much did 2000 cost?? Doesn't it knacker the gun? Hell, what is the recoil like?
I have a spare... :D
I will answer your questions as they come.
Firstly, It is my custom never to give out w eb links except in rare cases. I beleive that those who are do mentally deficient to figure out how a search engine w orks, have no
business playing w ith such dangerous toys.
Secondly, my first batch of 2000 set me back 150 bucks...pretty steep, however some of that was shipping (the full crate weighed nearly 300 pounds). How ever, I sold 500 to
my best friend, and 500 to his brother for a 80 bucks a bag, so i have already made back 160 dollars!
As to your second question, yes is definitely does. However i sumply use my stock Tippman 98 barrel whenever im shooting bearings. The wear can be reduced by lightly oiling
the balls so that they slide easier.
Another great way to get FREE ball bearings is to SWIPE the mouseballs out out the old school mice. Simply remove the rubber coating and VOILA!
The only problem is that they are too large for the regular tippman barrel. I solved this by borrowing my friends FREAK BARREL (with the changeable sleeves for different ball
sizes). The largest ball size works great for the ancient beige Macintosh mouseballs. But make sure your balls are well oiled(sorry but the pun), cause THE FREAK is freakin
expensive!
Recoil is pretty bad on the highest pressure, but nothing like my .50 Desert Eagle AE. If you can shoot even a low -powered handgun, then this should be no problem.
EDIT: I just had a thought...I wonder what a well oiled ball of plasticzed PETN w ould do w hen shot out of a PB gun! Someone insane, PLEASE try this and post the results if you
live! Ill post this request on the TOTSE and MISCHEIF forums too...those dumbasses will try anything.
-=PEACE OUT, AND HAPPY HUNTING= -

EDIT: I just had a thought...I wonder what a well oiled ball of plasticzed PETN w ould do w hen shot out of a PB gun! Someone insane, PLEASE try this and post the results if you
live! Ill post this request on the TOTSE and MISCHEIF forums too...those dumbasses will try anything.
Like stuffing a kilo of HE into a car and fragging it from ~ 90meters aw ay? :P
That sounds like a good idea, but I suspect it would be a remote test for the first shot!
I see what you mean about the link to someone's site, but I suspect you are being a little over-cautious, since you are probably in the states, and I am not. I w ill have to see
how w ell the local shop can re-grind BBs - I got a whole load of old ones for nought, because they aren't round yet - this place re-grinds them to round, and sells them back to
the sellers! Great for catapults, but wouldn't feed at all!
As for the recoil, I can imagine it being quite fierce for a single shot from an empty gun, but if you are trying to use the hopper feed, and spit them out fast, what happens? Or is
it single shot only? Both my guns are semi's.

As for the recoil, I can imagine it being quite fierce for a single shot from an empty gun, but if you are trying to use the hopper feed, and spit them out fast, what happens? Or is
it single shot only?
The problem w ith using a hopper full of the bearings it that a full one weighs about 20 pounds, w ith only 3 loaded into the elbow though it shoots fine, and is manageable. I am
working on a 10 round low-profile feeder from sheet metal that will be light, but still provide plenty of firepower.
As for the PETN rounds....w ell...Im still a chicken bastard. Even if a remote firing SUCCEDED, if one ever went off in the barrel due to some freak occurence it w ould be all over.
It w ould totally frag the barrel, and turn the gun into a lethal pipebomb. If me or anyone else came up with a SAFE, reliable method of firing i w ould try it.
I have been w orking on modifying .45 cal HOLLOWPOINTS into EXPLOSIVE ROUNDS. I am trying to make a larger cavity in the bullet and pack it with PETN desensitized with
RDX. This should allow the bullet to be fired without detonating, and still be sensitive enough to initiate on impact. The trick however is getting the right mixture. I am slowly
adding more PETN to my RDX mixtures until I find one that w ill detonate upon impact...The w aste of RDX though is enough to make one cry! :(

So how many guns do you have Not_Osama? No offense, but to me it sounds like you dont have all these guns you claim you do.
How much do those bearings weigh?

So how many guns do you have Not_Osama? No offense, but to me it sounds like you dont have all these guns you claim you do.
I own 4 handguns: A H&K 9mm P7 Compact, a H&K .45 P7M10, an original model .380 Walther PPK(similar to the one James Bond used in his older movies), and my new pride
and joy, A .50 Desert Eagle AE Mark XIX w ith 24K gold finish. If you w ould like pics for verification, i will attach them as soon as i get back to civilization. For now here is a
catalog pic of my new baby
http://ww w.magnumresearch.com/Expand.asp?ProductCode= DE50GO
click on "gallery of guns" if you want a larger pic.
On a side note, I bought this with my tuition refund!
pest3125 March 3rd, 2004, 01:26 PM

I own 4 handguns: A H&K 9mm P7 Compact, a H&K .45 P7M10,
You sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
A HK P7M10 is chambered for 10mm Auto ammunition

not .45 ACP. There is no such model as a "HK P7 compact"
There is a HK P7M8 and the older HK P7 PSP variant.
Also in an earlier post, you said a crate of 2000,

0.61" diameter steel balls weighed 300 lbs. The w eight of those is more like 66 pounds - did you really order those?

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Improvised .22 Handgun
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised .22 Handgun

Have I been here long enough to make a thread yet? If not please don't kill me!
I know the idea of improvised handguns has come up before, but never in this form.
The idea i have is to take a normal break barrel air rifle or pistol and convert it to fire .22 rimfire rounds by first stripping it down and silver soldering a firing pin to the front of
the piston, then ream out a chamber (as the rifling on an air rifle starts too close to the breech for a shell to fit in without modification to the chamber.) then to fire jsut place a
shell down the barrel, cock the rifle and when the trigger is pulled the piston whacks the firing pin into the cartridge, simple.
The idea of this is to get better accuracy than a zip gun.
What do you all think?

Yorki p.
Youre talking about some .17 air guns rigth ? because at my Country the air guns are all 4.5 mm, and must be chambered and reamed to fit one .22 - when its done, the
barrel becomes so thin that cant hold the pressure of the shot.
If it can be done on the .17, Im not sure, as Ive never seen one of those weapons around here, but there is one problem, the piston moving against the cartridge will build
pressure, as if the reguular air gun, how overcome it ? And how stop the firing pin to perforate the case of the ammo ?
zaibatsu March 3rd, 2004, 09:31 PM

Dave the Rave:
From what he's said, I'm assuming he's from the UK. There are plenty of cheap .22 break barrel air pistols around there, mostly from China. The barrels are plenty thick
enough. But you just know that the piston-firing pin will burst the primer, those things would hit it hard.
I guess you could stop pressure build up by drilling some holes in the chamber that the piston fits, but you'd still have the problem with the power it's going to hit with. You
could lighten the spring, but then you increase lock time.
NickSG March 3rd, 2004, 10:46 PM

I suggest you use the airgun for parts, since to me it wouldnt be worth the trouble modifying it to fire .22RF.
.22 rimfire rounds have a primer on the outside of the rim, so your firing pin would have to strike the outside rather than the center. I dont think there would be any room in
the first place to get the rim to stay in place when you close the gun.
The .22 shell will push itself back as the explosives in it burn, which could easily damage the inside of the gun. I could be totally wrong here, but I just think you would be
better off using the gun for parts.
Zaibatsu- Which barrels are strong enough to withstand .22 pressures? The CO2 or piston powered air rifles? My friend has an old .22 CO2 pistol from when he was a teen that
he doesnt need anymore, and I was wondering if I could make any good use of the barrel.
zaibatsu March 4th, 2004, 07:49 AM

NickSG: Buy a cheap chinese air rifle in .22, I don't think a CO2 airguns barrel would be a safe thing to use. I'm sure it would take a couple of .22LR shots, but I wouldn't use it.
I just had a horrible thought: the .22 air pistols are a break barrel design, and the breech locks up tight against the front of the piston chamber wall. Just dropping a .22LR in
and shutting it up quick would crush the rim :eek:

You could vary the force of the firing pin by either leaving the piston seals in place to form a cushion of air when the piston moves or remove the seal and drill holes in the
piston face to increase the force of the hit.

as most airguns will use some sort of rubber seal attached to the barrel, this seal (depending on the make the barrel) often resides in a grove cut in the barrel, so the 'chamber'
will almost surely not be sufficiently strong to sustain the discharge.
I believe a safer design would be to use a .22 airgun barrel sleeved with some seamless tubing.. I have posted this in another thread - so sorry for crossposting. I do so
anyway because I feel that what you propose would not be safe.
The firing pin hole in the airgun is likely to be much too large for the firing pin (at least 4mm.) so there would be a real risk of a blow-back towards your eyes (if shoulder
fired).
You could take the inner parts of the airgun, the stock, the trigger system and the barrel and apply these to a Sten Gun like design.
This way you could potentially build up the chamber area with tubing to achieve a fairly strong construction.
--
oh yeah otherwise.. the break barrel - slam shut firing system- earlier proposed by zaibatsu could actually be triggered by the main spring if the safety system on the trigger
was removed - would make for quite a surprise! :)
I has a cheap airgun once without a safety, it doubled as a switchblade baton

xperk, Do you mean a risk of the cartridge case popping and blowing back through the trasfer port into the cylinder or blowing the whole thing to bits? Also I could remove the
rubber seal and fill the groove full of weld metal if everyone agrees that this part is too weak.

I think both scenarios are likely:
- firstly the cartridge might backfire if the firing pin hole is not properly sealed, anyways if you use a centered firing pin for at rimfire cartridge the thing may misfire. In which
case someone would have to remove a now distorted and jammed live rimfire round from the chamber, not a holiday scenario...
- secondly the chamber walls of the airgun barrel are simply not meant for the abuse. Welding the grove/rubber seal embedding may work as a filling material. However it
doesn't solve the main concern about wall strength of the chamber.
The average airgun barrel is around 17 mm. max. OD this in theory presents plenty of wall thickness, when compared to a .22 rifle. However! the metal quality between the
two is different.
Most airgun barrels are made with cold drawn steel tubing, whereas firearms are made with rifle steel.

I never said I was going to use a centered firing pin, and also the length of the firing pin could be adjusted so it can not pierce the cartridge. I think that the barrels are strong
enough just from the thickness like you said and I'm prepared to risk a cheap rifle being blown up, not like I'm going to have it near me for the first shots. Also, what damage
would a backfire do apart from blow gas into the piston chamber?
Damn temptation to make weapons is going to set me back by a good few .

The theoretical test firing by remote sounds like a sound idea :)
I don't mean to be a nag about this but..
The centered firing pin issue could be a problem due to the hole from the compression chamber to the barrel being aligned (most likely centered), so you would need to weld
that up - and drill a new hole off-center..
The backfire (ok yezz I am a sissy) could be a problem if it was shoulder fired - the gases could travel backward into the compression chamber and blow out through the
various openings. This could result in anything from a burnt triggerfinger to a lost eye if the gasses and debris came out near your face.
In any case good luck with your project, I would advice strongly against using the barrel if not reinforced.
Dave the Rave March 4th, 2004, 05:56 PM

Yorki P, I dont think that the risk is worth. Really, from the barrels Ive seen, its made from poor steel and cant hold the pressure, and the piston will surelly burst the
primer. The best scenario the gun will not fire, the worst the gun will fire an jet of fire at your face.
The idea of reinforce the barrel can work, but then you will have to enlarge the back of the barrel, to fit the rim of the ammunition, to prevent it from beeing fire by the closure
of the gun. As your rim will be inside the barrel, you will have to devise an way to extract it, wich will be dificult, as the expansion will force the case against the walls of the
barrel. The pressure of the gun can be lowered by the drilling of the chamber, but it will result on an weapon fragile.
Maybe using only the barrel and improvising one small firing pin, one nail inside ob a piece of tubbing, powered by an small heli spring ?

Instead of saying this and that why don't you just tell us what you can do, what equipment you've got, and we'll have a think Yorki.
charger March 4th, 2004, 08:31 PM

Converting an airgun to fire rimfire cartriges has already been discussed, although not in detail in the silencer section of improvised weapons. It can be found here. http://
www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=587&page=4 the differences in the barrel diameter is an important thing to take into consideration. A barrel that is too small,
combined with the poor quality of most airgun barrels (they aren't made for the higher pressures of cartriges) would almost definately lead to disaster. If you still want to try
this, I would without hesitation agree with xperk with remote test firing.

My first zipgun was taken from PMJB Vol 2, made from 2 sections of 1/8" pipe and coupler. Chisel-ground bolt for the firing pin, surgical tubing. Test-fired from the hand (yeah,
I know, dangerous). No powder residue in rear pipe, no rupture of cartridge base. Barrel was modified to fit the cartridge by epoxying a thin steel tube inside, then filing
chamber to size with chainsaw file.
I suspect that a well-used (worn) .22 air barrel would be fine. A new one, I wouldn't use. In your shoes, I'd use the trigger mech (maybe), the stock and barrel, and redesign
the entire receiver.
Just my opinion added to my experience.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > C heap/Powerfull Spudgun <15$
Log in
View Full Version : Cheap/Powerfull Spudgun <15$
ink March 14th, 2004, 04:47 AM

Hello all! This is my first post in the forum. I have included plans for, IMHO t h e b e s t i m p r o v i s e d w e a p o n m a d e f r o m s i m p l e
hardware store items. You can even travel with it checked in your baggag e! Well the im age pretty m uch sums it up. The barell
is so short in t h e i m a g e b e c a u s e o f t h e d a m n 5 0 0 x 5 0 0 u p l o a d r u l e . W hen putting the PVC peices together use PVC glue. Fo r
the Valve go to your nearest garage/Gas station and ask for one, they usually give them away for free. Drill a hole in the
endcap a little sm alle r then th e valve looks, then slip it through and it will autom aticly lock in place and seal. To loa d the gun
take the barell off and stick a paintball/spud/whatever into the end close st to the valve, then put the barell back on . if you
want to shoot paint balls out of this use 1/2'' thin walled pipe. Close the valve, and give the pump about 20... pum ps. W h e n
you are ready to fire open the valve as quick as you can. This design was built and tested for maximum power/effeciency -INk
-----------------
Y o u s h o u l d h a v e s a v e d t h e a t t a c h m e n t i n G I F f o r m at since this will usually yield the smallest files for im ages with few different
colors. It was very noisy due to the JPEG com pression, so I saved it as a black & white im a g e .
S o m e o n e h a s t o p a y f o r t h e b andwidth, and we don't want to reduce the filesize of everbodys' images as we have other things
to do.
Rhadon
Caesar March 21st, 2004, 11:24 PM

The idea sounds legit, but i dont like the whole " o p e n t h e v a l v e a s f a s t a s y o u c a n " t h i n g . I h a v e a s p u d g u n , m ade of pvc that
didn t cost that m uch either. it was only 25 for a ll of the peices. the igniter is what is the most expe niseve part of that, 15
dollars. oh and painballs are to big for half inch, but they fit nicely in 3/4 (.75). paintballs are .68. 3/4 inch isnt as comm o n
though.
Aaron-V2.0 March 23rd, 2004, 01:23 AM

Heh, here's a little info you may like.
3/4" Sch40 is com m o n a n d s h itty for paintballs.
3/4" Sch40 is .81" ID

3/4" Sch80 is .72" ID Better but still sloppy.
3/4" CPVC is .68" ID perfect, you just put a CPVC male adapter on it and it'll fit into 3/4" NPT fittings.
thatITguy March 30th, 2004, 10:52 PM

Caesar - You are perfectly right, the "open the valve as fast as you can" think does sound sketchy, but with a little practice
(and oil) a 3/4 inch m etal valve can be flipped very fast. Mine has a barrel approx 95 cm long, however a diam e t e r o f m o r e
than 3 cm. I have fired a 300 gram projectile over 400 m eters this way, with significant recoil. I use a comp ressor, with a
schrader valve at the input (bicycle valve) and usually go up to at least 1 20 psi. The Schedule 40 PVC is rated at we ll over twice
that, so a safefy m argin is m a i n t a i n e d .
Note- I would recomm e n d a m etal valve with th r e a d s f o r a p n e u m atic spudgun. 2 reasons 1) can b e flipped faster a nd m ore
easily lubrica t e d , a n d 2 ) t h e t h r e a d s n e e d e d t o adapt the PVC to the metal allow changing of barrels. W ith well used plum bers
tape on the threads, there is no leak at all, all the way up to 180 psi.
I h a v e s e e n p e o p l e u se solenoid valves for the ir potato guns, but as of yet, I haven't m a n a g e d t o f i n d o n e .

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Prop Pisto l Flamer
Log in
View Full Version : Prop Pistol Flamer
mixojoe March 18th, 2004, 06:03 PM

Hi guys i work in the short film industry and wish to share a little contraption that we use som etim es for a som e fun. It is an
im provised p istol flam er.
http://www.sickindividual.com /flamer.htm l
Also if anyon e has got any links or plans for a hidden sleeve rail system for a handgun like seen in "Taxi Driver" it would be
really handy for a mo vie

Not a bad idea.
My take on this desig n does without th e caulk gun (which generally costs far more than it is worth, and you have to buy one
that releases the pressure when you release the trigger for that design) and uses nothing more than an em pty beer can from
your recycle bin, a bit of wood, and the gas can .
Take your drink can (tin from here on in), and put it next to the gas can. Check the length is about right - the gas can should
b e a b o u t t h e s a m e length. If it is too long, we can chop the tin down a bit later.
Get a drill bit that is the same width as the nozzle on th e gas can. Now drill a hole centrally in the base of the drink tin. Test it
by p utting the gas can into the hole. W h e n y o u push it halfway, it should catch, and start to spray. If you m ade it too big, get
another tin a nd a smaller drill bit!
Next, chop the top off the tin (get the gas out first, though, if using power tools!) and drop your gas can in. Get it to line up
with, and stick partly out of, the hole, just like in the test. Do a test squirt.
Now, you want to tune the length. Cut a notch wide enough for your thum b in the back of the tin, so you can push it forwards
easily. Next get your bit of wood, and glue it to the tin, so that you can reach with your thumb, and have a nice pistol grip.
That's it! You can glue some kind of lighter system to it if you want, as a neat trigger, or whatever, or just use your free hand.
The heat is great, but the rapid decom pression keeps the nozzle icy cold !
mixojoe March 19th, 2004, 01:15 AM

e x c e l l e n t i d e a , t h a n k s J a c k . O ur concept above is just a n extrem ely quickfire approach and has be e n u s e d o u t o n t h e f i e l d
occa sionally veruy quickly.
D o e s a n y o n e h a v e a n i d e a o n that concealed h a n d g u n s l e e v e s y s t e m I a m r e s e a rching?

T h e p r o b l e m I h a d w h e n I m a de one of these was switching it off. A caulk gun pushes the gas canister forwards then tries to
lock it in that position. If a spring was added to the front of the weapon (between the gas canister and the m e t a l p l a t e ) a n d
the locking p art of the caulk g un was suitably filed down, the gas flow could be controlled better.
A butane lighter refill seems to fit perfectly in the caulk gun that I have.
The only lim itation of this wea pon is its two foot range. Although , it is pretty intim idating :cool:
O n s l e e v e h a n d g u n s , y o u ' d n e e d a v e r y s m all weapon, or giant sized sleeves :D

The Colt 25, airsoft pistol seem s to be about the right size, although it's an airsoft weapon, but this would be fine for film
p u r p o s e s ( i f s o u n d a n d a m uzzle flash was added later during the editing process). A spring model costs around 15 in the UK,
w h e r e a s a s e m i - a u t o m atic gas one costs about 25. A blank firing model m ay be available.
zaibatsu March 19th, 2004, 09:02 AM

Just an idea I had, how about having the fram e of the pistol attached to a rail which runs under the forearm . The ra il is straight
for most of the length, but twists near the wrist. The rail could, for exam p l e , b e m ade of square section ste el. W hen the pistol
is fu rther up the arm , away from the wrist, it is held flat against the arm . However, as the the rail twists near the wrist, this
turns the pistol to an upright position. Naturally this is flawed, but just an idea...

I h a v e n e v e r m a n a g e d t o c o m e up with a decent design for one of those.
Nearest was a kid at school who tried with a dra w slider, which wa sn't too bad, and I tried a design for some predator "claws"
a l o n g a sim ilar design. Both were gravity drop with a catch.
I figure a sim p l e g u n s t r a p p e d a l o n g t h e b a c k o f t h e a r m would be better. Just m ake it so the m uzzle is parallel to your finger
when you point and h ave a trigger and a slide out "overbarrel" which would stop the bullet hitting your hand. The steel rod
would double as a cosh, but don't do a "Pulp Fiction"!
mixojoe March 19th, 2004, 06:30 PM

thanks guys this is an awesom e forum and friendly too :)
metafractal March 26th, 2004, 07:11 AM

I built one of these this afternoon. I used an oven lighter, a cau lk gun, a concave aluminium disk, and a can of Jaycar butane
gas. The unit is very impressive for it's ease of m anufacture.
T h e o l d c a u l k g u n t h a t I u s e d h a d j a m m e d u p , s o I d e c i d e d t o p u t s o m e oil in the joints. W ithout thinking, I also oiled the
e x t e n s i o n m e c h a n i s m . By doing this, I stopped the rear m etal latch hooking on that causes the shaft to stay in the position
that it is in when the trigger is released. The shaft returned to the position it started in as I released the trigger. However,
when I m anually extended the shaft so that it touched the can that was touching the disk that in turn touch ed the front of th e
gun, I found myself with an apparatus where I could regulate the flow of butane by the pressure I applied to the trigger! This
provides m uch better control than the straightforward method of locking it in place. No spring was required at the front of the
unit to achieve this.
W hen I first tried it, a third of the burn ing gas was sprayed back around the butane canister(:eek:)! This probably wouldn't
happened with other lower boiling point fuels, but I feel that butane will give the m ost im pressive flam e. Additionally, the disk
would occasionally slip up if I pressed the trigger too ha rd. To overcom e these two things, I attached a suitably sized plastic
fitting that the canister comes with in order to refill different appliances to the opening of the can. I let the nozzle that is
normally inserted into the appliance being refilled stick through the hole in the alum i n i u m d i s k , a n d t h e o p e n i n g o f t h e f u e l
can stay behind the disk. By doing this, I elim i n a t e d f u e l b e i n g s p r a y e d b a c k a t t h e g u n , a n d f i x e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e d i s k
relative to the can.
T o m orrow, I will m odify the oven lighter. I will loosen the fuel valve inside enough so that I can use the flam e adjustm e n t o n
the outside to allow a nd restrict the flow of gas. This way I wont have to hold down the trig ger for the pilot light. The se
im p r o v e m e n t s m ake the unit m uch m o r e e n j o y a b l e t o o p e r a t e .

An alternative to the oven lighter pilot light would be a pen sized gas torch (usually used for soldering). This m ay perform
better in bad weather conditions. A full charge of gas will last quite a while (40 m i n u t e s i n t h e m o d e l I l o o k e d a t ) . R e f i l l i n g i s
usually achie ved using standa rd gas lighter refill.
T h e r e ' s a n e x a m ple of one here (http://www.maplin.co.uk/?userid=SearchEngine&targetmodule=3925)
Hose clamps or Jubilee clips could be used to attach the torch to the flam ethrower. The pirce of the weapon would be
increased, but the blue jet of the pilot light would make the weapon look m uch nicer.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R ail-cannon plans
Log in
View Full Version : Rail-cannon plans
Cyclo_Knight March 23rd, 2004, 11:27 PM

I finally finshed m y rail-cannon last we ekend...It is essentially a 2" steel pipe with a .75" bore 2.5' in length. It stands on a
reenforced tripod, which is con stant level, and fires sharpened steel dowels. The power and sound are am azing, It fires the 1/2
pound rails out of sight into solid pine trees. The accuracy however is terrible as the spikes tend to tumble after 100 yards.
Poin t-blank however the sheer power will shatter young 4" pines. It is loa ded with Pyrodex, but I suppose you could use NC as
the barrel is EXTREMELY heavy. I raised it on two cinder-blocks, and hit it with a splitting axe and failed to bend it...only surface
d a m age and cracked cinder-blocks :)
If anyone wo uld like plans to this I will draw them up in Auto CAD, and put it into PDF form at. It will take we a week or two tho
as I am EXTREMELY busy with some waste-water treatments designs that were due LAST week! :(
Gremlin March 24th, 2004, 12:13 AM

I would be very interested in thses plans.
(sorry is this is a double as i can't see whether the post was successful or not)
----------------------
W hen you submit your post you will ge t a m essage which tells you that you have posted successfully. All of your posts are in
the m oderation queue two if not three times!
And if you have two things to say in one topic, put them into one post and not into two different ones. People who try to
increase their post count by creating a new post for almost every sentence are "post whores", and we all know what usually
happens with these...
Rhadon
nbk2000 March 24th, 2004, 12:32 AM

Pictures within a few days or you'll be beHED'd for violation of the "Mr. W izard" rule.
This subject is som ething countless n0 0bies ha ve poste d new topics about, but not one of them has ever p rovided proof of
anything other than having an overactive im a gi n a ti on .
W hen you get the pics, e-m ail them to m e a t f o r u m s c a n @ y a h o o .com and I'll reopen this thread and approve them for
attachm ent.
Failure to com ply will result in your termination. :)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Fragmentation help!
Log in
View Full Version : Fragmentation help!
2,4,6-TNP April 3rd, 2004, 01:48 AM

I'm h a v i n g s o m e trouble understanding the following website: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/na v y / d o c s / e s 3 1 0 / d a m _crit/
d a m _crit.htm
W hat I'm tring to figure out is the probable kill criteria for a bom b containing 600 1/2" ste el ball bearings, each are 3.5 grams.
And a bursting charge of 600 grams of cast picric acid having a VoD of 7400 m e t e r s a s e c o n d . W hat will be the PK at say 10
m eters?
Here is a follow-up website: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/na vy/docs/es310/warheads/W a r h e a d s . h t m
Mr Cool April 3rd, 2004, 11:13 AM

The website explains it well with simple m a t h s , e v e n g i v i n g a n e x a m ple.
If you can't follow it, then m aybe you are not ready to be m elting over a pound of picric acid?

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Special amm o for slingshots
Log in
View Full Version : Special ammo for slingshots
Ropik April 7th, 2004, 04:34 PM

I a m sorry for two new threads by me in one week, but I need help with this:
I d o n o t k n o w a n y g o o d s p e c i a l a m mo for sling shot. I tried to fo und it via google, but I fo und only kewl stuff like "Hamm er flat
o n e p i e c e o f c o p p e r p i p e . P r e p a r e m ixture of silver fulm inate and nails, pour it in, com pact it down with hamm e r a n d d o w e l a n d
shut the other end of pipe". I meditate about craterm aker with fragm entation sleeve(nails and corrugated cardboard), but m y
bigg e s t n e e d i s p o i s o n e d a m mo. This can be rather difficult, because slingshot act via blunt trauma(I know, when you are hit
in chest with nut the pain is sharp, but it doesn't m atter)and do not penetrate into body of target. I think about som e t h i n g l i k e
nut with hole for bolt filled with ricin or aconitin, but I suppose (mentioned above) that nut can not penetrate enough.
Thanks for any ideas.
Bert April 7th, 2004, 07:41 PM

I suppose (m entioned above) that nut can not penetrate enough.
That's why South Am erican indians poisoned their BLOW GUN DARTS and ARRO WS, not the rocks for their slings. Th ey did
m ake slingshots as well as the traditional "David and Goliath" shepherd's sling- T hey had rubber. And nice poison a rrow frog s
(http://www.shoarns.com/Frogs.htm l) . And curare (http://216.239.57.104/search?
q=cache:J02_dUZNBgMJ:www.blueplanetbiomes.o rg/curare.htm +curare%2Bsource&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Y o u c a n m ake a rather neat a m m o b a s e d o n t h e b a k e d c l a y a m mo used by the ancients if you wa nt to stop people firing the
s a m e rounds back at you.
Get som e lead shot, and mix it with clay, or som ething similar. Let it dry. Any that hit a hard surface will crumble away or
shatter, leaving useless bits.
As for poison delivery, I don't know. You could perhaps try som ething like the above, with a steel caltrop inside it. It would
t a k e s o m e tuning, but you could have it break away on im p a c t t o e x p o s e t h e s p i k e s , t h e n d e l i v e r i n g t h e p o i s o n . Y o u can't
have it break away after launch, as it won't fly straight, like a dodgy stone, and you obviously can't fire som e t h i n g p o i n t e d
from the pouch.
T h e o t h e r o p tion would be to fire som e kind of heavy dart, but you will have fun getting it to be accurate. I found th ey always
went a few yards at odd angles before stabilising, wrecking accuracy, at b est.
On a related note, I spent the weekend weighing 5kg of ballbearings to 5 grains (77302 grains worth, 317 total, ranging from
415 grains down to 145 grains, plus two that were over 500 grains) for power testing of the two types of Barnett catapult I
have.
I have the natural colour bands, and a set of black bands, that a web search has shown up as discontinued ! Anyway, I am
h o p i n g t o g e t s o m e time over this wee k e n d t o s h o o t s o m e ball bearings with them both over the chrono. I will post the results
a s s o o n a s I h a v e t h e m sorted.

P o i s o n e a m m o c a n b e ( m aybe ) m a d e l i k e s p i k e b a l l s m eared with poison paste. In this event is probably necessary to have
s o m e protection for the pouch (and for your fingers).
W e a k n e s s c a n b e t h a t y o u m ust have either excessively long sp ikes or you m ust hit som e uncovered part of body like face or
hands.

I thought of using a foam covered spiky projectile. The biggest problem I found was that you have to be able to really grip the
a m m o h a r d , a n d s o a c l e v e r s y s t e m u s i n g f o a m o r s o m ething wouldn't work, since you would still spike yourself.
The chrono tests will have to wait - trust m e to get food poisoning over the Easter holiday! :(
akinrog April 16th, 2004, 11:01 AM

Maybe this is a little bit noisy :eek: bu t it m ight be useful for qu ick results.
If SW IM wants to poison som eone with relevantly high accuracy and precision dart fired by a blank firer (replica gun), s/he
would use a syringe needle whose hollow space is filled with a nasty stuff.
Since, in SW IM's country replica guns (blank firer) (which fires blank amm o) is also used for launching signal flares, SW I M
t h o u g h t t h e s a m e principle m ay be used for firing poiso n d o p e d s y r i n g e n e e d l e s : c o o l : .
Evan007 April 17th, 2004, 05:21 AM

A Fo am, paste etc covered projectile, or an otherwise fragile one can still be fired from a slingshot, but the pouch obviously has
to be modified.
A so lid pouch could m a y b e b e m ade from metal from s o m ething like a coke can (Being light weight, thin, and easily obtained)
bent, cut etc into a shallow cup. Size and shape would b e depending on the projectile to be fired. However, the rigid "cup
pouch" m ight fly a touch awkwardly through the air from wind resistance (slowing it down at the least). The actual rigid "pouch"
would have to be sm all too, to help it stop from bending and warping in the pull.
A better alternative would be a basket-like pouch made from wire, with a strong "O " shaped sort of fram e f o r t h e m o u t h , t o
stop it bending in the pull.
Both have there good/bad points. The cup has added air resistance, but spikes wouldnt catch on it. The Basket is lighter,
plyable for adjustm e n t s , a n d m uch less wind re sistant, but is harder to m ake, and bullets may get cought in it, particularly
spiky ones (this can be reduced with tighter, sm aller gaps in baskets weaving, in exchange for weight and difficulty).
These "pouches" wouldnt be grasped and pulled in the usual way, if bending, crushing etc proved a problem. A loop of leather,
strin g, cord, wire etc attatched to the bottom of the basket (when held mouth upward) or pouch could be used as a handle pull
back the "pouch", reducing inward forces on the pouch, therefore grip of your hand wouldn t crush the projectile and warping
would be reduced too.
T h e s p i k e s , f o a m , p a ste etc o n the projectile should stop it from simply rolling out of one of these "pouche s".
If you didnt want to g o through that trouble, yo u could also experim ent with just putting things with the projectile in the
conventional pouch, so that you would be gripping it, instead of the actuall bullet to be fired. Said thing to be in pouch would
have to be fixed to the pouch, and behind it to stop interferering with the bullet in the release, and in flight.
Just a couple of Brain farts I thought I'd share.
Plinker April 29th, 2004, 02:03 AM

I tried expirim enting with slingshot shotshells and it worked....ok. I took a piece of paper and put a pile of shotgun pellets,
bb's, pebbles ,etc, in the middle then folded th e corners up and twisted em up. It opens pretty fast but carries a suprising
a m ount of force if you use heavy lead shot. I even took out a starling from about 12' with o n e .

It can be good mainly for dispirit your attacker/chaser, but you can aim less accurate and it's defin i t e a d v a n t a g e . . . G o o d i d e a ,
Plinker!
Harpoon April 29th, 2004, 06:54 AM

You can get slingshots with a huge pouch for fishing. While they don't ha ve the sam e power as a wrist rocket, they will reliably
throw anything up to orange size a gre at distance. I rem e m ber slinging eggs (I was drunk at the time) at a pedestrian crossing
over a friends house, with him looking out the front window and spotting for m e u sing an intercom system to com m u n i c a t e .
It's m ore of an indirect fire we apon though (and a low p owered one at that)...
The pouch was made of a stiff plastic m esh with a loop for your finger at the back.
Ropik April 29th, 2004, 03:26 PM

Hey, it is great silent weapon! How heavy can be this projectile? If at least 150-180 g, you can launch sm all grenades, fire
bottles etc. What is "great ran ge" for launching orange from this weapon?
Sadly I doubt that this slingsh ot can be obtained in post-com m unists countries - where I live :mad : .
M a y b e y o u c a n m a n u f a c t u r e o ne pouch from some stiff metal window screening and attach it to the regular slingsho t.
C a n y o u o b t a i n s o m e screenshot, picture etc.? I would be grateful because I have m any sm all objects(like rats ;) ) that can be
disposed with good slingshot with big pouch.
aikon April 29th, 2004, 06:18 PM

You can get slingshots with a huge pouch for fishing...
T h o s e f i s h i n g s l i n g s h o t s a r e o f poor quality and the rubber band tends to rupture very easily when loaded with heavier am m o .
I'd suggest to buy the strongest slingshot and use ordinary ball bearings. That's still the best.
Plinker April 29th, 2004, 10:51 PM

Y o u c a n a l s o b u y t h o s e h u g e w a t e r b a l l o o n s l i n g s h o t s t h a t t a k e 3 p e o p l e to hold and fire. They sell them h ere http://
www.slingking.com /
Y o u c o u l d e a s i l y m a k e o n e f r o m s o m e surgical tubing a n d r o p e t h o u g h . I ' v e b e e n p l a n n i n g on trying that but never have
gotten aroun d to it.
Bigfoot May 6th, 2004, 12:16 AM

I knew a kid who got hit with a water balloon from one of those giant slin gshots. The firer had been practicing from an
apartm ent window, and tried for a hum an targe t. Hit him i n t h e f o r e h e a d , k n o c k e d h i m do wn. He g o t u p , o p e n e d h i s e y e s , a n d
from one eye pulled out a piece of rub ber! Had a g o o s e g g o n h i s f o r e h e a d f o r 3 w e e k s .
The first and only person I ever heard of gettin g hit by one of those things.
aikon Novem ber 10th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Maybe this is interesting for som e of you. Shooting arro ws with a slingshot.
http://www.oddwing.com /arrow_shooting_slingshots.htm

Just a note, the three m a n s l i n g s h o t s a r e n o w a v a i l a b l e a s a o n e m a n f e et braced version .
http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/SOLW ATVAR.htm


malzraa June 5th, 2005, 10:36 PM

For the poison idea, why not make a com posite m aterial of brok en glass or other sharp m aterial, m ixed with the chosen
posion, (glass, posion, and a brittle glue) which could be wrappe d a r o u n d a s m a l l , i m pact detonated explosive, flinging
poisoned broken glass shrapnel into the target?


krimmie June 10th, 2005, 09:20 AM

I u s e d t o u s e t o y J a c k s a s a m mo. I would file the tips to sharpen. You could coat them with anything you want and let dry.
They can be bought at any toy store, are very aerodyna mical, and are ch e a p . I n c a s e y o u n g e r m e m b e r s n e v e r s e e n t h e m
before..............
http://classroom clipart.com/im ages/gallery/Clipart/Toys/jacks.jp g
http://www.gagworks.com /browseprodu cts/JACKS-SET.HTML

I u s e d t o u s e t o y J a c k s a s a m mo. I would file the tips to sharpen. You could coat them with anything you want and let dry.
They can be bought at any toy store, are very aerodyna mical, and are ch e a p . I n c a s e y o u n g e r m e m b e r s n e v e r s e e n t h e m
before..............
http://classroom clipart.com/im ages/gallery/Clipart/Toys/jacks.jp g
http://www.gagworks.com /browseprodu cts/JACKS-SET.HTML

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Electric bullets
Log in
View Full Version : Electric bullets
Mr-Eckted April 9th, 2004, 02:36 PM

I did a search, and didn't see any threads about this ye t, so here you go :
http://www.shockrounds.com/shock/p2.html
Electric bullets. They use a piezoelectric effect, but you can read more at the link.
maxke April 9th, 2004, 05:20 PM

I think it's an interesting subject, except for the fact that the bullets would be available primarily for law enforcem ent and still
would give som e impact on the subject. I don't think it would be funny if you shot som e guy in the eye just for fun with it. ;-)
The bullet is designed to transfer as m uch as possible kinetic energy into electrical energy if I'm correct, so not all kinetic
energy will be transferred.
A system with 0% loss of energy doesn't hasn't been invented yet.
Excuse m e for the non-on-top ic related inform ation stated below :

{
On national geographic there was a gu y who had designed a laser to operate with green light. Green light b e i n g t h e m o s t
v i s i b l e f o r t h e h u m a n e y e , a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y t h e b e a m was fequency m o d u l a t e d s o t h a t f o r a n y h u m a n being, it would
cause a stun effect.
At certain frequencies of light the human brain starts to resonate.

That is the sam e reason that som e video gam es gets you sick.
This same principle is used with the laser system i d i s c r i b e d a b o v e t o i n c a p c i t a t e a n d t o n o t c a u s e d a m a g e t o a p e r s o n .

(wouldn't this system be m ore suitable for incapacitating is the question I am asking myself)
}
Anyways , thanks for the interesting read! But I have so me questions , could such a bullet be possibly prod uced in your
backjard ? (As is possible with casting lead bullets given resources and casting-tools) Or is it mass-production only ?
Saul April 14th, 2004, 06:12 AM

G u e s s y o u c o u l d m a k e them "in your backyard," only prob m ay be to get a battery with enough po wer (or maybe not, I'm not
too good with batteries...)
If you know how to m a k e a n I m p a c t D e t o n a t o r s m a l l e n o u g h , y o u c a n d o t h e s e t h i n g s .
I think.
Or just shoot them with batteries :D.
blacktalon April 14th, 2004, 08:58 AM

W hat's the m atter with standa rd rubber bullets? That guy probably deserved it so I don't have a problem with "all those
horrible bruises."
Also, there is no reaction in th e real world with 0% losse s. That is for the theoretical world only.

Shooting someone with a PP3 (9 volt) would really hurt them, but the ele ctric would be sod all to do with it!
I would guess that the inventor is a pa cifist! Anyway, the way the piezoelectric effect works is by distorting the crystal lattice in a
m aterial that exibits the piezoelectric effect. Ba sically, n o, you can't really make them at home. However, you get piezos in lots
of cigarette and oven lighters these days, good for about 10,000 shots o f varying voltages, up to about 75kV! You could
certainly shove a few down a shotgun and see what happens, though testing could be very tricky!
I would think you would need a little set of prongs on the front, to cut into the flesh, and then stop on some sort of guard, and
a bit of peizo, and then a weight on the back, to give the com pression and the shock. Hey Presto! You can now shoot the thing
t h r o u g h a n y o n e , s a m e as a bullet! :(
I have noticed that pacifists are the meanest, m ost violent people... Looking at the site, it seem s like the round wa s d e s i g n e d
to kill normally, but with a knock-down shock, and they are just trying to find a market for it in the post-9-11 age!
EDIT:
Just watched the video dem o. I am so not convinced by that! They state in the FAQ that the shock bullet could provide as
m uch as 175 Joules of electric! No chance! That is m ost of the power of the bullet. These things are not going to be non- or
less-lethal at all.
The video is very nod dy, firing a wired up crossbow bolt. You can see they are doing the shot for the fifth tim e from the four
hole s in the target, they didn't bother with a tripod... Heck, NBK2000's scam with the glowing inserts was a hundred tim e s
better put together than this! According to the scope, the video was shot in Septem ber 2002, despite the copyright. The scope
also tells us that the sam pling rate was 25KS/s and the X axis is 2 ms/div. Even with the standard divide by 10 on the scope
probe, they didn't get "thousa nds of volts" and that graph shows it! The reading is more like 50 volts, at th e axis in terval
shown (10 V per division!) over a tim e interval of a fraction of a second.
Generally, you are go ing to jum p when a p i e z o z a p s y o u , b u t n o m ore, unless it is fired like a bullet!
Sadly, you will have to watch the video for yourselves, as I couldn't get anything to snapshot it for m e :(
Tuatara April 14th, 2004, 07:27 PM

L o o k s l i k e a s c a m to con cash out of g ullible investors to m e.
1. Any shock is going to be co nfined to the im pact area, so any sensation is going to be totally swam ped by the im pact force.
2 . T h e f o r c e r e q u i r e d t o g e n e r a t e t h e k i n d o f e n e r g y / v o l t a g e n e e d e d f o r an effe ctive shock is going to be high, he nce the

shock-round is still going to bruise and injure the target.
3. 25kv is easily achieved on a piezo, but only if its not connected to anything!
4. The kinetic to electrical conversion efficiency is never going to be that good, so w h e r e d o e s t h e e x c e s s K E e n d u p ? I n t h e

target of course.
Its got to be bogus!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > .50 muzzle loading derringer.
Log in
View Full Version : .50 muzzle loading derringer.
NickSG April 9th, 2004, 06:10 PM

I have made some plans and gathered the materials for a homemade .50 muzzle loading derringer, however, as of now I do not have any way to set it off.
The gun will be pretty simple, a 1/2 inch pipe, 4 1/2 inches long, attached to a wooden grip. Two screws, one on each side of the grip, will connect and hold a rubber band
wrapped around the hammer. When the hammer is pulled and released, the hammer swings forward, hitting the primer charge.
However, I have no way of setting the black powder charge (I plan on using 20 grains per shot). I want to avoid homemade primary explosives, and after checking the gun
store for primers used for reloading, I was dissapointed in finding out they dont sell them. Niether do any of the sporting goods stores around here.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I can set this charge off? At first I was thinking about using an electrical system, but all of the plans ive looked at were too bulky to be
used in a short barreled derringer.
Thank you for your time.
Macaman April 9th, 2004, 07:29 PM

A piezo electric crystal perhaps would do the job.
angelo April 10th, 2004, 12:32 AM

why .50?
maybe lower the size of the bullet you are using, it would be alot easier, there is no way your set up will be able to handle .50. Think about it.

These wont be full power loads, no more than 20 grains of BP per shot (which is slightly more than 1 gram).
However, I am making a .25 caliber derringer that will fire more powerful loads to make up for its mass (these will use anywhere from 5-15 grains of DBSP).
The .50 will be more of a novelty weapon than an actual defense gun.

well maybe not quite improvised - but in theory a 'platz' cartridge as used in a starters gun could do the trick for you.
Platz or starter/blanks comes in 6mm. as well as 9mm. it would be able to set off black powder.
However I must agree with the Angelo that your setup sounds a bit on the light side for something that powerful.
<cautious advice>
Instead of pipe you should probably go for some solid 4140 steel bar drilled (and bored) to a more conservative caliber.
Don't even dream about holding the contraption by hand - use distance and a string.
Black powder should be packed in paper when inserted - and later pierced open through the primer hole by a tooth pick or something else which doesn't produce sparks (this
would be even more important in case you would be using powder from fireworks, as this is mostly never pure black powder, but mixed with some other chemical to produce
visual effects. These chemical could be even more sensible to friction or sparks).
</cautious advice>
Also remember that proper wadding of the projectile would be extremely important for maximum effect.

Solid 4140 bar bored? Nigger please, NC 12g shotshells generate a low enough pressure to be reliably contained in a seamless DOM steel tube, and I don't believe that BP is
going to generate more pressure than a 12g shotshell.
Ever heard of overkill?

zaibatsu,
yeah allright ...maybe it would be overkill,

I just thought that the muzzleloading feature of the device and the probable improvised ammo could implicate trouble in terms of barrel stoppages.
This put together with the derringer designation =>hand held called for the overly cautious approach.
The black powder shooters I know all have these massively barrelled guns - I guess that has affected me more than I realized :-)
But ok I see what You mean, so if I could refrase the overly cautious advice it would be: to experiment with 'fougasse' type devices before applying the design to a hand-held
version.
TreverSlyFox April 12th, 2004, 09:19 AM

Your location says U.S. so there shouldn't be any problem buying the correct nipple and #11 caps online. Though your design sounds like your going to get "blow back" stright
back into your face when the charge goes off and blows the cap back against the hammer and the hammer moves back and the hot gasses (and maybe some flame) jets
back at you.
Look at the design of the old BP derringers, the hammer strikes the cap/nipple on a downward angle not in a stright forward strike, there's a reason for that on a derringer/
pistol that isn't a break action or pivot action.
On many BPs the nipple sets into a recess that has a about a 40 degree angle so if hot gasses do "blow back" the strength of the hammer spring keeps the hammer from lifting
and the gases deflect downward then up and away at about 40 degrees. Your rubber band "spring" isn't going to be strong enough to keep the hammer in place. Also BP
hammers have a recessed face so the hammer surrounds the cap/nipple when it fires.
You'ed be better off buying a BP derringer kit for about $20-$30 online. Hell there's one company that will sell you a BP derringer and will also sell you the barrel sleave to turn
it into a regular .22 derringer. You just remove the nipple, drill out the rear of the barrel and drive the sleave into it.
Don't know what State your in and it's laws but in many States you just order it and it's shipped to your door. You can even buy conversion cylinders for the BP Hog Legs and
turn them into cartrage weapons. Couse that changes their status as weapons.
Dave the Rave April 12th, 2004, 12:21 PM

NickSG, Believe on Zaibatsus words, the seamless can hold the pressure ! The .50 caliber isnt so powerfull and can be shoot by the average person.
Now, about Trevers statement, surely the rubber band cant hold the pressure. How will you make the hammer ? Plain steel plate shaped with an dremel ? If yes, you can
make also an trigger, and use an heli spring to driven the hammer and arm the trigger. It can be mounted on the wooden body of the gun.
And caps & BP, you can purchase it at any sports store, or do an search for muzzle loaders associations, to find out some nice sellers.

This wont be anything like a .454 Casull, just 20 grains of sulferless BP a shot.
Now that I think about it, I will have the hammer come forward at a downward angle.
I look into buying some percussion caps online, although I would prefer an easier option.
randall April 13th, 2004, 12:03 AM

A piezo electric crystal perhaps would do the job.
How about the sparking system from one of those long campfire lighters? It wouldn't be too hard to remove the butane and other parts and attach a barrel to the existing
trigger mechanism, then wiring up an improvised spark plug to ignite the black powder.
If that would work it would eliminate the need to recap for every shot, and might be more reliable and less bulky than a mechanical system.
Bigfoot April 13th, 2004, 01:15 AM

zaibatsu,
You're right. Funny you should mention the 12 ga shotshell. Shotguns are based on blackpowder technology--you could reload shotshells with BP with decent results, just more
fouling. One complaint about current shotguns is the old tech--really high power is unavailable due to ammo design.
I read somewhere a few years back, someone was attempting to invent a "modern" shotshell. Wish I'd saved that URL, but I was looking for something else at the time. IIRC,
he was working on a Hi/lo pressure system. But I digress.
Jumala April 13th, 2004, 02:35 AM

I recommend also to buy a derringer Kit first. This help to strike on new own ideas.
This exploded diagram is a liege derringer from Pedersoli.
http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/img/imgdrawing/DRW-s330.gif
Dave the Rave April 13th, 2004, 11:34 AM

Yes, Jumala, and its based on an early model of "travel pistol" with the removable barrel to facilitate transport.
I have one similar piece, build around 1730 and with an smooth barrel, on the derringer .41 calliber. Its french or belgian made, and it uses only one spring, to trigger and
hammer group.
Jumala April 16th, 2004, 05:23 AM

I have searched for derringers and patents so much last days but I found mosttimes crap.
But yesterday a new updated page was online again.
All kinds of derringers including pics and sometimes drawings.
It is in german language but the pics are the best.
Check it out.
http://www.derringer.de/oldi.htm
Swindle1984 April 16th, 2004, 04:11 PM

There's a specialty gun store in my area that sells pre-ban, rare, and otherwise difficult to find guns and accessories. Some examples would be the Desert Eagle, 500 Magnum
revolver, Sharpes rifles, Calico M-100, etc. It's where I got my .264 bolt action and .45-70 lever action rifles and the shells for my 8-gauge shotgun.
They had a double-barrell .50 caliber derringer, made in the US in the early 90's. You can find these at gunshows and various dealers for relatively low prices.
There's a reason why they're so cheap. Nobody in their right mind would ever use a .50 caliber derringer, much less a double-barrel. The guns recoil transfers straight into your
hand, more so because of the rounded grip. The grips shape not only transfers more force into your hand, but it also lets the gun rise more easily. The owner of this store test-
fires all the weapons before he sells them, with the exception of weapons whose value would be damaged by firing them, such as certain antiques or a gold-plated .45 he had.
He said when he fired the derringer it nearly came out of his hand, and the gun twisted enough that the hammer hit his wrist and drew blood.
Even with smaller loads, a large-caliber derringer simply isn't practical by any means. The largest bullet I'd put into a derringer would be a 9mm, because that's all you're going
to need. It's a concealable, short-range, last-ditch defensive weapon with all the accuracy of spitting. The larger the bullet, the less accurate it will be over any distance, the
larger the pistol will need to be, and the heavier the weapon.
Now you did say that it would be a muzzle-loading derringer, which negates some of the problems the gun would otherwise have, but creates many more. I'd just scale down
the gun and use modern full-metal-jacket bullets for simplicities sake.

The reason I want a muzzleloader is so I can control the loads power. With factory ammo, I cant.
I have plenty of guns to use before I would think about grabbing this, but I would much rather get a little scratch on my hand than be stuck with a .22 derringer and be killed.
Also, with only one of two rounds, I think it would be best to use the largest possible caliber.
Bigfoot April 29th, 2004, 02:49 PM

Perhaps what you want is a howdah pistol.
A concept dating back to the Golden Age of British Empire. The howdah is the gondola strapped to the back of an Indian elephant, to carry passengers. The howdah pistol was
a large bore derringer or revolver loaded with large shot, carried in a holster mounted inside the howdah. Its intended use was to dispatch a tiger who tried to make lunch out
of your ride. Back in '93 I read an artricle in Gun World about these, a Class-III mfr. made a modern one from a revolver frame, and custom made the 4 shot cylinder to fire a
.410 or 28 guage shotshell (memory is a bit fuzzy on the caliber). If you want to dispatch an assailant, with one shot from a homebrew pistol, hey, if it kills tigers, it should
handle a man. Aim for one of the heads. ;)
Make the derringer .50 cal, but load with lead or steel shot. Maybe finishing nails. Use your imagination.
jackhammer May 1st, 2004, 02:01 PM

I have made some plans and gathered the materials for a homemade .50 muzzle loading derringer, however, as of now I do not have any way to set it off.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I can set this charge off? At first I was thinking about using an electrical system, but all of the plans ive looked at were too bulky to be
used in a short barreled derringer.
I have two ideas.
1. Buy some simple .22 4 or 5 cartidges for powerloaded nailgun. They are set of similar to a regular cartridge, but with no bullet. They would set of your black powder.
2. As for electrical, you could probably buy a ignitor for a model rocket, and take apart the plastic casing to make it less bulky. Just some thoughts.
Bigfoot May 3rd, 2004, 03:26 PM

I agree, the .22 powerloads would ignite BP or Pyrodex just fine. Some years ago I tested an ignition device that used the powerloads as a flame source. Worked better than I
thought it would. I didn't develop the gadget any farther, because I had no immediate use for it.
BUT, now that you've refreshed my memory, I think I'll be looking at my BP pistol again...
Jumala May 9th, 2004, 08:46 PM

I found a picture of a .50 double barrel derringer (muzzleloader)
Here it is:
http://www.derringer.de/old514.htm

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Any new guns?
Log in
View Full Version : Any new guns?

Well I just got myself a new(to me atleast) pistol from one of the guys at my local shooting club. It cost my just two boxes of 10gauge shells. Its a Smith&Wesson Sigma
series in .380auto with two 7 round clips the guy said it cost him about 100$ when he got it in 89, well I like it though I wish it had better sights. So does anybody eles have
any new guns to brag/tell about?
chokingvictim78 April 19th, 2004, 07:18 PM

I'm saving up this summer for a 9mm Beretta Storm. I was at a gun shop with my dad, picking up a going-away present for a good friend in his office, and fell in love with it.
It's primarily for home defence, but I want something that won't go very far that I can fuck around with at my grandparent's farm, too. The .22 is nice, but sometimes I need
more power if I'm down near a large creek, where I have run into a few more 'gators that I wish I have, considering my armed status at the time (it's in Mississippi,
cottonmouths and 'gators everywhere you turn in the summer). Any suggestions for accessories? I'm planning on getting a bottom accessory rail for a tactical light, and a side
rail for a BSA red-dot sight, but I'm not sure.
tiac03 April 19th, 2004, 10:18 PM

I don't know dude, personally if i was going to get myself a rifle type weapon I'd get myself one of the russian type rifles. SKS is great 7.62X39 and doesn't kick at all. Ammo
is some of the cheapest you can buy. It isn't very long, and doesn't jam (yet...). Since they are military rifles they come with bayonet lugs (that the word for it?) even if you
don't use the bayonet it is always usefull as a stand when you don't have something to lean the gun on... also it can be quite easily modified (stock kits, scope kit, bipod.)
[IMG]http://www.rock-it-land.com/southwestvoodoo/myguns/P1010003.jpg
personally I would have loved to have owned one of the calicos before they were banned. (100 round capacity for .22, 50 round for 9mm) I liked the sporter version with the
wooden stock.
Since i have never seen the rifle you are talking about in real life I can't give you a real opinion about it. (although believe .45 or .357 is a much better choice than 9mm. but
thats just my cup'o'tea)
Nhala1 April 20th, 2004, 06:14 AM

tiac, as you ask, they are bayonet standards.
The Ruski rifles are some of the best around. Watch out for the Chinese clones though. Still a good weapon, but prone to extended use probs like ejector claw breaks. Can be
a lot cheaper than the real deal, and a Russian one on the market may very well be a clone anyway. I dont think a sporting shooter should have too many probs. Spares
should be easy enough to get, unless you are in Aussie, which you are not. Time has proven these weapons to be well ahead of their time. Got a lot of years left in em yet.
Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum. No comma.
tiac03 April 22nd, 2004, 06:03 PM

You want to also go with the machined rifles and not the stamped ones. (many AK's have stamped recievers etc.).
If you live in australia you can't get one anyways (legally) Isn't the only firearm allowed there a .303?
Chinese "clones" arn't that bad anyways (SKS, don't know about AK's), they are pretty hardy weapons. Norinco makes them I believe. and at 120-250 dollars they are a good
deal.
Wicked1 April 22nd, 2004, 11:11 PM

.................................................. ..........
zaibatsu April 23rd, 2004, 12:01 AM

Blah Blah, who cares? You're banned.
chokingvictim78 April 23rd, 2004, 01:19 AM

I don't know dude, personally if i was going to get myself a rifle type weapon I'd get myself one of the russian type rifles. SKS is great 7.62X39 and doesn't kick at all. Ammo
is some of the cheapest you can buy. It isn't very long, and doesn't jam (yet...). Since they are military rifles they come with bayonet lugs (that the word for it?) even if you
don't use the bayonet it is always usefull as a stand when you don't have something to lean the gun on... also it can be quite easily modified (stock kits, scope kit, bipod.)
I chose 9mm mainly because it's a round that doesn't go very far (relatively speaking). 7.62x39 can travel much further than what I want. I do plan on a SKS being my next
big purchase after the 9mm Storm, though. I also chose the Storm becuase of it's size (29.7"), and its weight (about 6 lbs.). It's short and light enough to carry with me when
I'm taking a walk, so I can take it along without much trouble even if I don't end up using it.The rounds are more expensive than 7.62x39, but I won't be using it enough to
warrant a need for cheap bulk ammo. Aesthetics are the least important thing in any weapon, but it still looks fucking cool :p
paintbatt August 19th, 2004, 04:33 AM

My new gun is a BAR .300WinMag with a boss muzzle brake. It has a Bushnell 3-9 firefly scope on it. It is a semi auto with a 4 shot magazine. Currently I can shoot nickle sized
groups from 200 yards.
atr August 20th, 2004, 04:04 AM

Remington 870 police model . Scattergun Technology 14 inch barrel , tritium ghost ring sights , one shot mag extention , high viz follower , Surefire forend with light ,
Speedfeed pistolgrip stock , Assault systems 3 way sling and sidesaddle . The barrel came choked modified so i took it to my gunsmith and had the barrel threaded for flush fit
chokes and the fullchoke is in it . 5 shot 5 inch groups at 100 yards with Brenneke 3 inch mag foster slugs and 80% hits on torso targets at 50 yards useing 3 inch mag 000
buck . I may put a picatinny rail on top and mount an m2 Aimpoint with quick detach mount . I gave it a name . It's called Roadblocker .
paintbatt August 20th, 2004, 02:21 PM

That sounds like a really cool gun, It would be even better if you put this system on it is avalable for the 870 http://www.knoxx.com/NewStyleKnoxx/Products/SideWinder.htm
I think it was NBK who found this and posted about it first
shadow2501 August 20th, 2004, 06:09 PM

err, hope i'm not making a mistake by posting this here but i didn't wanted to start a new thread for such a thing.It's not really a "new" gun but few month ago ppl argued
about backyard .22 gatling saying it would be far too hard to realize especially .22 chain of bullets.here's a commercial (but expensive) version of the 19th century gatling,ok
it's an old model but....with a 720shots magazine and some modifications this should be sweet
http://www.machineguns.co.nz/index.shtml
atr August 20th, 2004, 11:18 PM

Paintbatt , thanks for the link and i've looked at the Sidewinders but they'd defeat my application . They'll hold 10 rounds and if i went to a 20 inch barrel with a mag extention
, so would mine without a big drum hanging underneath . The way my shotgun is , it fits just right in my backpack and i don't have to roll the window down all the way to get
it out and stroke the pump . I am at a disadvantage shooting I.P.S.C. with a 6 round capacity but i had other things in mind when i decided upon the 14 inch barrel . I do
wonder how well the Sidewinder is constructed . If a person had to dive for cover and smacked it into the ground , would it survive or would the shotgun be out of operation . I
tend to think that it would either bend or break and that would be a very bad thing if it happened at the wrong time . I once saw a 1927 Thompson with a 50 round drum
magazine go into the ground and after that it wouldn't feed properly . I love the Thompsons but since then i don't have much use for drums .
tdog49 August 21st, 2004, 12:02 AM

Ruger p89 and mkII 22/45 for squirrel hunting. Love squirrel hunting! Running through the woods chasing squirrels and dumping clips like a bad 80's action show.....ahhhh the
good life.
bipolar August 21st, 2004, 04:07 AM

I got a new DSA FAL made completely in US from original austrian Steyr blueprints. their website is at DSArms.com (http://www.dsarms.com). It shoots a .308 / 7.62x51 so it
has nice accuracy. I have done some training with it and it is real heavy, but you can get used to it, and its a one shot one kill gun instead of the army's spray'n pray guns.
Its suppost to be effective at 800 meters, but i hear some good shooters can get 1 kilometer.
I really need a Trijicon ACOG to put it to best use. The trijicon ACOG(advanced combat optical gunsight) is a red dot sight powered by the sun with fiberoptics during the day
and tritium at night and you can aim with both eyes open for close up shots or look through with one eye for magnification with a bullet drop compensating reticule for up to
800m for long range shots. Here is a pic of it, I just spray painted it camo with bowflage(its removable). I really like it a lot, I just put a 3 point sling on it to support some of
the weight of it on my shoulders.
http://www.flube.com/users/jojo7/fal.jpg
'bipolar
Crane August 24th, 2004, 01:40 AM

I just picked up a new Browning Buck Mark .22 Target rifle a few weeks ago. I put a Tasco World Class 3x9 scope on it and have gotta say it's probably the nicest .22 rifle I've
shot yet. It's no problem to drive tacks at 25 yards, and can hit bulls pretty consistently with a fast pull.
I also picked up a .45 Norinco 1911 handgun... not quite a masterpiece in gun manufacturing, but I'm hoping to get some time to customize it, and maybe do a little milling
here and there. Also ordered in an Uncle Mike's Kydex Tactical Holster for it... not here yet, but I'm getting excited! Anyone else have one of those ?
raptor1956 August 24th, 2004, 06:31 PM

quote:If you live in australia you can't get one anyways (legally) Isn't the only firearm allowed there a .303?
Not any more. no military calibre centrefires without a special licence (you need to show cause), no semi autos at all in any calibre, no handguns at all unless you're a member
of a pistol club, then weapon must be kept there, and no hanguns in larger calibre than .38 unless you're an olympic shooter. Free society? Think not!
Bigfoot August 26th, 2004, 12:26 AM

...but i had other things in mind when i decided upon the 14 inch barrel .. .
Maybe you were thinking about how to keep the paperwork with the weapon at all times?
Or are you a special person? Maybe LEO, or not living in USA?
OTC (USA) civilian shotgun minimum bbl length is 18", per NFA 1934. Any shorter, pay tax and keep paperwork handy, just in case.
xyz August 26th, 2004, 08:10 AM

IIRC the Canadians are allowed shotgun barrels under 18" so long as the overall length of the gun is still 26" or over. I suspect atr is Canadian...
zaibatsu August 26th, 2004, 03:58 PM

To confuse matters, I believe that it is ok for canadians to have shotguns with barrels less than 18" if it was originally manufactured in that configuration, or at least so I heard.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > liquid armor
Log in
View Full Version : liquid armor
angelo April 23rd, 2004, 11:04 PM

http://ww w.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,usa3_042104.00.html
Maybe we can improvise it?
But it w ould seem a little difficult if possible.
Small Town April 24th, 2004, 12:08 AM

Has anyone else here ever played with cornflour and water?
Now hear me out, mix them to form a thin paste and when you apply pressure it becomes hard, let go and its becomes fluid again. I'd say this technology is based on the same
principles, only they use a much finer solid suspended in a different liquid.
That leads me to assume that once we fully understand the design it would be fairly simple to produce.
mongo blongo April 24th, 2004, 12:49 AM

Yes I agree with you. There is a name for the kind of liquid w hich behaves like a solid and a liquid but I can't remember.
JoeJablomy April 24th, 2004, 02:10 AM

What they're going for here is a thixotropic fluid (literally, a "shear-thickening fluid" that becomes more viscous as you apply more shear, like by moving things (i.e. fibers)
through it). I don't know w here to get polyethylene glycol, but I think they said in an earlier paper that their silica particles came from Nissan Chemical, or somesuch.
Just look for small, hard spherical particles. Lighter ones, like alumina, might be better.
I really don't know why this research deserves a prize, though. Unless there have been significant improvements, this stuff is still as heavy per protected area/level of protection
as plain kevlar. Interestingly, the materials might be cheaper.
-----------------
In fact,
"The shear thickening fluid (STF) used in the targets is
composed of silica particles (Nissan Chemicals MP4540)
suspended in ethylene glycol, at a volume fraction of
approximately 0.57. The average particle diameter, as
measured using dynamic light scattering, w as determined
to be 446 nm."
I guess you might be able to use anti-freeze (might; the new s article said it w as non-toxic).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Have a :) nice day!
nbk2000 April 24th, 2004, 02:14 PM

Nightstalker posted details of this a w hile back, under a thread about body armor, I believe, with more discussion.
Jome skanish April 24th, 2004, 11:55 PM

When I was a kid we used a stone-tumbler (strangely enough :-) to polish (sp?) stones. In the first stages of the process, where the stones basically just gets rounder, a ultra-
hard powder (silicone carbide) is used. I don't know exactly how hard it is, but I've been told it's about as hard as saphire!
This could be used as the "pow der" component of the armor.
One thing I'm wondering of is why the other component has to be liquid, perhaps any material that is non-brittle, "elasticly" soft and miscible with the powder could be used. I
think I have a theory of how it works:
When the bullet hits the material, the "liquid" or whatever it is gets pressed out of the spaces between the powder, and the mechanical propeties changes from "particles that
CAN move around eachother" to particles that cant, because they're slightly to close. When that happens, the material (suspension) acts as a solid and stops the bullet.
It's a bit OT, but I think I have read that the israelis had some kind of "explosive sheets" covering their tanks, (called "active armor) perhaps to mess-up the shape of any
armor penetrating round hitting it. Could something like this be used to "air-bag" the force of a hit in the other material so that it does'nt hurt you?
vulture April 25th, 2004, 08:44 AM

Siliciumcarbide is nearly as hard as diamond, H9,6 vs H10 for diamond.
SiO2 = H7 for example.
I've been discussing this w ith Jacks Complete IIRC in another armor thread, the conclusion pretty much was that forming it into desired shape is nearly impossible.
Harpoon April 25th, 2004, 03:12 PM

Reactive armor or explosive reactive armour (ERA), is a type of armour used primarily on tanks to lessen the damage from explosions caused from missile warheads, exploding
shellss, grenades, or launched bombs.
Reactive armor's protective mechanism involves producing an explosion or other such reaction when it is impacted by a w eapon, "pushing back" against it. This is particularly
effective against shaped charge warheads, in which the w arhead directs a focused jet of molten metal against the armor; reactive armor's reaction disrupts the jet before it
reaches the armor's surface.
Modern ERA such as the Russian Kontakt-5 is made up of "bricks" of explosive sandwiched betw een two metal plates. The plates are arranged in such a way as to move
sideways rapidly when the explosive detonates. This will force an incoming KE-penetrator or shaped charge jet to cut through more armour than the thickness of the plating
itself, since "new" plating is constantly fed into the penetrating body. A KE-penerator will also be subjected to powerful sidew ays forces, which might be large enough to cut the
rod into tw o or more pieces. This w ill significantly reduce the penetrating capabilities of the penetrator, since the penetrating force will be dissipated over a larger volume of
armour.
ERA bricks are used as add-on armour to the most vulnerable parts of an armoured vehicle or tank. They require fairly heavy armour on the vehicle itself, since the exploding
ERA would otherw ise damage the vehicle and injure or kill the personnel inside.
Recent research has produced the idea of Electric Reactive Armour, w here the armour is made up of two electrically charged plates separated by an insulator. When an incoming
body penetrates the tw o plates and closes the circuit, a high voltage jolt w ill supposedly vaporize the penetrator and significantly reduce the resulting penetration. It is not public
knowledge whether this is supposed to function against both KE-penetrators and shaped charges, or shaped charges alone. This technology has yet to be introduced on any
operational platform.
I believe that electric reactive armour has also been discussed on this forum...
akinrog April 25th, 2004, 03:12 PM

One thing I'm wondering of is why the other component has to be liquid, ......
Actually other component of this armor is not liquid but a gell-like compount. From the definition of thixotropy we understood that this type of compounds actually gell or
emulsion type of substances. IMHO, the polyethylene glycol is not a long chain polymer otherwise it might set.
Tuatara April 25th, 2004, 06:47 PM

I have some Cab-o-Sil fumed silica in my chem collection. Its used as a thixotropic agent for thickening paint, so it may work for this application too. Any ideas on how one
could test this sort of thing? I have no guns ...
Wes80 April 27th, 2004, 10:09 AM

Its the wrong way around, thixotropic referes to it getting thinner with shear stress. Liquids that thicken due to shear stress are refered to as rheopectic or harden on impact as
dilatant.
Dilatant liquids are what your after, I posted a topic on dilatant tamping quite a while ago.
teshilo May 12th, 2004, 02:39 PM

I listen what ,in XX sentury small wars guerillas used as field expedient armor
in armored cars sheep wool soaked water with little oil.Bullets very hardly penetrate these stuff.

The joy of having a liquid component is that you can make your armour really flexible. You bend, it bends. Yet w hen hit by a bullet, it stops solid for only as long as it takes
to stop the bullet! :cool:
Makes your life far easier. Also, it is self-repairing, as it w ill flow under gravity to fill the hole (which hopefully isn't all the way through!) or dents, and you don't need to panic
about dropping the trauma plate and shattering it, putting on a little weight, etc. It might even be slightly lighter.
Using SiC might w ork in this case, since you w ould want it to be a powder. The only problems might be if particle shape and size were a factor. SiC is a face centered cubic,
which forms small cubes, w hereas diamond forms rhombuses (iirc). I have no idea w hether this w ould affect things, but it might.
As for the liquid, I vote for silly putty... :D

Jacks Complete:
You are right. I I did not think of the particle shape of the solid powder! If the particles are more or less able to "roll away" when put under pressure, this will have great effect
on their behavior when used in this form of armour. Cubes are more like spheres than rombs, and I guess they will not be as good.
The best "particle shape" w ould be cluster or needle formed cristalls, or perhaps thin sheets. One could perhaps use metal shavings and convert to something harder? That
messed-up looking shape would be ideal for this purpose!
Jacks Complete May 31st, 2004, 03:31 PM

Indeed. Some cunningly constructed particle that w as grow n from fused silica or some other incredibly strong materials (on the nano scale) would be ideal. You would probably
want something that looked like * or x, or perhaps a random shape like a snowflake, but in 3D. Of course, you might find it better to use something that gripped on one axis,
but not another, so that it was more flexible in one direction.
JoeJablomy June 1st, 2004, 01:08 AM

I'm almost certain they use spherical particles, because kevlar at least is vulnerable to abrasion. If you have a bunch of small particles w orked into it and then move around...
But as for 3-D stacking/interlocking shapes, there are probably a bunch of options. Some that come to mind are highly stellated tetrahedral shapes, or similar to tw o bars joined
at the midpoints at 90 degree angles, possibly with the ends bent out.
Another problem with complicated shapes like these, though, is that they will be much more prone to breaking under impact because of all the bits sticking out, unlike round
particles that will simply settle under the load unless it's right on top of them.
Jacks Complete June 2nd, 2004, 08:53 PM

Isn't that a research topic and a half!
I think the worry about abrasion wouldn't be w orth it. A nano-particle as hard as a diamond rubbing against another particle, whilst lubricated with some kind of fluid. It isn't
going to be an issue. The wear rate w ill be tiny, much the same as it is in a car gearbox or whatever.
The nanoparticles will be far tougher than you would think - in fact they are almost indestructable. Think about trying to break sand. You just about can't, in compression. In
bulk, it is glass, which is used for armoured glass, or as ceramic plates w hen crystalline. But I also know that coarse builders sand has very different characteristics to smooth
childrens sand that has been acid washed, which are both very different to the smooth sand found on old sand dunes. The material is the same, but the particle size and, more
importantly, the roughness of each particle, are very different. The coarse builders sand is called coarse or sharp sand for that very reason.
JoeJablomy June 4th, 2004, 01:01 AM

I'm not worried as much about the particles breaking as the fibers getting scored and weakened.

Sorry, you lost me - what fibres? There aren't any in this design. The whole thing consists of a mix of "particles and oil" contained in a bag of some form that shapes it to your
body.
deadsea June 5th, 2004, 02:24 PM

There are fibres mentioned in the article. There's a kevelar vest that the solution is supposed to be applied to. As it is a mix of particles and a liquid i think the particles would
float or sink depending on the releative densities. The vest w ouldn't have to be that thick as it probaly just functions as a backing or something for the mix to adhere to. Without
the vest for the solution to cling to all you would have is a big bag of oil with sand at the bottom.. Not the best candidate for armour i guess :D ..
JoeJablomy June 5th, 2004, 05:17 PM

No, it consists of kevlar wetted w ith EG or DEG containing solid particles. The STF is only going to solidify in a conical path in front of the bullet, so either you have a layer of this
stuff multiple inches thick, or you have a small w ad of gunk propelled into you w ith the bullet -unless it's contained w ith normal ballistic fabric, in which case it reduces the point
load on the fabric and reinforces it all around the impact zone where it's stretching. Also, without the cloth, the STF w ould just fall into a blob at the bottom of your armor "bag"
it's contained in. As I was saying, the STF replaces about half the kevlar, so the resulting armor is about as heavy but not as thick, so it's more flexible. Still no lighter to cover
yourself in.
I just noticed the particles used here are pretty small -referred to as a concentrated colloidal fluid- w ith a 446nm average size. As to their shape, they're probably either
prismatic crystals or little round blobs. My impression has always been the blobs.
"This study reports the ballistic penetration

performance of a composite material composed of woven
Kevlar fabric impregnated w ith a colloidal shear
thickening fluid. The impregnated Kevlar fabric offers
equivalent low velocity ballistic performance, on an areal
density basis, to neat Kevlar fabric. Compared to neat
Kevlar fabric, how ever, the STF-impregnated composites
require few er layers of Kevlar, resulting in a more flexible
and less bulky body armor material. Possible
mechanisms responsible for the enhanced ballistic
performance of the STF-Kevlar composite are identified."
"The performance enhancement

provided by the STF may be due to an increase in the yarn
pullout force upon transition of the STF to its rigid state."

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Recoilless Weapon
Log in
View Full Version : Recoilless Weapon
Spotter May 8th, 2004, 10:21 AM

I build a recoilless weapon like in the Book "Improvised Home-Build Recoilless Launchers", but without Cookies as Counterwight.
Has anyone build a thing like this? Any good Ideas for this "Baby"
When it is ready i send some Pictures. (3-4 Weeks)
MFG Spotter

I made a panzerfaust as described in "Poor man's RPG". Effective and impressive, cheap too.
nbk2000 May 8th, 2004, 06:33 PM

Picture proof or death as posers!
Ropik May 9th, 2004, 05:50 AM

I will try to take a picture of my panzer... If I can borrow a digital camera somewhere. But hopefully yes.
EDIT: Sloppy sloppy... I forgot that I have one picture already done
:rolleyes: .
Coming soon.
EDIT No.2: Here it is! My reenactment panzerfaust. Enjoy this picture, I will delete it later.
streety May 9th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Nice socks! :D
What are the fins made of? I assume they roll or fold up so it fits in the barrel?

Yes, my best socks!
Fins are from plastic cover for papers, I just bought it in stationery. Strong enough, but the tape on the fins is because the edges likes tearing when they leave the tube.
Yes, they roll to fit the launching tube.
Flake2m May 10th, 2004, 08:56 AM

Looks very impressive Ropik.
I haven't read "Poor Mans RPG" but can you give some technical specs on your device?
I'd like to know the propellant use, range it has and how heavy the whole thing is to carry?

Seamless tube, 32 mm ID, extra thickwalled for safety. In the centre 15 gms of black powder(if you can use commercial BP, it would take less), which shot projectile on one
side and equivalent weight of sand on another. Recoilless, for 600 gms warhead range is about 30 meters, accuraccy is fairly good, I can hit a 55 gallon drum most of time
from 20 meters.
Oh yes, and electric bulb ignitor is used to ignite the BP. Leads are pulled from rear of the launcher.
It is not very heavy, maybe 2,5 kg tube + 600 gms warhead + 600 gms sand. From this reason I resigned to "Improvised Home-Build Recoilless Launchers", this launcher is
too heavy or too flimsy. No way.
ossassin May 11th, 2004, 12:24 AM

Is it strictly for reenactment purposes, or were you planning on using a HEAT warhead?
EDIT------------------------------------------------------------
Osassin was actually meaning, of course this was designed for legal use, but could you imagine that somewhere with no laws prohibiting this that someone could use a similar
design with a HEAT warhead.
Zaibatsu

Nice edit, Zaibatsu, because I am strictly legallish and even thinking about functional warhead makes me puke...
But if HEAT(or any else) warhead will fit into 600 gms of present warhead(you could use heavier warhead and heavier counterweight, but anyway range will decrease), I don't
see any problem with substituting the sand-filled tin can with shaped charge:).
nbk2000 May 11th, 2004, 05:31 PM

A one pound warhead, going 20-30 yards, is not much of a weapon, considering how you can throw that much weight that same distance, without the extra weight or drama
of a "launcher".
Now, get it to 100+ yards, and you've got something going. ;)
Barcy May 12th, 2004, 01:16 AM

Looks interesting, so if one was to reduce the size of the load to say 200gr and slightly amp up the propellant the 100 yard range might be a possiblity. I like the launching tube
set up.
I am curious about a few things.

What you house your charge in (the tubing on the rocket)?
Have you somehow managed to have an electrical contact for the load or do you have to still attach wires as a seperate loading stage (did not see any wires)?
Have you looked at any sighting devices?
tiac03 May 12th, 2004, 02:15 AM

The new tube had a diameter of 4.4cm (1.73 in.), the propellant now weighed 95g (3.35 oz.); the projectile now measured 49.5cm (19.49 in.) and weighed 2.9kg (6.39 lb).
The resulting projectile velocity was 30m/s (100 fps) which again made for a range of roughly 30m (100 ft.). The complete weapon now weighed 5,1 kg (11.23 lb) and had a
length of 104.5cm (41.14 in.) (other sources: 103cm). (go to the link some more information) (also some nice videos on Kazaa lite. look up "german WW2" in video files.
Dude did you try using slightly more counterweight than projectile? Might give a slight kick , but it would give you slightly better range. Less wasted energy out the back. (Yes I
may be stating the obvious here... sorry)
Warning: since I havn't tested this, I can't tell you that it is Safe to try with the tube under your arm... stand away from it and test it first, if you ever decide to try. (once again
with stating the obvious... i must be tired, anyways 'tis better to be safe than sorry when it comes to playing around with this stuff)
Would a nice piece of Brass plumbing pipe work as a body or is it too "soft"?
(about 2mm thick and 4 cm Diameter i'm guessing)

Increasing the range isn't to easy.
If you add more BP propellant you risk blowing up the tube and yourself.
Decreasing the weight of the projectile would work but a lighter projectile wouldn't be as good and err hypothetically would do less damage. Getting a longer barrel would work
but the whole thing is going to be heavier. TiaCO3 has already suggestted using extra counterweight. I have no idea how much that would improve the range.
My only other thought is to make the projectile rocket propelled as well as have the initial charge. This would make the projectile more complicated. The easiset way would be
to use the standard rocket engines, and use the BP charge to ignite them. Also slower burning BP might increase performance, but you'd have to experiment.
JoeJablomy May 12th, 2004, 12:02 PM

I just had my first dream in a while, although it was a bad one. My prototype rocket was a piece of 1 3/8" ID x 17" PVC tube that was lying around epoxied onto the cap end
of a 20 oz water bottle. I drilled a flash hole because I didn't want to go out and buy electric igniters, and I used very roughly an ounce of some very old smokeless that I have
a lot of.
The problem with this was I was afraid it might blow up, being several rifle rounds worth of powder, so I didn't press all the air out of the plastic charge bag and generally didn't
do anything that might make it go off any harder than it did, causing it to become another example of my observation that it's much easier to make something that fizzles than
something that blows up in your face, and much harder to make it actually work. About the only other lesson I got from this was, don't use some kind of clumpy dirt or dry clay
as the countermass; it doesn't pack too well.
The whole thing was kind of a clusterfuck because I scouted the site at night, but at 5:30 when there shouldn't have been many people there, there were fuckloads. The final
assembly was very hasty.
Anyway, does anyone else know about smokeless charge design? The major failure of my first dream was that it wasn't sufficiently ignited; pressure couldn't build up very well
because of the flash hole. I also don't know how long it took to ignite because I was behind cover and the fuse may have caused much of the smoke I saw.
Electrical ignition would fix this and the flash hole problem at the same time, and might even eliminate the necessity of an ignition booster such as flash powder or a high
pressure chamber. I might soon dream about my C/NC igniter ideas.
For further testing when I find a suitable site, I think Ill make a test f ixture of a tube with a flash hole at the middle, and just load identical countermasses in the ends;
no trouble to assemble and no projectile to hit some fuck on the head.
As for possible improvements, I think increasing the countermass is a good idea. It shouldn't increase the kick at all; all recoil is transferred to it. Rather, it will take longer to
leave the tube and create higher back pressure, increasing the impulse delivered to the projectile. Another way of looking at is it will increase the efficiency by the mass-
momentum-energy relationship: the greater mass has lower energy for the same momentum, so if the countermass is bigger than the projectile it will absorb less energy
because it must receive the same momentum.
As for a second stage rocket motor, I think its a good idea. In the self -contained form Im using (the rocket tube goes with the projectile and is launched from a
bazooka ), the rocket motor would have to be placed far up the inside of the tube, which is sort of an opportunity. I remember reading something by some Brit who did
something like this, and found that if he drilled holes in the tube just below the base of the motor it created an ejector effect and made it work better. To be clear,
rocket ejectors arent generally a great idea on space launch vehicles because the required ducting is heavy, but when its already there on the rocket it cant hurt.
What I would do is I would epoxy the motor into a pvc tube of the right diameter for it and drill holes about behind the nozzle, and make a wooden plug thats just
long enough to cover the distance between the motor case and the aft edge of the inlet holes with a piece of cannon fuse going through a hole in the middle. The fuse
would probably be sealed into the plug with wax (not so that it cant be lit) and the edges of the plug too. The kick charge would go behind this and the countermass
behind it. When fired, the kick section would put the rocket well clear of the launcher before the cannon fuse would ignite the sustainer motor, so SWIM would not get burnt
rubber and hot HCL vapor in the face.
As for worries about powder charge size and tube strength, I don't think the panzerfausts used very heavy tubes, I think they were actually sheet metal, but I could be wrong.
The best thing to do is remotely test it like I will (I mean in my dream).

I tried the bigger counterweight idea few weeks ago, but with increasing of about 200 gms of sand the range was almost the same, so I leave this idea.
NBK: The range can be improved with lighter warhead and mainly with better propellant, but I don't have any. In the "Poor man's RPG" is mentioned shotgun powder "Red
dot". I didn't even hear about this propellant, but I assume that it's NC. Well, maybe someday I will try power this with nitrostarch.
No, I did not make any sights, because the small range.
I think brass tube would be to soft to be safe (actually, this STEEL tube has thicker walls than 2 mm).
BP is housed in short section of paper tube with taped ends. Leads are pulled out the "counterweight" end of tube.
tiac03 May 12th, 2004, 02:01 PM

Your projectile I think is too heavy for the amount of powder you are using.
Your's should weigh about 457.89g for the amount of powder you are using (and that would be if it was the same power as the stuff the germans used) 95g/2900g
(propellant/projectile in panzerfaust according to link I posted before) (15g X 2900g)/95g=457.89... (I just put 95/2900=15/X I assume it can be used, simple proportions)
And yes moving to a faster burning powder should be more efficient.
Also is it possible that your projectile leaves the tube before all the powder has burned? (same principle with barrel length, if a barrel is too short the powder is still burning after
the projectile has left, therefore wasted energy, and less "push").

I am pretty sure that all powder burns before actual shot. I just have too crappy BP.
Someday I will try it with bigger charge and blasting box for safety.
tiac03 May 13th, 2004, 12:59 AM

I forgot to ask you in the last post, but how much of a back burn do you get (how much fire/smoke comes out the back) Because I have two video clips about panzerfausts
which show quite a bit, As in anyone standing within 5 feet behind it(possibly more) are either burned or smoked out (not to mention hit by what ever counter-weight is being
used).
First is a film about the "courageous infantry that destroy tanks." shows 4 different anti tank weapons. an artillery piece looking thing, the bazooka type launcher the germans
had "stove Pipe", the panzerfaust, and a shaped charge. Pretty interesting. The other one is just some war footage of german soldiers using the panzershreks (sp.?) and
panzerfausts. one thing for sure you saw where the thing came from, the person gets massively smoke-screened.
About 20 grams of powder is what you need i'd say. (although you probably wouldn't see much of a difference. Also I assume you made sure but "make sure that the sand in
the projectile doesn't shift around at all". Shifting sand can drop the range of it.(acts as a dampener)

From the tube comes only smoke, usually there is almost nothing "flashing". But the smoke is quite thick and there is a big amount of it.
The sand was mixed with dextrin, dampened, pressed into can and after drying plastic disc was put on the sand and sealed with heap of hot glue.
I'll try the 20 grams charge.
Spotter May 16th, 2004, 03:29 PM

He Ropik, cool weapon. Have you more Pictures of your "RPG". Did you have the Book in *.pdf or something else that you can send by eMail. It would be very nice if you can
send me more Informations. If you are interessted in any other Books please contact me, i have over 200 Books, and i think a few of them are interresting for you.
MFG Spotter
charger May 16th, 2004, 04:13 PM

Spotter, are these books in your computer or are they hardcopies? If they are electronic copies, why don't you up them to the ftp for everyone to read?
Bert May 16th, 2004, 04:20 PM

OT, but perhaps entertaining: Most Valuable Weapon : The RPG (http://www.exile.ru/189/war_nerd.html) Gotta love The War Nerd (http://www.exile.ru/archive/by_author/
gary_brecher.html)
nbk2000 May 17th, 2004, 12:23 PM

The Soviets created the RPG for use by Soviet infantry squads against US tanks, APCs and personnel in that big NATO/Warsaw Pact war everybody was dreaming of back in the
sixties. The design was an example of beautiful simplicity.
It was a classic of Warsaw-Pact reverse-engineering. Warsaw Pact weapons designers had this attitude that it was a waste of time to design from scratch when you could count
on your spies (and the Russians had the best spies in the world back then) to get you the specs on the weapons other countries had spent billions designing.
RTPB "Imitate [bazooka], then innovate [thermobaric warheads for RPG]"

Spotter, just find the "Poor man's RPG" thread in the Links and literature section. There are many fellows able to send it to you.
I have not Streamload account now and the file is too large to send by regular e-mail.
Sorry.
I have not any additional pictures, this one was digged out of HDD grave in fear of banning. I haven't digital camera now, so I cannot take another photos.
Yes, I'm interested in any books related to subjects discussed on E and W forum. Thanks for offer! :)

Spotter, we don't fucking trade here. You've got 200 books eh? Try uploading them, and if we havent already got them then I'm sure someone will send you the book. Hell, I'll
send you ten books. No Fucking Trading

All my Books have a size of over 1,24 GB. This all uploading??? With a 56k modem??? Tell me how? One or two Books is ok, but more... no, thats expensive and take a lot of
time...Sorry. I make a list. Tell me what you want, and i will upload this.
nbk2000 May 18th, 2004, 05:33 PM

The only way your "books" would be over a gigabyte in size is if they were hi-res images of 1,000+ pages each.
If this is the case, then you need to learn how to use image-editing software like photoshop7 (free off the FTP) to reduce them to less than 1/10th of their original size with
minimal reduction in readability.
This will make them 100MB in size, and up'loadable by 56K over the course of a day. I know, because I've done it myself like this in the past.
Or, you can just upload the relevant parts of the book, as most books are 80% fluff, and only 20% gold. That brings a book down to 20MB each, all the way down from 1GB.
You can upload 20MB in about 2 hours. :)
'Course, it's also entirely probable that you're just saying this as an excuse not to share what you do have, or (more likely) don't have. :mad: This isn't the first time we've
heard the "My files are huge and I'm on dial-up" excuse. :rolleyes:
Must be nice to have such a huge harddrive that you can store 250+GB of files. That's a pretty expensive piece of hardware. Seems odd that you couldn't burn them to a DVD
or split them amongst CD-R's to make space, meaning you could make copies to send to someone else who COULD upload them.
So what the next excuse?

The only way your "books" would be over a gigabyte in size is if they were hi-res images of 1,000+ pages each.
Er... I think he means that the total size is 1.24 Gb, not each. 1.24Gb / 200 = 6.4Mb, which is about right.

Yes. All Books together are 1,24 GB. A few Books a very Small size and other are very big (200MB). I upload a few Books the next Week.
Spotter May 22nd, 2004, 06:20 AM

He Ropik, have you ever used Flashpowder, or only BP? In the "IHBRL" and in the Book "Bazooka, How to build your own" they used this stuff. With this, the range would be
better i think. And in first tests with my, a havier Counterwight makes a speeder Warhead. My Warhead is 400g and my Counterwight 1200g. Soft Recoil, but better Range.
Ropik May 22nd, 2004, 08:29 AM

I didn't use flash, because it can explode very easily. The BP only burns in normal circumstances and lifts the warhead off the tube, but flash - when you aren't very careful
with it - can make unwanted surprise for you. In IHBRL is this also mentioned - something like "don't confine the flash more than one layer of paper tape, do not tamp it
between warhead and counterweight blah blah blah...". I personally don't want in close proximity to my body something able to split and tear three layers of strong PVC
pipe(look at the end of the IHBRL book) to shreds.
Your much heavier counterweight can have some effect, I didn't tested my launcher with so big weight difference warhead and countershot. But using three times heavier
counterweight to shoot a one pound warhead... I think this puts the weapon on the "cumbersome" category.
I think smokeless powder would be ideal as propellant. I must make some NC and try...
Tests coming soon if I will have time.
Spotter May 22nd, 2004, 09:59 AM

Yes, i think a PVC tube isnt so good. For Tests i used a Pipe with 54mm outside and 51mm inside diameter, with a few layers of fiberglass and epoxy. That is 1,5 mm steel
and 3 mm Fiberglass between me and the charge. I used no charge holder... so i dont have a weak point in the tube. The charge is build in at the end of the counterwight
and the ignationwires run throu the Gypsum in the counterwight. The Warhead and the Counterwight are made from strong PVC with 50mm outside diameter. The
Counterwight is filled with Gypsum. The Warhead is closed with a wooden disc and a thin metalplate. As fins i used cottonstripes and i have testet thin metalstripes. But
metalstripes are not ideal. I make more tests and then i write t here. The idea with the Sand is good... i will see the FUCKING Book
xperk May 22nd, 2004, 10:55 AM

I wondered if anyone had tried narrowing the exhaust section of the pipe, thus miniming the need for a counterweight. In theory the delay in the built up pressure of the
gasses escaping through the narrow exhaust could work as a counterweight.
In some recoilless designs the round had discs designed to burn/blow away during launch, but helped to build up pressure.
The increased pressure design is probably not suitable for a PVC type launcher.
To my horror this has already been discussed at http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=652
JoeJablomy May 22nd, 2004, 04:50 PM

A lot of rocket motors use nozzle plugs to build up enough pressure for stable burning and ensure ignition (also just to seal the motor, I guess).
This would be helpful with smokeless powder due to its pressure sensitivity, although as mentioned it also has the potential to cause a pressure spike.
It seems to me, though, that holding the countermass to the launcher would transfer recoil. I remember seeing that some devices had a lip turned in at the rear of the tube,
but I think it was meant as a sort of nozzle. Actually, there is much more force pushing backwards on rocket nozzles than forwards, and they can be blown off; the thrust force
is actually applied to the forward bulkhead of the motor. But the forward "bulkhead" in this case, the projectile, is free to move, and if the rear is not, then it will transfer force
to the casing/tube and the shooter. So I'm kind of confused by this. Perhaps you might make a unitized round with a solid, stick shaped countermass connected to the
projectile by a paper tube with the powder charge. The bursting tube would allow the powder to pressurize.
chemofun December 8th, 2005, 01:04 AM

I got the pdf version of the poor mans RPG and I am a little confused about the fuze placement. They say to place the fuze inside the body of the projectile which is fine
except that the fuze is armed by ejecting the pin one it leaves the muzzle. The problem is, how does the ejector pin get pushed out after leaving the tube if its stuck inside the
body of the projectile. I guess a hole could be drilled through both layers of PVC but the precision would have to be pretty good; but for that, what's the point of building a fuze
and inserting it inside the projectile as a separate component? Why not just build the fuze mechanism directly into the body of the projectile?
festergrump December 8th, 2005, 11:27 AM

The problem is, how does the ejector pin get pushed out after leaving the tube if its stuck inside the body of the projectile.
A simple spring loaded pin should suffice. Much like the "spoon" of a hand grenade only flies off the grenade once it leaves the users hand and arms the grenade, the pin could
only leave the body of the projectile once it is relieved of the restraint of the launcher tube. (see page 24 of part 1, captioned "Schematic of a Mechanical Point-Impact Non-
Delay Inertia Fuze for a HEAT Warhead" for an idea).
Why not just build the fuze mechanism directly into the body of the projectile?
Safety and storage. Many of your expedient primaries don't have a very long shelf-life and are also somewhat unstable, especially after they've aged a bit. (AP is a prime
example of this, though I personally would never use AP as a primary in a projectile round, but some may disagree with me. Most here, I believe, would tell you it's a really
bad idea due to it's unpredictability and sensitivity).
I would NEVER leave a fuze in a projectile of this nature lying around while armed with a fuze unless it was moments before I sent it to target. Leaving the fuze out while
transporting or storing an explosive projectile makes the accidental detonation of the secondary explosive somewhat difficult. Were one of these to go off beside you it'd pretty
much end the fight, no? You lose, game over, no restart button.
In fact, I would make the projectile in three seperate stages which could be fitted together just before use. HE warhead, detonator, and fuelled body. I wouldn't even pack in
the HE until I was sure I would need such a device, for safety sake, but everything else would be ready to go... primary and secondary would be "made to order"as needed,
and the det would only be intact right before I loaded the complete projectile in the tube.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > P n u e m atic air cannon sprinkler valve?
Log in
View Full Version : Pnuematic air cannon sprinkler valve?
HVD May 23rd, 2004, 04:04 PM

H a s a n y o n e g o t e x p e rience m aking pneumatic air cannons like on http://www.xinventions.com ?
All inform ation online points to using the "rainbird" brand of sprinkler valve but I've scoured the net and can't find a UK
supplier. In fact, the only electronic sprinkler valve i can find is from here :
http://www.cmsgardens.co.uk/hose.htm (near the bottem )
but there is no technical information available on this valve (eve n from m anufacturers page) so i'm not sure whether it's
suitable.
Has anyone got any substitutes for the rainbird valve, o r a uk supplier of the rainbird?
Cheers,
HVD.
[edit]
P e r h p a s " P n e u m atic air cannon" is a double positive? Pneum atic cannon is perhpas a better name :-).
Barcy May 23rd, 2004, 11:57 PM

Years ago I tried to b uild a pneumatic/solinoid operated air cannon for paintball. The m ain chamber was 100m m, which went to
a 5 0 m m barrel. The solinoid was a 24volt/high pressure device/1 inch pipe (still have two som ewhere).
I was very over kill with the sa fety: extra strong PVC and using a large volum e/low pressure cham ber to push the projectiles in
a non violent burst, b ut more of a blow pipe effect.
The results were hit a nd m i s s , a s I k e p t d e v e l o ping air leaks and I cheated by adding a little water to the system which showed
m e the air le a v e s a n d w a t e r a d d e d m ass to the firing and a little recoil for a much better result.
Sorry I have no pictures, this was years ago.
Drop m e a n e m ail it you want more info.

Have you tried searching this website? There is tons of info on Spud cannons.
You can get a rainbird valve from any garden reticulation shop. You need m ust technical info of retic valves either, they are all
pretty m uch the sam e .
If you ever g et around to m a k i n g o n e , m a k e s u r e y o u u s e p r e s s u r e r a t e d P V C p i p e and you glue everything carefully.
xyz May 24th, 2004, 08:12 AM

I have built 4 different air cannons over the years, only 2 of them are still on one piece, o n e o f t h e m has a broken barrel that
I can't be bothered fixing (broken due to being dropped, not due to a failure during operation), the other one was dism a n t l e d
to provide parts for a bigger, better on e.
Any old solenoid sprinkler valve should do, all m ine were bottom o f t h e r a n g e , e l c h e a p o $ 2 0 A U D o n e s f r o m B u n n i n g s a n d I
h a v e n e v e r h a d a p r o blem with any of them .
I really have no idea how anyone could get air leaks in their cannon, before building m ine I had no experience whatsoever with
PVC gluing, yet I have not had a single air leak in any of them. Just use plenty of glue and use teflon tape or silicone on all
the threaded joins.
EDIT: Flake2 m, nice sig, but I prefer "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then riddle them with bullets" :)
HVD May 24th, 2004, 11:52 AM

Have you tried searching this website? There is tons of info on Spud cannons.
You can get a rainbird valve from any garden reticulation shop. You need m ust technical info of retic valves either, they are all
pretty m uch the sam e .
If you ever g et around to m a k i n g o n e , m a k e s u r e y o u u s e p r e s s u r e r a t e d P V C p i p e and you glue everything carefully.
It's not inform ation on consruction that i need, as I've already read quite a bit ab out them . It's the sourcing of a so lenoid
sprinkler valve of the highest switching speed and flow rate that is troubling m e . A n d n o , i ' v e b e e n i n t o l o t s o f s h o p s , a n d
look e d o n t h e w e b a n d t h e o n ly electronic sprin kler valve i can find is on the link i posted. If i could get it in any garden shop,
then i wouldn't have posted here.
HVD.
[edit]
To XYZ : Well, i think I'll just buy the one i found and hope for the best. I was looking for max flow rate an d switching speed
f o r m y m o n e y but i don't have m uch choice it seem s. I'll let you all know how it goes. Thanks.
FrankRizzo May 24th, 2004, 09:38 PM

W hat you're looking for is som ething like the 'Supah va lve' created by Joel over at spudte ch.com If you visit some of the
yahoo groups catering to spudgun design, you will find that quite a few people ha v e r e v e r s e - e n g i n e e r e d J o e l ' s d e s i g n a n d
have worked out what hardware you need to pu rchase to create your own. Solenoid-based valves just don't dump air fast
enough to be very efficient, so forget about using them to directly release the air.
Aaron-V2.0 June 1st, 2004, 02:03 AM

I s u g g e s t o b t a i n i n g a sprinkle r valve a n d p n e u m atically m odding it with a blowgun threaded into the jartop. It m akes a world
of difference in flow a nd actua tion.
Anthony June 4th, 2004, 07:53 AM

W oah there biznatch! Don't buy that big brass m other o f a valve ...
Firstly, you can get th e big green plastic soleno id valves that everyone uses in the US.
They are available mail-order from the spudgun technology centre.
Also, a comp any called http://www.arcadiairrigation.co.uk/ does sell them . Unfortunately, they are no longer featured on the
website (along with a lot of other m ore m inor products), but they were a little while ago. Along with some th readed fittings to
suit. I'm fairly sure they will still sell them , m a y b e a n e m ail to them will help.
Also, if you haven't seen it, http://www.geocities.com / s p u d g u n s _ u k / m i g h t b e o f s o m e u s e , a l t h o u g h i t h a s n ' t b e e n u p d a t e d

for quite som e t i m e .

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Spigot Grenade/Area Denial Mine
Log in
View Full Version : Spigot Grenade/Area Denial Mine
nbk2000 June 1st, 2004, 01:53 PM

I had a dream (literal dream, not "dream" ;)) of a design for a grenade/mine last night.
In it, the ball bearing projectiles had a hole drilled in them as if they w ere to be used as poisoned shot (as described in my PDF, v1.1) but, instead of posion, they had a small
amount of a propellant in the conical part of the hole, with the shot being mounted onto a short stud which contained two embedded w ires through which an electrical current
would arc to ignite the propellant and launch the projectile sphere.
Whether the propellant was smokeless powder or a primary, I don't remember, but the purpose isn't to throw the projectile at mach 3 at 200 yards, simply to throw it with
enough velocity to penetrate into flesh within 10 yards.
Reason for the spigot design is to simplify manufacturing, as I think it simplier to do it this way than to drill a bunch of barrels into a solid block of metal. Also, by making this a
propellant driven w eapon, rather than explosively projected, you greatly reduce its firing signature, making it less noticable to bystanders as to w hat is going on, compared to an
explosion.
As an area denial w eapon, it would be in a cylindrical configuration, with a stake that attaches it to the ground being driven in seperately from the mine, so you're not having to
whack it into the ground (BOOM).
When activated, it wouldn't explode all at once as the typical mine does, but rather, fire off one projectile at a time in a random direction, once every second, or more often if
desired to present a more intense deterent, or less often to last longer.
Figuring 600 projectiles at 1/second, that's be 10 minutes. 5/second is 2 minutes.
Using multiple devices in an area w ould present a greater deterent because of the interlocking fields of fire and the random nature of the weapons firing would prevent rushing
through.
By making it directional like a claymore, instead of omni-directional, you could block a path quite effectively, making this a PDM.
In all cases, if tampered w ith, such as being knocked over, the w eapon would revert to a "mine" and fire all projectiles instantly.
As a Tri-nade, the weapon would rapidly fire off the projectiles at over 10/second, again in random directions, but with the added effect of those firing against the ground acting
to throw the grenade into the air, allowing the others to be fired dow n above cover, and to cause the tri-nades fragments to richochet all about the room, eliminating dead
zones caused by furniture. :p
Diagrams w ill be forthcoming.
Tuatara June 1st, 2004, 07:07 PM

Interesting idea. Though I suspect balls would not be aerodynamically stable enough to do more than spin madly and hit the ground a few feet from launch.
Even a slow spin w ill totally kill any forward velocity.
Have you tried to drill an accurate hole in a ball bearing? Its a challenge even to get a drill bit to bite.
A-BOMB June 1st, 2004, 11:31 PM

Tuatara, you could make a mount like this to hold the bearing in place with the shaft allowing the bit nothing to do except drill it, and it would make centering the holes easier.
zaibatsu June 2nd, 2004, 12:29 AM

Ball bearings are awfully hard though, I w ould worry that it just w ouldn't bite without annealing them first, even with the jig you suggest.
knoddas June 2nd, 2004, 06:42 AM

Why not use short lenghts of small pipe instead?
Seal one end and fill it with propellant, done.
Would be like a "bottlerocket" (I think that is what You call them...)
Dave Angel June 2nd, 2004, 10:35 AM

How about dome nuts? For those who don't know, they are like normal nuts but with a domed cap on one end, which would slot nicely onto the right size of hollow metal tube
filled w ith the propellant.
Perhaps not as heavy as ball bearings, but bought in packs of something like 50 w ith no need to drill, they would be easy to do experiments with.
Skean Dhu June 2nd, 2004, 05:24 PM

sounds similar to this CIA method of assasination/ area denial, The operative would create many zip guns and camoflouge them to look like sprinkler heads or some other
'harmless' metal device in the area and they w ere all aimed into the same general spot creating this area of intense fire/ kill zone.
although your design sounds more like a roman candle but instead of stars you have ball-bearing comets. you could easily vary the firing time from full auto, burst fire to semi
auto with varying amounts of delay powder in each mine
Jacks Complete June 2nd, 2004, 09:07 PM

Another quality idea from NBK!
My take would be to set it up more like the roman candle, combined with a firecracker. Making hundreds of small rockets (effectively w hat they are) w ould be very time
consuming, and I doubt that you would get a reasonable amount into a BB without losing too much of the mass. It might be better to take hemispheres, and use a gluey
explosive mixture to stick them together, then fire those, so that they go up in the air, or along the ground, and then detonate, sending two rounds for the price of one, and
ensuring a more reasonable chance of spin not doing funny things, plus you suddenly have an edge and some loudly screaming projectiles.
Try the domed nuts. That way you don't need to drill, and you get twice the projectiles.
A-BOMB, you see things like your drawing in locks, designed to snap drill bits! What happens is the bit slides off, and the cutting edge then either shatters on the BB, or the bit
just stalls, or the w hole bit snaps due to the sudden shear. It just isn't practical to drill or even cut a properly hardened BB. Even an Alan key is damned hard work, and you can
get a flat edge and grip it nicely to drill - I remember destroying three drill bits (2 TiN coated) trying, and only getting 1mm into the 6mm key. Red heat didn't do much to the
hardness, either.
xyz June 3rd, 2004, 05:28 AM

Jack's Complete, about annealing, to soften steel, it must be heated red hot and then cooled SLOWLY, cooling it quickly will retemper it just as hard as it was before.
Back on topic...
I know this thread is about simplicity, but if you're going to all the trouble of drilling individual ball bearings or making little rockets from sections of tube the I'll suggest this
anyway...
Why not just cut a length of 6mm ID steel tube into 5cm sections, put a single round of .22LR into one end of each, then drill lots of holes in a pipe (drill them the same size as
the OD of the steel tube) and glue the loaded tubes into the holes with the primer end on the inside of the pipe, then fill the pipe with KNO3/Sugar or some other incendiary.
As the incendiary burns downwards from the top, the heat generated fires off the primers and spits .22s in all directions. Who cares if the (unsupported at the back) cases
rupture or blow open the occasional section of tube? They only have to work once and it doesn't matter w hat happens to them so long as they spit their 40 grains of lead at a
reasonable speed.
The description may be a little hard to follow so I'll try to draw up a diagram.
EDIT: Here's a quick diagram so you get what I'm talking about, in the diagram, the firing tubes don't extend back inside the incendiary tube, w hich they should to ensure they
stay attached.
The diagram also only shows one side of the tube having firing tubes in it, the real one w ould have them sticking out all over the place.
The fuse can be substituted for w hatever ignition method you want.
The spike in the real version w ould need to be longer so that recoil didn't knock the thing over.
Different incendiaries (different burnrates) may be used to vary the rate of fire.
nbk2000 June 3rd, 2004, 04:35 PM

Fortunately, the whole problem is already solved, about drilling bearings, by using the slingshot ammo sold in Wal-Mart, as it's flat on opposite sides, and isn't hardened at all. :)
You simply set it flat on a drill press table, clamp it with a vise, and drill a hole through the opposite flat-face. :D
A drilling jig w ould make it simplier than this even, if you could hold a hundred at a time in a plate.
Attached is a diagram of the projectile itself.
Spherical projectiles aren't very aerodynamic, but that's OK because, as stated, it's range is only intended as 10 yards or so. If it goes off at an angle, so w hat? That's OK too,
as it's intended to harrass and delay the enemy, whether through actual casualties, or through simple fear.
If richochets are flying around, bouncing off the ground, at the rate of 10 a second, w ho'd want to run into that? ;)
This is NOT a roman candle, as that requires length, and the longer it gets, the more bulky it is to carry. The spigot mine can be constructed as a plate with hundreds of studs
(spigots) on it, easily only an inch or two in thickness.
By using a motion detector on the claymore trail guard, you'd have it able to delay as long as there's rounds to fire, as it'd only fire when the enemy is exposed, compared to
simple timed firing that'd only delay for a couple of minutes at most.
This would be comparable to the sentry-gun setup using the BB machinguns, only much more portable.
Also, because of the compact and simple nature of the w eapon, you could make a pocket-sized version, with the plate going over the knuckles and a handle fitting the hand
with a firing switch.
Imagine 3 row s, each with 10 spigots, that fire at a rate of 5/second, for as long as the switch is held down. It's lethal range is only a few yards, but it's simple/compact/full-
auto/quiet.
Using the 3/8" size shot, you've got a 30-shot .38 caliber solid-state machinegun in your pocket that's not much bigger than a set of brass knuckles, and you can throw it away
without leaving a clue, if you use nipolit to cast the handle, as that'd burn very nicely to gas. :D
You can buy tungsten "bullets", w hich are used as fishing weights, and use them as projectiles instead. Not only are they more aerodynamic, but they're also very dense, giving
excellent penetration.
Use of a powerful primary, like the azo-clathrates, would give some velocity, but you'd need to use some sort of buffer inside the projectile to prevent fracturing by the shock.
Ropik June 3rd, 2004, 05:23 PM

Or you can integrate the detonator to the nipolit handle, maybe add a bit of shrapnel to it and then you have nearly perfect weapon - w hen it runs out of ammo, it can be used
not as club or bludgeon, but like powerful grenade!
Definitely good idea, NBK!
nbk2000 June 3rd, 2004, 05:44 PM

I'd rather not have anything intended for carrying in my pocket have a detonator built-in, as the results could be painful. :eek:
As it's intended as a firearm, the handle w ould be combustible, to destroy prints/DNA, that'd otherwise get you busted.
If it was intended as a grenade, then it'd be purpose-built for that, and not as a firearm.
Ropik June 4th, 2004, 10:52 AM

Yes, maybe some heavier blowback can destroy the evidence ultimately - and you with it. For this purpose some really shock resistent BC must be made. Not really a simple
job.
However, it w ould be best if the weapon can burn including the spigots - which isn't probable, because then you must have the spigots out of nipolite... Bad idea, I know.
Maybe some easily-burned plastic will do, accompanied w ith a flash-burning propellant with low burning temperature - so it can not melt too much of the spigot. Or something
which burns slowly after ignition, acting like slow fuse for the nipolite. You fire all bullets from spigots, throw the weapon away and after minute or so, the w ick-spigots ignite
the handle and all is gone
hereno June 5th, 2004, 02:42 AM

Reason for the spigot design is to simplify manufacturing, as I think it simplier to do it this way than to drill a bunch of barrels into a solid block of metal.
.... you greatly reduce its firing signature, making it less noticable to bystanders as to what is going on, compared to an explosion ...
First, I cant open attachments so I may have the wrong idea ... but,
For what reason w ould drilling into BB's be easier then drilling into a solid block? At least with a drilled block you have both the containment for propellant and barrel, trying to
drill holes in your would-be projectiles and also fitting the "stud" containing electrics to fire them off w ill be far harder, and not as effective if a short barrel w as used. Drilling out
a block, easier, better and will let you use it more then once if needed.
This will only ever be a area denial device as you mentioned (or for the dirty word "terrorism" ). If it was chucked into a crowd they would just disperse, effectively you just
giving them time to get away, you would be better off with a grenade. 1 shot a second in random directions at low pow er will not be effective at killing, nor injuring. So
reducing the firing signiture goes completely against area denial .. you w ant the most flash and bang as you can get as thats its only effective use.
Seems like your trying to make things far too complex to ever be effective as an improvised weapon. At least lose the BB's and use small diametre tube as has been mentioned,
sit them upright on a hotplate and drop a bit of lead shot in to be cast into the end, easy and aerodynamic.
For a directional charge (1 shot a sec. at 360 wont hold anyone back that matters) a mass of pipes and .22s in the end with a thermal pyrotechnic initiator .. easiest and best. I
think xyz has said this, but I cant see his picture.
Simple means reliable! though I personally cant see a realistic situation w here it w ould be useful.
raptor1956 August 26th, 2004, 06:59 PM

another cheap and easy-to-drill method w ould be to use fishing sinkers. lead balls have been effectively used in firearms for centuries

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > hybrid air cannons
Log in
View Full Version : hybrid air cannons
paintbatt August 19th, 2004, 04:27 AM

W hile researching air cannons i came across an interesting new type. Its called a hybrid aircannon. Basicly you inject the 3 or 4
tim e s a s m u c h p r o p a n e a s y o u n o r m ally would into the cham ber and then pump either 45psi or 60 p s i ( d e p e n d i n g o n i f y o u
u s e d 3 t o 4 t m e s a s m uch propane) in to the chamber. In order to keep this mix from e s c a p i n g y o u u s e a b u r s t d i s k s u c h a s
alum inum foil, which is placed in a union. W h e n t h e m i x i s i g n i t e d 2 5 0 t o 3 0 0 p s i o f h o t e x p a n d i n g g a s e s w i l l b e p r o d u c e d .
Here is a link to were more infomation can be found here (http://www.koolpages.com /potatohell/Hybrids.htm l)
shadow2501 August 20th, 2004, 06:15 PM

AT LAST som e o n e t h a t d a r e s u s i n g t h o s e p e r f e ct sized D batteries to the ir full potential.More propane more pressure m ore
d a n g e r o u s m ore powerful, the ideal christmas toy for kids
supercharged August 25th, 2004, 12:44 AM

The concept of the internal com bustion engine is what gave m e the idea for a "supercharged" laun cher. - The link in
pain tabatt's thread is the 2nd or 3rd? person who built a working "hybrid". - I could go no about this Topic endlessly, but that
would be rather rude.
I can honestly say that I was the "first" person to ever fabricate the "hybrid", and it was "the" subject for months on the SGTC
Foru m s .
-- A "norm al" m e t e r e d a m o u n t of prop a n e i n a C o m bustion Launcher will generate approx . 40psi ( 4.03% fuel m ixture by
volum e / air in cham ber at atm ospheric pressure (14.7psia) ).
-- A 2x/2atm m ix will generate 120psi ( 8.06% fuel m ix ture by volum e / air in cham ber at 15psig. )
-- A 3x/3atm m ix will generate 180-21 0psi ( 12.09% fuel m ixture by volum e / air in cham ber at 32psig. )
-- A 4x/4atm m ix is NOT recom m e n d e d , b e c a u s e t h e p r e s s u r e t h a t i s g e n e r a t e d u p o n i g n i t i o n e x c e e d s t h e s a f e t y p ressure of

a S C H 8 0 P V C U nion
( which is 235psi@73*F)
T h e s e " t o y s " a r e n o t r e c o m m e n d e d b e c a u s e o f t h e r i s k s i n v o l v e d . S o m e p e o p l e h a v e h a d their Un ion and/or their Cham ber

"grenade" , which makes me wish that I never explained how to make one in the first place. But I was so full of myself
because the Launcher was inexpensive to build, easy to build (no m achining of parts, or special sk ills needed) , and was m ore
powerful than ANY pvc-based launcher known to m a n k i n d. ;)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Blowgun Mouthpiece Filter
Log in
View Full Version : Blowgun Mouthpiece Filter
doom4?! August 25th, 2004, 09:58 PM

I w a s r e a d i n g a n o l d p o s t , a n d r e a d a b o u t t h e i d e a o f b lowgun darts being traced back to you by your DNA. After a little
thought I think I have found a solution; a filter, inside the m outhpiece, that would filter out any saliva that may contain any of
your cells. Any resulting moisture would sim ply be evaporated water cond ensing o n the dart or barrel.
I a m pretty sure that such a filter would work, because they have filters that are like a shield that will block out harm ful viruses
from your breath when you give som eone CPR. I think such a filter would be pretty easy to make, a few layers of panty hose
would block any little bits of saliva from going into the blowgun barrel.
T o u s e , y o u ' d t a k e o f t h e m outhpiece, insert the dart (with gloves), replace the m outhpiece, and when you fire no DNA is left
on the dart.
(Surely that would slo w airflow down a considerable amo unt, rendering the blowpipe useless! I've approved this post to see if
anybody has any other suggestions - kingspaz)
dirtypilg August 27th, 2004, 07:47 PM

T h i s m ight sound kinda stupid and void the whole concept of the blow gu n....but m y idea of a non tracable blowdart would be
u s i i n g a s a m ll painba ll gun c02 tank. Not the cartriges but the really sma ll tanks they seell at the sports store. It would give
you more force then a puff of air and avoid any traces.
akinrog August 27th, 2004, 09:53 PM

T h i s m ight be awkward however when I read this thread an idea com e t o m y m i n d .
AFAIK, the blowgun used by Ninjas may be a solution fo r this. These guns have an additio nal moutpiece which is almost
perpendicular to barrel of the blowgun. IIRC I read som ewhere they use this geom etry in order to prevent themselves to
breath in the dart accidentally. Maybe a longer side m outhpiece may prove effective in preventing saliva from getting on the
dart.
Hang-Man August 27th, 2004, 10:28 PM

W hat if you just covered the d arts with H2O2 or som ething to de stroy any deposited DNA
Narkar August 28th, 2004, 07:31 AM

How about stuffing in a piece of light p lastic bag just after the dart? It wo uld press against the back of the dart when fired,
when the dart leaves the barrel, plastic bag would just d rop out and blend in with other garbage laying on the ground.
I doubt that anyone is ever going to kill som eone efficently with blowgun anyway, but who knows...
meselfs August 28th, 2004, 09:57 PM

The amount of spit can be incredible, especially if you fire several tim es in one session. I've observed cold spit collectin all
over the dart, and even the target.
I don't think a filter is a good idea, because I can't imagine a practical way to filter without reducing effectiveness, which is
supremely im portant since blow guns in genera l are short range.
If it were me, I'd use the wad (plastic bag?), but m a k e s u r e n o t t o l e a v e i t i n t h e g a r b a g e , I o n c e r e a d a b o ut a (very) old
crime when guns were just becoming popular, they identified the m urderer by the wad left by his gun.
akinrog August 28th, 2004, 11:27 PM

W hat if you just covered the d arts with H2O2 or som ething to de stroy any deposited DNA
I was thinking of the very sam e thing but with a different substance. IMHO alkali hydroxides are m ore suitable for this
purpose. However, it is a problem to cover a dart with a caustic substance (to keep it for a long period of tim e of course).
However, it m ight be possible to dip it in a caustic slurry /paste just before using it.
But that's also silly. Assum e that you are carrying a container (it must be fairly high/long to receive entire length of dart)
containing sodium / p o t a s s i u m hydroxide slurry/paste. :confused:
Maybe it's possible to oil the dart and powder it finely powdered KOH just before using.
bipolar August 30th, 2004, 07:24 AM

I would go with co2 , infact m ost online blow gu n stores sell adapters for blowguns that take co2 cartridges and you just
squeeze the handle and it lets out a burst of air, you could probably get longer ranges with that also instead of blowing with
your m outh

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Building a bb-gun
Log in
View Full Version : Building a bb-gun
Scientist S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2004, 09:31 AM

I h a v e s e a r c h e d t h e f o r u m but not found information about this.
C a n a n y o n e p r o v i d e m e with plans or has anyone of you even successfully built one?
Trigger Mike S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2004, 09:44 AM

That doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.I was thinking of starting a sim ilar project but some thing m ore along the lines
of buying a really che ap pellet gun and modifying it to m ake it more powerful before building one from scratch.Things like
adding a more powerful spring and len gthening the barrel for be ter accuracy.Maybe even opening up a hole in the slide and
adding a little lever to hold the slide back so I can put darts into the cham ber. One problem I had before was the spring was
too powerful for the g un and it ripped apart when I fired it.Anyone have any ideas on how to strenghten the gun or any other
m ods I could m a k e ?
tmp S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2004, 12:01 PM

W hy would you want to hom e build a BB gun unless you live in a rea where they
are outlawed ? Too m any m odels and plenty of access in m y area to even
c o n s i d e r a " h o m e b r e w" device. The idea of increasing the power of an existing
m odel has its merits though !
Dr.M S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2004, 01:05 PM

First off all, this info is taken from an other site and I havent tried it. But I am quite sure it will work if you do your best :)
for the aerosole can I recomm e n d a b i g C O 2 p r e s s u r e d a e r o s o l e c a n , I d o n t m e a n a real gas tank but like hair spray and deo
etc.. you can buy them In hobby shops, they dont contain super heavy pressure or anything but th ey will get the job done
better then hair spray of a co2 tank that will prob destroy the barrel.
The File:
The idea is rather sim ple however rather hard to get to work. The gun is powered by an aerosole can that is fitted into a
recession in the stock. There is an inner and an outer barrel in which the inner slides freely within the outer. I found these
tubes at a hobby shop. the inner has to be a perfect fit for an air rifle slug and also inside the outer barrel.
As the picture below shows, as the trigger is pulled back the inner barrel also m oves back sealing the hole in the inner barrel
for the m agazine against the top of the outer barrel. As the inner barrel m o v e s b a c k i t a l s o p u s h e s d o w n o n t h e n o z e l o f t h e
aerosole can sending a jet of gas up the barrel shooting off the slug, the trigger is released, the barrel moves forward and
another slug falls into the barrel and is ready for the ne xt shot. A fully automatic version m a y b e m a d e p o s s i b l e b y m o u n t i n g
the m a g a z i n e b a c k a l o n g t h e b a r r e l s o a s t h e b a r r e l s l i d e s b a c k t h e h o l e o p e n s i n t h e m a g a z i n e a lowing slugs to freely
flowinto the path of the flowing gas. For this to work a stronger power source would be nee d e d .
To avoid jam ming pointed slugs should be used, another possibility that i hadnt thought of while constructing this weapon is
the use of steel BB's , if these were used there would be no problem of jam m i n g a n d i t m a y b e p o s s i b l e t o h o l d t h e BB in the
barrel by use of a m agnet to stop it rolling out the end of the barrel.
http://sprogm enys.freeservers.com /arsenal/gunaction.gif
MMIV S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2004, 09:01 PM

i had a thought of this idea, was to m ake BB gun out all steel because it easier to work than plastic and stronger. the gun
would work by using extra long pin that would be propelled by an external hamm er and th erefore the propel the BB pellet.
unfortnatley, there are known to be som e (e.g Bali) BB Guns that just fall to apart within a b o u t 1 0 0 r o u n d s .
also i thought of another design, was to m ount one of those co2 little canesters used to pum p u p b i k e t i r e s a n d m ount it in
the hand grip of the gun.
Skean Dhu S e p t e m b e r 6 th, 2004, 01:05 PM

If you were to go to the www.spudtech.com , and joined their foru ms you would find a wealth of inform ation on making your own
bb guns. Also http://www.air-p ower.net/ has som e g o o d p i c t u r e s o f b b g u n s p e o p l e h a v e b u i l t , t h e r e s a l s o a h a r p o o n g u n b u i l t
by a form er m emeber who shall rem a i n n a m e l e s s .
But as tm p said why build your own when there are ones that will work 100% of the tim e b e i n g s o l d f o r a b o u t a s m u c h
s o m etimes cheaper than it will cost for you to make one found on the above sites
serene S e p t e m b e r 1 2th, 2004, 09:58 AM

Im not to into the whole bb gun idea - not that im against yours, just the idea in general. My friend spent a good 250 on a
M1773 which was basically a m ix between the colt comm a n d o a n d the M4 Carbine and it wasnt exa ctly brilliant. I find the hop
u p o n B B g u n s a r e e x t r e m e l y a n n o y i n g a n d m ost of the tim e in m y e x p e rience you end up shooting shit all over the place with
no real accuracy.
NBK put up a thread a year ago on something I think was called the vulcun or something sim ular to that name. I was basically
a va m p e d u p B B m ini gun that tore through som e crazy shit.
Lawrence S e p t e m b e r 1 2th, 2004, 12:30 PM

The "vulcan" bb gun refered to can be seen atwww.m ontysm iniguns.com ,its quite an awesom e m achine but at $5000 well out
of m y price range,unfortunatly.
kingspaz S e p t e m b e r 1 2th, 2004, 02:19 PM

Just something interesting to note, the design was orignally m ade by Lowry, the guy who originally started this place :p
raptor1956 S e p t e m b e r 1 2th, 2004, 08:45 PM

I h a v e n ' t s e e n t h e m m yself but apparently there are plans around the net for the us talon/ uk stealth which looks pretty
a w e s o m e. If the specs are worthwhile, it could be worth a build
Bugger S e p t e m b e r 1 2th, 2004, 11:27 PM

The "vulcan" bb gun refered to can be seen atwww.m ontysm iniguns.com ,its quite an awesom e m achine but at $5000 well out
of m y price range,unfortunatly.
I s i t m a d e o u t o f s o l i d g o l d , o r something like that?
Bugger.
Hobbit Porn S e p t e m b e r 1 3th, 2004, 02:07 AM

Not quite bugger... but it is a laser sighted m ini-gun
I know I'd be asking a hefty sum if I was m a k i n g a n d s e l l i n g t h o s e t y p e s o f B B g u n s .
H.Porn
steyr S e p t e m b e r 1 7th, 2004, 05:44 PM

http://renegaderecon .com/recon_details.php?id=210
Improvised Airsoft Ba rret
Doug S e p t e m b e r 1 8th, 2004, 05:07 AM

As a irsoft is m y m a i n h o b b y ( a n d w h e r e I u s e m o s t o f m y p y r o s ) I m a y b e a b l e t o o f f e r s o m e p o i n t e r s , s o h e r e g o e s :
http://www.airsoftdynam ics.net - UK airsoft supplier and custom gun retailer. Have a look at som e of the gas rifles in here.
As you can see, m ost of the p rices are reasona ble com pared to building one yourself.
If you are used to the cheap "springer" pistols and rifles I can understand why you would be disappointed with their
performance. In the UK we use guns that fire 0.2g BBs at around 328fps (0.99J or 0.73ft lb m uzzle energy). Using heavier BBs
will im prove the accuracy and hitting power at the cost of range.
It is possible t o u p g r a d e m o s t o f t h e m by replacing springs/pistons etc (particularly som e of the sniper rifles - see the APS2,
with no end of upgrades) but unfortunately current UK law means that an ything firing above 1.35J or 1ft lb m uzzle energy is
classed as a firearm (full auto being section 5 - the sam e legal category as a real full auto weapon) so most of us don't
upgrade beyond that as we mainly shoot each other for fun with them .
T h e g a s g u n s a r e e a s i e r t o r a i s e t h e m u z z l e e n e r g y o n - y o u s i m p l y u s e a h i g h e r p r e s s u r e g a s . T h e m ain problem there is

that your seals might blow out or if it's a blowback m odel, the slide m ay shear off and hit you in the eye! (It has ha p p e n e d . . . )
As for hop up, it's basically a piece of rubber th at pokes into the top of the cham ber to im part backspin on the BB which
creates lift and thus a m ore level flightpath - it needs to be set for the weight of BB you are using. Cheap springers have fixed
hop up which is set for the really lightweight (0.1g) BBs. On a de cent gun you have a small wheel or a screw to adjust it - it
takes a while but really improves the range and accuracy.
W hat sort of velocities and energy levels were you think ing of? I know so m e p e o p l e w h o h ave upgraded their guns to silly
levels for use as air rifles.
shrub January 30th , 2 0 0 8 , 1 1 : 3 9 P M

Does any one know where I'ts possible to buy quality .1 7 7 b b g u n s i n B a l i ? T h e o n e s I h a v e b o u g h t i n t h e p a s t a r e
underpowered and have a tendency to fall apart :m a d :
I will be buying at a store in person if possible.
Killy January 31st, 2008, 04:04 AM

Only airgun worth of hom e building would be girardoni type.
(google for info)
neetje January 31st, 2008, 09:21 AM

Only airgun worth of hom e building would be girardoni type.
(google for info)
It's girandoni ;)
And yes, it is a very powerful airgun, designed in the 18 th century and possibly even used in the 2nd W.W . against Nazi
soldiers. :cool:
iHME January 31st, 2008, 09:29 AM

So, are you trying to m a k e a 6 m m AIRSOFT or a .177/.22 air rifle/pellet gun?
I can understand the desire to m ake one. But usually isn't worth the effo rt. Sure you can use your time and m o n e y a s y o u
wish. The air rifle that I personally have is a cheap (20eur) GoldCup brand one, it is good for what I bought it for, plinking but
not really anything else.
If you want to hunt with your air rifle get a good brand .22 PCP (Pre-Charged-Pne umatic).
If you want to make a airsoft gun I'd say that its not a very good idea m oney wise, but if you mak e it from good materials it
will hopefully be a good learning experience.
Around here people just get com mercial "tuning kits" for their airsoft gun s to increase power.
A friend of m ines airsoft APS-2 has a custom wooden stock, (he sells a wooden version of the regular one) a extra-long
precision barrel (6,03 m m) thats Teflon coated, "zero-trigger" trigger modification and a m ore powerful spring. The gun shoots
at 3J with a 0.25g pellet.
Also that airsoft "M82 Barret" is at least from m y point of view closer to Holm es .50cal then
a real M82 Barret, the real one being magazine fed.
Charles Owlen Picket January 31st, 2008, 09:56 AM

....but unfortunately current UK law me ans that anything firing above 1.35J or 1ft lb muzzle energy is classed as a firearm
My God! Is there anything that country will NOT legislate against? I would imagine the folk s in the UK are just used to it and
consigned to sigh and turn away....But Jesus, Lord! Every tim e I r e a d s o m e t h i n g a b o u t t h e U K it's "against the law". :( I really
don't understand that deeply entrenched "nanny-state" mentality.
The reason why I exclaim ed with such intensity is that I am presently loo k i n g a t s o m e m a terial that described the level of
energy to break human skin tissue consistently with a .22 projectile is ap prox 5.3 ft lbs. perhaps it's less with a .177 projectile
but....<sigh>. You can alm ost hear the refrain..."you can put an eye out with that thing!" as Mum rushes over to grab the item
from t h e b o y ' s h a n d s .
Killy January 31st, 2008, 07:32 PM

It's girandoni ;)
And yes, it is a very powerful airgun, designed in the 18 th century and possibly even used in the 2nd W.W . against Nazi
soldiers. :cool:
Rifles like that are still designed and sold, not by major compan ies, but from s k i l l e d " g u n s m iths".
That story "from ww2" you read on Lutys web page, seem s to m e l i k e a b i t h o a x ( a s f a r a s f o r p l a c e ) , b e c a u s e a s f a r a s I
know, Austria was never occup ied, it was a part of Germany.
amachinist January 31st, 2008, 07:46 PM

Partisan air rifle inform ation on Luty's web page was pulled from http://www.beem ans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm, it has a
little m ore detail regarding the rifle.
Thorald February 5th, 2008, 01:52 PM

Building a BB gun, shouldn't in theory be to difficult. You might want to buy a cheap/second-hand BB gun and de-co nstruct it to
see the parts and how they work, before attempting to construct your own.
It would be a fun project, and if sucessful I would personally like to see it. Though I m yself wouldn 't build a BB gun.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Iron palms
Log in
View Full Version : Iron palms
serene September 9th, 2004, 07:58 PM

I have recently done iron palm training and I thought that it was a worthy subject for improvised weapons.
For those of you who dont know what it is I will explain. Iron palm training is the process of conditioning the palms of your hands to create an iron like hand structure. The
training only take 90 days to complete and after it your hands prove to be an invaluble weapon. The training isnt overly hard but it does have side effect on the skin/bone/
tissues in the hand aswell as the nerves as the process basically means that you deaden every nerve in the hand. Even though this is the case, Iron palm training will allow you
to throw even the lightest slap across the face of someone and completely cave in their skull.
I found this to be very practical if a situation leads you to have to fight hand to hand--or hand to palm in this case.
Here is some information about how to start.

Materials Needed:
-10" wide x 24" long (or larger) canvas bag
-approx. 1" round river rocks (enough to fill the bag half way)
-old towel
-cinder blocks (support stand)
-dit da jow
The method is as follows:
Set up the cinder blocks so that you can sit on one and the other(s) create a stand in front of you that is about the height of your naval (while seated). If the surface of your
stand is not level due to the shape of the cinder block, you may have to lay an additional concrete slab on the top for a nice flat surface. Place the towel (in single layer) over
the support stand. This is your striking surface.
Fill the canvas bag with the rocks and fold the remaining half of the bag over to create a side that is double layered. Tape the bag shut (masking or duct tape will do). Place
the bag on the stand and your simple setup is complete.
**When striking for training, it is important to stay relaxed and allow your hand to drop onto the surface.
Do not tense the arm or shoulder, or exert strength while striking. Always breath out as you strike. Exerting strength or failing to breath out is said to stress the heart. Granted,
thousands of karateka pound on the makiwara without regard to this and still do not suffer heart attacks. Even so, I choose not to tempt fate and try to keep my arm relaxed
as possible. You do what you like at your own risk.
Apply dit da jow to hands and massage before and after each set
PART ONE
1. Drop your flat palm on the bag 30 times, shake out the hand, strike another 20 times, shake out the hand and flex.
2. Drop your knife hand on the bag 30 times, shake, 20 times, shake and flex.
3. Repeat for the palm heel surface.
4. Repeat for the back of the hand.
PART TWO
Remove the bag so that you are now striking the cement/cinder support covered with the towel.
1. Drop your knife hand 30 times, shake, 20 times, shake and flex.
2. Repeat with the palm heel.
3. Repeat with the flat palm.
4. (optional) Strike with backfist 30 times and repeat with straight fist.
Optional training:
You can supplement with a bucket of sand. Straight punch the sand 30 times and repeat with the backfist. Do 100 spearhand thrusts into the sand. You can also rub the sand
between you hands to toughen the skin.
Some iron palm practitioners feel that it is unwise to train the knuckles of the fist because of possible long term joint damage. This is fine for strict iron palm fighters, but if you
train in any fist striking art, it may be wise to strengthen your knuckles. Chinese acupressure teaches that training the fingertips can weaken the eyes. Take this into
consideration when training spearhand but also realize that plenty of karate stylists train fingertips and can see just fine.
Different teachers advocate different numbers of strikes per session. Some use hundreds or even thousands of repetitions. Some say to train three times a day, others say you
must train the exact same time everyday without missing a day. Maybe these routines are ideal, but with the method I outlined above, you can train whenever and even miss
a day or two. The less days you miss, the better it will be for you. You should achieve impressive results after 100 days of training. At that point, you should be able to break a
single patio block with a flat palm slap (use a towel padding at first).
If it helps, mark the days off on your calendar. If you don't keep a record, you may not be training as often as you think. Good Luck!

I'll let you do all that, then shoot you, since your trigger release will be shite, since you will have no nerves left in your hand!
Also, how can you train your knuckles? They are bones, not muscles, and so are very hard to toughen up.
Basically, you would get the same effect from using a shovel all day for a few weeks, and you would have a cleared driveway, parkland, etc. plus some money!
I can palmstrike a plank hard enough to do real damage to someone's face, or break a concrete block. It hurts like hell, but there you go. You hand wouldn't hurt due to having
hurt it a lot already. I say leave the pain for others and just practise your strikes on a firm padded board with a little flex.
Lurking_Shadows September 11th, 2004, 12:48 AM

I'm not sure but I heard that striking a hard surface over and over with your knuckles you develop a buildup that makes your fists harder.
I've also heard it can cause arthritis due to your joints stiffening.
I may be wrong in this so correct me if I am.
festergrump September 11th, 2004, 03:09 AM

I am fester completely laughing my ass off... JC, you kill me sometimes! You made me spit beer out my nose with that post. (It just took me by surprise, I guess). :)
Honestly, I think toughening up your hand is ok to a point, but like JC said, hard work will get you there before you know it and with probably better results and benefits. I
can't really see the need to be able to drive nails in with my knuckles and am sure to hit you with the palm rather than a closed fist if I had to hit you head on, anyway. Even
a backfist should be with the bottom of the fist (like a hammer blow) instead of with the somewhat delicate bones of the hand.
Let me know how that works out for you, Serene. Remember, you have two hands, two knees, and one back in this lifetime. When they go, they go for good... then you're
fucked.
My knees are already in the pine box waiting on the rest of me. If my hands ever fail me, shoot ME instead, JC! ;)
Corona September 11th, 2004, 10:26 AM

Having wasted half my life doing this stuff, a few comments....
Serene: What dit da jow recipe do you use? I just use oil of wintergreen plus menthol and eucalyptus.
Lurking shadows: Yes, something will happen to your hands. And no, I havent seen anyone with arthritis symptoms yet. :p Its not arthritis that gets them... I've heard
some people lose feelings in their legs when they get old. I haven't seen any such people, mind you, but there seem to be plenty of stories.
Of course I'm not talking about the wash-outs... people who think they are some kind of born-agin bruce lee and bang some body-part on something hard and then say this
karate stuff isn't for me. They are in a class of their own... our version of kewls.
Fester: What Serene is doing seems to be overkill from my point of view.
If you want to develop your knuckles, do at least 25 pushups with your knuckles everyday on a hard floor. That s it. I punched someone once a light jab and he went
DOWN bleeding. I was very surprised because I could swear I hadn't used any force. So yes, it works.
We are also taught that whenever the teacher calls for you, or you have to get up anyway, you slap your palms on the floor first.. preferably the fleshy part just inside the
knife edge of your hand. Or else just the open palm. Hard. Do this over a period of months and you get the desired result without going into the hard training suggested above.
Even a backfist should be with the bottom of the fist (like a hammer blow) instead of with the somewhat delicate bones of the hand.
Thats a hammer-fist. Its a different thing than the back-fist. And you dont throw a backf ist like a back-hand. You shoot it in a straight line, at an angle from the body
(more or less), with a slight twisting motion of the wrist, knuckles striking...not the back of the hand, fist horizontal. Its a real killer and doesnt hurt you at all while
leaving a hole in the head of the other guy. I know what it says in classical karate textbooks... to do it your way, with the shoulder tensed low, (and thats OK too actually) but
I've never seen it done like that.
And yes, I agree with you, there seems to be no shortage of stories of martial artists who have harmed their limbs later in life by resorting to drastic training when they were
younger. Heavy training and bodily abuse catches up with you, if you're not careful (I've seen it happen with wrestlers... they can't even stand up straight). "Haste makes
waste"... famous saying. What is the hurry to do this training in 90 days?

Your knuckles get toughened up because your knuckles actually increase in bone mass. Your skeletal system is constantly adapting, bones that get high levels of stress become
bigger to prevent them from breaking. That is why exercise is recommended to prevent osteoporosis.
serene September 12th, 2004, 09:49 AM

Fester: What Serene is doing seems to be overkill from my point of view.
The irony when we have people in here making claymores to stop their neighbours stealing the local paper. ;)
Your hands will heal themseleves after a while once your training stops and you will go back to normal with no long term effects.
You guys above were talking about knuckles etc. I do 70 pressups on my knuckles each day, 10 back of the wrist and a few other types. J C -The pressups on the knuckles
help form/condition your bones in the knuckles. Any continuous work like that actually forms calcium deposites inside the knuckles and builds/fuses them together. I wouldnt
say all this was practical to tell you the truth but its one of them things that some people feel the need to do.
I also agree with a lot of you - a back fist strike is the best strike you can do for sheer power...very easy to collapse someones skull with that.
raptor1956 September 12th, 2004, 08:58 PM

The problem with most martial arts in a real-life encounter (yes, I have trained for a fair period of time!) is that martial artists as a rule will waste time dropping into a stance
etc, & a good street-fighter will take them out every time. I found that the best tactic in hand to hand is to take the knowledge of strikes & targets gained & use it to
accentuate street-fighting tactics. Of course, the best and easiest methods are avoid the confrontation in the first place, or a lump of 7.62 lead in the head from an unreachable
distance!

Serene: "The irony when we have people in here making claymores to stop their neighbors stealing the local paper."
Yeah, OK... :) Good point, when you put it like that.
And please, if at all possible, let me have a dit-da-jow recipie... I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.
Raptor: If a martial artist drops into a stance in a street fight and then gets his butt kicked, it means one of the following:
1. He or she has learnt karate out of a book.
2. He or she is a drop out and did not stick around long enough to be taught that punching from the hip and holding your shoulders rigid and dropping into a stance are
practiced more as an exercise in the dojo than as a valid street fight tactic.
3. People who think step-1, step-2, step-3, will ALWAYS get their butts kicked. They have not internalized their training. It still doesn't come naturally to them.
4. He or she intends to write a book on karate.
When you encounter such people, I suggest you put some distance between yourself and them. They can't teach you anything useful.
And yes, I agree with you. As I keep saying, "nothing is faster than a trigger finger".

And yes, I agree with you. As I keep saying, "nothing is faster than a trigger finger".
Hmmmm... How about the bullet? :p
bipolar September 14th, 2004, 12:20 PM

This is very interesting. Any resources on the net about this? I would like some more info on this. Also, how long does it last after you do 25 push ups a day on fists, just as
long as you do the pushups?

Hey bipolar- the pressups on the knuckles are not for iron palm training, this is just for simply building up knuckle strength so to speak. Search around. The method I posted
(second part of post) was actually a cut and paste from another site I had found ages ago so search around.
I agree with all of what corona says about in his/hers last post. I practice northern 7 star mantis kung fu and foshan wing chun and I can gaurentee that all the wingchuners i
know waste no time at all :D
Corona im not sure what oils I use as i get them off my sifu. I think he actually makes his own recipees but dont quote me on that. Ill try to find out for you. Do you practice
any martial arts? Found them practical in real life scenarios?
Corona September 15th, 2004, 06:57 PM

Bipolar: how long does it last after you do 25 push ups a day on fists, just as long as you do the pushups?
Well, I can only speak from my experience. I took a long break once long enough to turn my blackened knuckles back to a pretty pink. But when I tried them out on a
leather bag.. no problem. I think its permanent.
Also I would like to clarify that in my style we only use the two front big knuckles. So you use them for pushups only. Serene is practicing Chinese styles. I *think* they use all
the knuckles, even the last small ones.
Serene: Corona im not sure what oils I use as i get them off my sifu. I think he actually makes his own recipees but dont quote me on that.
Darn I was afraid of that Ive heard most masters have their own recipes, some better than others. Its ok. Thanks.
Do you practice any martial arts? Found them practical in real life scenarios?
Yes. Its called Bando. It originated in Burma, and is now also widely practiced in places like Pakistan and Nepal and of course, USA. Has a heavy karate influence
(because of WW-2) and is said to be similar to thai-boxing in its original form.
And yes, it keeps me out of troublesome situations before they can suck me in. Plus, I believe it has made me smarter added a f ew points to my IQ with better memory
and awareness and observation skills. No, Ive never used it in anger.

I do use all of my knuckles in fighting but also just the first one when using the technique from wingchun called pheonix eye.
Even though this is the case i try to only do pressups on the first 2 knuckles to avoid injury as breaking/ruining the last two knuckles on the hands is one of the most common
injuries in martial arts.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > R ock Salt
Log in
View Full Version : Rock Salt
Lurking_Shadows October 22nd, 2004, 10:32 PM

I don't hear too m uch about rock salt and the applications besid es using it in sho t gun shells.
I was thinking it could be used in other applications if you could make moulds out of it for either sm all explosive device
casings or for som e kind of projectile other than a shot gun shell.
Any and all inform ation you m ight have would be appreciated and I'd like to brain storm on this a bit and see what creations
m ay come up.
Thanks in advance.
Child-of-Bodom October 23rd , 2004, 11:23 AM

W hat are 'rock salts' ? If you start a to pic, maybe it is n ice to give som e info on the subject...
SweNMFan October 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 0 1 : 0 5 P M

Rock salt is m ined, m ost likely have to be purified before it end up as re gular salt. Used to have it in ice cream m a c h i n e s . .
Anthony October 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 0 2 : 3 7 P M

W hat?
You have given us no idea what you are trying to achieve. Nor why the hell you'd want to use rock salt. You've also started a
new thread b efore establishing yourself here.
You'd best explain quickly what the hell this is about, and why it is worthy of a new thread. Else you and this thread is gone.
C h i l d - o f - b o d o m , rocksalt is used to grit roads in the win ter to stop them f r e e z i n g . I t ' s a l s o u s e d a s a l e s s - t h a n - l e t h a l s h o t g u n
l o a d , usually by farmers or railroad workers to scare off kids.
tdog49 October 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 0 6 : 0 9 P M

I work for a railroad....I wish they'd give m e rock salt loads to scare off k ids....
That would be m o r e f u n t h a n I c a n e v e n i m a g i n e .
But in today's world of litigatio n, I can't see any practica l use for rock salt in a fire arm or a ny explo sive. You are just going to
open yourself up to crim inal charges not to mention the potentialy huge civil lawsuits. Mcdonalds lost 25 m illion for their coffee
i n c i d e n t a n d D o m i n o e s ( t h e n t h e l a r g e st chain in the world) lost 73.5 million in their case. Mucho b ad news....
Rocket-Boy October 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 0 6 : 5 4 P M

If ro ck salt was used as a casing as an explosive... when it went of would n't it it just vaporize? I cant see th e r o c k s a l t k e e p i n g
together well enough to do an y dam age, all I can think of is the salt turning into a very fine powder that did nothing. And also,
why would yo u use rock salt, as a CASING for an explosive? I dont think it would have eno ugh resistance to be used effectivly
for an explosive casing. I'm thinking it would be much like a cardboard tube!
SweNMFan October 23rd , 2 0 0 4 , 1 0 : 0 2 P M

And it would corrode your shotgun aswell
irish October 24th , 2004, 05:25 AM

The only explosive use I know of for "salt" is it's use in ANFO in som e Coal mines to lower det tem perature a n d t h e c h a n c e o f
ignition of Coal dust.
I can't think of any other possible use exept scaring the shit out of kids as above ;) (not to m ention stinging :D ).
xyz October 24th , 2004, 07:45 AM

To avoid barrel corrosion, just use either an old barrel that you don't nee d, or use a totally homebuilt shotgun, like a 3/4 inch
stee l pipe slap-fire.
I ' v e m e n t i o n e d t h i s i n s o m e other topic a while back, but NaOH prills are much nastier tha n rock salt... The corrosion is a LO T
worse though, so don 't put it through any barre l you want to kee p.
WMD October 24th , 2004, 07:49 AM

In 'Kill without Joy' John Minnery talks about replacing n orm al shotgun shot with rock salt, in order for the p rojectile to dissolve
shortly after use leaving less traces. Useful for close range only of course. Guess that's where the idea is from . But when used
with high explosives it would probably just been blown to a fine powder, it's too brittle.
jelly October 24th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 1 : 4 5 P M

R e m inds me of a scene in Tarantino's movie KILL BILL Vol. 2... "Budd" shoots U m a T h u r m an in the chest with a double-
b a r r e l e d s h o t g u n l o a d e d w i t h rock s alt... "Now...that gentled you down som e , d i d n t it? Yep... Ain t n o b o d y a b a d a s s with a
double dose of rock salt dug deep in her tits" :D
Lurking_Shadows October 24th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 9 : 4 8 P M

Sorry for starting a new post I don't ge t on m uch.
As for the rock salt I don't use it in m y shot gun but have heard it being use in the area a round me. (Very rural area and lots
of thieves)
Most of those incidences go unreported.
The main reason I started this thread is I wanted new ways thou ght up for new easy to build and less lethal devices that would
exact allot of punishment to the target intended and to be low cost and efficient within a short radius to lessen the extent of
t h e d a m age to the surroundin g area in question.
Also any new chemical formulas and or devises would be appreciated that are less lethal and practical for use.
Sorry again for any in conveniences I just wanted a brain storm session to start not a flam ing war.
But thanks to all those that put in valid inform ation.
I was also thinking fo r the Rock Salt Casing what if I added a sleeve of plastic, card board , or wood around the m ain charge to
d a m pen the shock of the blast.
W ould that work?

Or should I go trail and error on that?
These are only going to be tested but not applied for actual use incase some of you were wondering from my above text.
FUTI October 25th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 3 : 1 5 P M

I heard about this but never saw anyone use it. But in this thread was on r interesting idea...NaOH prills? I heard that NaOH can
actually clean steal, but didn't think about it. But corrosion question made m e think about it again. I know for sure that salt
cause corrosion but believe that water is necessary for this to happen. On the other hand it is not advisable to m e l t h y d r o x i d e s
and carbonates in nickel and iron crucibles (I don't know is this labware called tha t way in english). So this is the question -
which one salt or hydroxide are m ore corrosive to gun barrel?
Psychlonic October 26th , 2 0 0 4 , 0 8 : 0 9 P M

If you are talking about a general deterrent devise, one idea wo uld be to m a k e a s i m p l e b o o b y t r a p .
T a k e a s t e e l p i p e o f w h a t e v e r d i a m ete r you want and put an end cap on it. Drill a small hole in it and put in a pull-type
detonator. Then give it a gunpowder charge and fill the rest of the pipe with rock salt. Place it alongside a path at an angle as
to hit someone in center mass (and hidden, of course). Then just run a trip wire infront of it as to put the target in a perfect
position.
I kept it in general because I don't know what all you have to use, but you should get the idea. If you ever decided to m ake it
lethal, just replace the rock salt with shot, bearings, nuts, screws, whatever.
xyz October 27th , 2004, 09:06 AM

FUTI, NaOH is m uch m ore corrosive to metal th an salt is.
It will alm ost certainly ruin any barrel it is fired from, so use an old barrel or an entirely homebuilt shotgun.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Im provise d C l u s t e r G r e n a d e I d e a s
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised Cluster Grenade Ideas
Psychlonic Novem ber 1st, 2004, 11:33 PM

I have been toying with the idea of a cluster grenade which, when armed and thrown, will launch se veral bom blets in an area
which in turn explode - causing a large r a d i u s o f d a m a g e.
To achieve this, m y initial design is to create a PVC pipebom b which will launch several other pipeb o m b s s u rrounding the PVC
one. These will more than likely need to be attached with either light glue or a som e sort of tape.
In order for this to work prope rly, the PVC bomb MUST direct force towards the bom b l e t s - n o t o u t t h e s i d e s o f t h e b o m b .
However, one must be cautious in not having too much force which will detonate the metallic clad b o m b s s u rrounding it.
The reason the center bomb is PVC is to allow for buildup of pressure, yet no arm or piercing shrapnel is thrown.
It m ust be also stressed that in m y de sign, the bom blets are not as long as the initiator bomb. The fuses in the bo mblets will
be slightly longer than that used in the initiator - giving just enough tim e for the bom b l e t s t o s p r e a d a n d t h e n d e t o n a t e .
At least 3 bom blets would be needed to sufficiently utilize the pressure from the initiator. It's a bit of a trade-off; the fewer the
b o m blets, the less area they cover but the m ore destructive they are (be c a u s e t h e y a r e b i g g e r ) . T h e m o r e b o m b l e t s y o u h a v e ,
the m ore area they will cover but they will not b e as destructive (since they are sm aller). Y ou want bom blets covering the entire
circu mference of the initiator bomb.
As you can see, the fuses are intertwin ed at the top so that they m ay all be lit at once. Sim ple, reliable, and puts the
explosions in unison well.
Now there is another problem t o b e a d d r e s s e d . T h e r e i s a c h a n c e t h a t t h e e x p l o s i o n f r o m the initiator may try to escape out of
the endcaps of the PVC since there is the least amount of resistance there. To rem edy this, the endcaps should be thicker
than the pipe itself.
This brings u s to the last step - actual charges used in the initiator and bomblets. For the initiator, blackpowder should be
sufficient in propelling the bomblets. T h e b o m blets them selves can contain just a bout anything you want. A good idea m ay
a l s o b e t o u s e s o m e flashpowder in the initiator and/or create a flashbang to destract the enemy as the cluster grenade goes
off. Just be careful the m ixture isn't powerful enough to m elt or punch a hole in your bomblets.
T h i s c l u s t e r g r e n a d e n e e d n o t b e u s e d only as a destructive device. You could also use sm o k e b o m b s a s y o u r b o m b lets, and
m ake the initiator catch these on fire so that a large area is covered in sm oke in no tim e at all.
O n e m a y a l s o b e a b l e t o u s e t h e r m i t e i n t h e b o m blets to spread it's destructive capability over a larger surface. Coupled with
t h e " T h e r m i t e F o u n t a i n " i d e a , t h e b o m blets would increase in efficiency even m ore.
D e s i g n I m p r o v e m ents and Variations:

+ T o i m p r o v e b o m b l e t s p r e a d , o n e i d e a m ay be to use a spherical initiator and spherical bom blets. This would not only allow
for the attachm ent of m ore bomblets, but it should also create an optim al volum e for ease of transport. You could also try a
cylin derical initiator with spherical, even cubical bomblets.
+ Another way to improve bom blet spread would be to place the grenade on a post in a vertical m a n n e r . T h i s w a y , s o m e o f t h e
b o m blets aren't simply stopped by the ground underneath of it. You could also take this passive m ethod farther by placing the
device up in a tree or other tall object. In this manner, the grenade would make an excellent boob ytrap with a high kill
probability.
+ Yet another way to im p r o v e b o m b l e t s p r e a d m ight be to variate the ab ove m e t h o d . P l a c i n g t a s s e l s o n t o t h e b o m blet to
im prove flight and placing a point on the tip of the bom b, the grenade could be thrown like a football into a soft object, such
a s d irt, sod, or a wooden plank.
+ Bomblet spread could possibly be varied by placing them as certain angles. For exam ple, placing wedges between the
b o m blets and the initiator cou ld have effects ranging from throwing the bomblets in the air, to forcing them to pene trating an
obje c t - d e p e n d i n g o n t h e a n g l e s u s e d a n d b o m blet m odifications.
This originally came from a text file I wrote on m y com puter, and there was an ASCII drawing of what it looked like (in
general), but it doesn't transfer over well. I'll try to draw up a sketch in MS Paint or something and add it to the post when I
get the chance.
So what do you think? Is my idea feasible or will it (quite literally) blow up in my face? Min d you I don't actually have access to
the m aterials required to test this at the m o m ent.
EDIT - Here's m y MS Paint m ock up. Excuse the crudeness.

http://img12 . e x s . c x / i m g 1 2 / 4 3 8 3 / C l u s t e r G r e n a d e . j p g
A s y o u c a n s e e , t h e r e a r e n o d i m e n s i o ns. This is m erely to give you a basic idea as to what it look s like an d basic functions.
Lurking_Shadows Novem ber 2nd, 2004, 12:15 AM

Intrusting idea but what if you m ade the outer casing a mould of nitrocellulose with the "bom blets" incased in it, in theory when
your m ain ch arge goes off it will burn away the nitrocellulose in flight igniting you "bom blets".
T h e o n l y p r o b l e m s I c a n s e e i s y o u ' d h a v e a f a ir am ount of work forming the two halves o f the mo uld and then attaching them
together supporting whatever explosive projectile com p o u n d y o u wish to use as well as needing to create a metal ta p to insure
it doesn't go off pre-m aturely by your fuse.
Psychlonic Novem ber 2nd, 2004, 01:33 AM

That could work with certain set-ups, such as m y s m o k e b o m b i d e a , b u t t h e m a i n i d e a o f t h e w h o l e thing is to have a huge
d a m age area, and the best way to ach ieve that is with metal casings which throw shrapnel all over the place.
teshilo Novem ber 14th, 2004, 04:47 AM

Throwing this grenade more than on thirty yards hard.This not safer for you .More practical use the se device as rifle launched
g r e n a d e e q u i p p e d s m all parachute for burst in air .Or simple as R/C anti group/convoy land mine .I read patent described
sim ilar device for riot conrol purprose ,sorry dont remem ber num ber.Launching ch arge placed on bottom and after initiation
laun ch tubular gas and flash grenades placed on it. As in patent these device may placed on the b ottom car for R/C control
from cabines.May be all.
Lurking_Shadows Novem ber 20th, 2004, 11:38 PM

Just a quick thing.
W hat if you m ade your Cluster Grenade with a wooden, metal, or alum inum pole (like those Germ a n g r e n a d e s ) a n d h a v e t h e
fuse running out the back of it.
W ould that im prove on distance or would it be too incon venient?
Psychlonic Novem ber 21st, 2004 , 05:39 PM

Unfortunately, I don't know how well th is thing is going to throw yet, so I'm unsure if turning it into a "potato m a s h e r" is
necessary. However, the questions are killing m e. So depite a la ck of resources, I'm g o i n g t o b e ( h o p e f u l l y ) t e s t i n g m y d e s i g n
out within a few weeks.
I'm d o i n g a s m uch im provising as possible without mak i n g t h e d e v i s e t o o m u c h o f a h a z a rd. Since I simply don't have the
reso u r c e s t o m a k e a d e c e n t s i z e d m odel with a ll bom blets filled with an explosive (high OR low), I am sim ply going to fill the
initiator/launcher/wha tever-you-wanna-call-it with what blackpowder I have left. I haven't been able to aquire a satisfactory
casing for this yet, but I m ay epoxy a couple film canisters (top to top) together to improvise, then apply e p o x y o n t h e o u t s i d e
to give it just a little m ore pressure.
As for the bo m b l e t s t h e m selves, they won't be explodin g at all. I am going to use 5 zinc casings salvaged from spent "D" cell
batteries with the plates epoxied to the ends well. These will be filled with water. The idea here is that if the casings are
punctured from the initial blast, the wa ter will leak out n otifying m e of failure. The bom ble ts will be attached to the initiator by
hotglue (testing concept here, not going for durability yet).
I m ay also attach string to the device to simulate a fuse. This is so I know whether the inital blast will be powerful enough to
blow it away or not. These will also be sprayed orange so that I can locate them easier in m y testing field, where I can them
record the spread pattern and tightness.
I haven't decided on the possibility of the tassels or tip yet. More than likely however they will be omitted from the experim ent.
Ideally, I would like to experim ent with an actual PVC initiator and steel bom blet casings. Both the bom blets and the initiato r
would both be filled with a low explosive. Ball bearings would also be glued in the outer sp aces between the bom blets so tha t
even the initiator doe s im m e d i a t e d a m a g e .
The finished device would then be tested in the sam e field I'm going to use, but with helium balloons placed in a form ation. I
could then analyze th e l e t h a l n e s s o f t h e d e v i s e b a s e d o n h o w m any balloons were left sta n d i n g - a p o p p e d b a l l o o n c o u n t i n g
a s a t least an injury of course.
Another unfo rtunate thing is that I do not have a digital camera and therefor will probably not be able to post actual pictures of
the devise and it's trial. While I know this horribly destroys m y credibility, the best I can do is describe how it goes and m a k e
s o m e diagram s o n m y computer to illustrate th e results.
crucible January 22nd, 2005, 01:57 AM

For the bom blets could you use several steel c02 cannisters/cartridges as per several recipes for p*pe bombs. I am sure you
c o u l d f u s e i t s o t h a t t h e d i s p e r s i n g c h a r g e g o e s o f f a s e c o n d b e f o r e t h e b o m blets.
It would be cool of yo u could put it together so it could all be shot out of a m ortar.
For dispersal charges you could look at those u sed in m odel rocketry to blow the chute etc after flight.
P e r h a p s h a v i n g t h e b o m blets set off by cannon fuse that is lit by the burning of the prope llant (would need a propellant/
dispersal charge with a sm all Al or Mg percentage or the ends co ated in BP/Nitrocellulose to ensure ignition)?
Just random thoughts but like the idea.
Crucible

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Freezing People to Death!
Log in
View Full Version : Freezing People to Death!
2,4,6-TNP Novem ber 27th, 2004, 07:10 AM

T o d a y a s I w e n t t o t h e p h a r m a c y a n d b o u g h t s o m e d i m ethyl ether/ propane as a wart rem o v e r I h a d a n i d e a a s I w a s f r e e z i n g
off a com mon planters wart on the bottom of m y foot. Why not use pressurized g a s a s a w e a p o n t o f r e e z e t o d e a t h o n e s
e n e m ies in a m a t t e r o f s e c o n d s . A s a n e x a m ple of the idea I would site propane. If any of you have tryed releasing as little a s
a p o u n d o f p ropane from it's container all at once you would surely feel the biting frost of frostbite on your fingers this is
b e c a u s e p r o p a n e c o m e s o u t e x t r e m e l y c o l d a s d o m any other com p r e s s e d g a s e s a n d s u b stances. Now I mean to propose such
a w e a p o n a s t h e m ost effective killer of it's kind say a tanker of propane or am m onia released into a crowded area would
c a u s e s o m e severe causulties, by the freezing effect than would the toxicity of the given substance. You would effectively
freeze your enemies in just a few seconds, if you were to do such a thing as to release the given substance all at once. Unlike
Hollywood if you were to set off a high explosive to destroy a pressurised tank of propane it would not result in a fire ball, but
rather in a cloud of freezing gas. W hat do you think, a rich source of possibilities or a fool's errand ?
Jacks Complete Novem ber 27th, 2004, 09:21 PM

Possibly a fools erran d. I heard of a guy who nearly killed him self drinking liquid Nitrogen once, and that is a hell of a lot
colder than Propane or anything stored at room tem perature. You would asphixiate (sp?) a lot of people, though, and certainly
everyone would think it was some kind of chem ical attack -> ma ss panic.
It ta k e s q u i t e a l o t o f s o m e t h i n g t o a c t u a l l y f r e e z e s o m e t h i n g t h e s i z e o f a h u m a n to death, since the body can cope with cold

liquids, etc. W i t h a m a s s i v e a m ount of fluid (th e sea) there is a rule I recall which says that 50% o f strong swimm ers will
survive a 50 meter swim in wa ter at 50 degrees F. Howe ver, if they stay still and don't swim, they are more likely to survive a
while, as they reduce the heat loss by reducing the forced fluid movem ent over the skin.
I have washed glass fibre resin from m y hands with Acetone, and that is damned cold as it sucks the heat from our hands.
Certainly it would pan ic the target, as they wouldn't know what the hell was going on, but it wouldn't kill. (Unless you helped
him warm him self on the fire!)
Anyone want to work out the latent heats, etc.?
charger Novem ber 27th, 2004, 09:25 PM

I would have thought the freezing effect of pressurized gas would soon d isapate as the gas returns to a lower pressure. it
would only be dangerous to people very near the weapon if it wa s t o b e d a n g e r o u s. With acetone, is it not the quick
evaporation that cools it rathe r than th e liquid being cold?
Jacks Complete Novem ber 27th, 2004, 09:45 PM

Exactly, it is the heat of vapourisation that chills your hands so fast, because your hands are hotter than the surroundings, and
the boiling point of acetone is lower than the temp of your hands, but higher than that outside. It takes the heat from your
h a n d s a n d e v a p o r a t e s . M o v i n g y o u r h a n d s m akes it unbearably cold as it moves fresh air in to replace the vapour filled air
from next to the liquid layer. Hold them still, and it takes a lot longer to evaporate, and isn't nearly as cold.
S o a k i n g s o m eone's clothes in acetone or liquid propane whilst they are wearing them m ight work, but I don't know. Also, as
they target g ets colder, less evaporation can ta ke place, due to the reduced tem perature of the target bein g l e s s a b l e t o
provide heat. U nless the tem p drops a long way, and fa st, the body will just adapt as it does to a cold day.
charger Novem ber 27th, 2004, 10:05 PM

T h e n t h e u s e o f a c e t o n e w o u l d b e a l m o s t c o m pletely im practical as a weapon. "excuse m e, will you please stand in front of a
fan while i soak your clothes in acetone?" without an outside source of warm t h s u c h a s a f a n o r s o m e t h i n g s i m ilar, all that you
would succed in doing is m a k i n g s o m e o n e u n c o m f o r a t b l e a n d v e r y a f r a i d o f o p e n f l a m e
A-BOMB Novem ber 28th, 2004, 01:44 PM

Lets say you used you "frezzing weapon" on a room of people, and that you used liquid propane/other gas, If you soaked
every one in the room with propane, the liquid/gas would still be trapped in there clothes. If you added an ignition source
acouple of seconds later, as they are fleeing from the "m ass coldnessness" that you caused they would be leaving a trail of
g a s b e h i n d t h e m as the liquid evaporated. So the flam es would "chase" them(the flam e trail ignited it would be more or less
instantanious) but it would cause m ore carnage (physical/m e n t a l ) a s t h e p e o p l e s e e r a n d o m p e o p l e f l e e i n g a n d t h e n b u r s t i n g
into flame.
nbk2000 Novem ber 28th, 2004, 09:14 PM

STUPID! STU PID! STUPID!
:mad:

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > EMP device
Log in
View Full Version : EMP device
m4dn3s5.c0mb47 November 30th, 2004, 05:13 AM

Ok, in the coming weeks I'll be testing my first EMP "device" It w ill consist of what should principally be an EMP device. A high explosive charge in a pipe, with electrified copper
wire w rapped around the outside. I'm going to place various electrical objects in the vicinity and check on them after the device goes off. I'll hopefully post a video and report
my findings afterw ards. For the main charge I need a HE compound, and was thinking either NG, or AP, which I already have. I'm hoping I won't need anything like RDX
because that is a pain in the ass to synth and I've never done it before. If anyone has any experience w ith this type of thing, feel free to share your expertise.
Marvin December 4th, 2004, 10:48 AM

Experience, no, but for an EMP shouldnt you be *imploding* the coil as opposed to making a wire grenade w ith added glitch in next doors TV reception?
I would suggest from your description that making an EMP with good electronics and no HE at all would perform better than the current plan. My understanding is that a
traditional EMP is done by having many turns of very thick copper wire round an air core, discharging a very big EHT capacitor into it and at the point of zero cap voltage/
maximum coil current when the coil is trying to expand outward (turning electrical energy (contained in the magnetic field) into mechanical energy - small coils explode even if
the heating isnt enough to melt anything) you squash it, turning mechanical energy (from the detonating explosive chemical energy) into more energy for the magnetic field
which after destruction of the coil leaves the device as a pulse.
nuclearattack December 4th, 2004, 01:33 PM

There are various systems to make an EMP w eapon, one method is with the wire around the HE charge. The capacitors discharge should be synchronized w ith the detonator,
maybe that w iring the detonator w ith the capacitors trigger could work. Use NG because in this application you need a high vod, AP is too slow.
You w ill need also a good SCR able to handle very high current.
There is a file on EMule p2p netw ork called "How to build an EMP bomb" maybe you will find it interesting.
I don't have experience but in the future i want to make some tests because EMP devices are very interesting.
This thread is in the wrong place it should be on improvised weapons section.
mrcfitzgerald December 5th, 2004, 11:08 AM

Check out this FCG patent- (4,370,576) as w ell as an improvement on its design(H148). These are, prehaps, the more complicated pulsed systems that are possible. Since you
probably dont have these capabilities yet, several simpler systems can be made. One entails detonating HE inside a cylindrical magnet (which is positioned inside a coiled wire).
This is probably the simplest device possible, and it doesnot need expensive or hard to make capcitor systems. I believe that the first patent has this referanced as prior work.
It is interesting to note that you could combine the magnetic system with the more conventional FCG so that you dont need to build any capacitor bank or (possibly) a quick
switching device.
Boomer December 6th, 2004, 12:01 PM

As far as my understanding goes, you put a HEAVY copper wire (more like a rod) around a copper pipe full of HE. A cap bank is then discharged through the coil, and the HE is
detonated from one end, so that the exploding/expanding pipe shorts one winding after the other until the whole pipe+ coil are gone.
Say you have 100 turns: With E=1/2xIxIxL constant, the current in the last winding is 100 times the start current, then the magnetic energy will radiate outwards (since there is
no more coil the current can run through in circles).
Problems:
1.Triggereing the det w ithin microseconds
2. You need a gigawatt pulse for an effective range. Say a few 10 KV at a few 100 kA from the capacitors. The last turn will then conduct up to 50000000 Amps before being
shorted! Needless to say, a camera flash w ill do shit.
I tried the non-explosive version, by skipping the pipe + HE. A 32 MW pulse (8000V at 4000A) through 50m of 10mm cable coiled up. I stood next to it and felt nothing - but a
300 buck multimeter on the same table (switched off + not connected) was destroyed (dont tell my boss :D ).
I guess the trick with the HE filled pipe is to completely turn all field energy to radiation, instead of having it oscillate between coil and capacitor until it is used up by the resistive
losses.
nuclearattack December 6th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Your EMP test seems interesting and working Boomer. Can you give me more details on it's manufacture? How do you skip the pipe without using an HE?
I didn't understood well your experiment.
About the HE+wire+capacitors version i'm thinking if it is possible to directly energize the detonator with the same current from capacitors that energize the coiled w ire. With this
system you don't need to synchronize the capacitors discharge w ith the detonation. Is the huge current that ignite the detonator, you can connect the detonator and the coil in
parallel but you will lose some power on the coil.
With such a big capacitor bank you will need a very big SCR, it is very expensive so i'm thinking that is possible to use a spark gap energized by a dedicated marx generator.
When the marx discharge on the spark gap the air will be conductive and the capacitor current w ill pass.
An EMP bomb is one of my secret dreams but surely it will need a lot of w ork and tests...i'm young and i have time to do this!

Expanding a metal tube looks a hell of a lot easier than imploding a coil, I like that design though conceptually its much harder to see w hy it works. An important point though,
is the air gap. Its the copper tube expanding in the air gap that provides the pow er. Thats the dynamo, so to speak.
Its important to start the HE at the point of maximum current in the coil. This isnt coincident with the firing of the spark gap, you are 'charging up' the magnetic field and at the
point of maximum current/zero cap voltage all of the energy has been transfered from the cap to the magnetic field around the coil (and importantly into the air gap).
Depending on the configureation of the coil and cap, this could take a microsecond, or a millisecond after the spark gap fires.
"I guess the trick with the HE filled pipe is to completely turn all field energy to radiation"
Nonono, much more important. If you want to turn all that energy in the cap to EMP you only have to break the circuit very quickly. The trick here is that we dont want to rely
on electronic energy for the pulse. Capacitors store tiny amount of energy compaired to chemicals. In a pow er station they dont use generators with fixed magnets, they use
electromagnets becuase these are capable of much higher fields and thus a more compact generator. Typically a little dynamo (the exciter) powers the coils for the main
generator. The same is true here, the cap discharges through the coil and dumps all its energy in the field - then the HE goes off. Before the field there is nothing to work
against and expanding the copper pipe w ould do nothing. In the staged design the used stages short out so the later stages have a much bigger field to push against - the same
energy in a smaller inductance.
The more I read on this subject the more sure I am simply w rapping a pipe in wire w ith a large current and detonating it would do nothing at all.
CypherNinja December 7th, 2004, 03:53 PM

Alright, I've heard a little bit about these things, so I'll just throw my 2 cents in.
As I understand it, these devices are refered to as 'flux compressors', and are a Transient Electrical Discharge (TED) Device. They are constructed by placing a metal, conductive
tube inside a coil of w ire with a small gap in betw een. The tube is filled w ith a HE of uniform density and high VOD. The tube must also be thin enough and elastic enough that
when the HE is detonated from one side, the tube will expand in a 'w ave' fashion following the detonation front as closely as possible. What you want to avoid is the tube
building up pressure inside and expanding uniformly, like those super slow motion shots of pipe bombs going off.
Now, the coil is hooked up to a capacitor and an antenna or some type of emitter. The capacitor disharges into the coil and creates a strong magnetic field around it. When this
field reaches its greatest magnitude the HE is detonated from the opposite side of the coil that the antenna is hooked up to. This means the coil has to have both leads on the
same side (there are probably some creative coil winding methods that can be employed here). As the expanding tube contacts the coil (opposite end of the leads) it creates a
rolling short w hich causes the coil to become shorter in length as the 'wave' moves toward the leads.
Now, I have no grasp of the electrical science behind this part, so please don't ask. ;) As I understand it, this rolling short causes causes the (now collapsing) magnetic field to
be 'compressed', thus causing a huge pow er surge in the emitter, creating a very large transient electrical discharge. Essentially the device as a whole converts a certain amount
of the potential energy of the chemical explosive into electrical energy. This is evident in the huge current surge in the coil and the resulting radiated discharge from the emitter.
There, thats my dictionary understanding of the device. Google could probably answer more questions.
EDIT: Here's a link to a short definition found on Google:
http://ww w.sew-lexicon.com/gloss_e.htm#EXPLOSIVE_MAGNETIC_FLUX_COMPRESSOR
And a quote from it:

"To conserve magnetic flux in the inductor, the inductor current increases as its area and inductance decreases. The result is a large pulse of current that can be employed in
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS"
A2675770 December 7th, 2004, 08:13 PM

It really depends on how big of a radius, you wish to have.
I read up before that you can find a nice capacitor from the inside of an old Television, assuming noone's dumb enough to touch the +ve and -ve terminals.
Build up a timer circuit or find one with a High voltage/current Thyrisistor switch in it.
The rest is pretty basic, Copper wire, with a non-conducting container and a nice pure iron core.
Now I'm not exactly sure how that would turn out being that I have never attempted it, good luck anyway.
FU TI December 8th, 2004, 04:35 PM

No, it is not the energy of explosives that is converted into a EM pulse, but the energy stored inside (super)capacitors. And the EM w ave generating device is harder to make as
I seen it, since it should make directed flux of EM radiation in certain direction. But if we speak about diversion device to be planted inside some city to damage certain
communication devices that is maybe easier to make.

If you want to cause a directional attack (which w ould be the wise w ay to do it) you need something that has gain, something like an antenna. A basic Yagi will have betw een
18 and 28 dB of gain, but this would be frequency dependant. A front surfaced dish w ould be better, as this would be a broader frequency gain curve, which would be better for
the energy conversion.
You could go all the way to something like http://www.wifi-shootout.com/ use (but the link seems to be down)
(More details here-> http://w ww.bbw exchange.com/publications/newswires/page546-1086045.asp )
Needless to say, a 9ft dish is fairly obvious, but so will the explosion be! Aim it carefully if you use that much gain!
In other news,
"Then, German researcher Herfurt developed a program called Bluebug that could turn certain mobile phones into a bug to transmit conversations in the vicinity of the device to
an attacker's phone.
The BlueSniper 'rifle,' created by John Hering and colleagues at Flexilis as a proof-of-concept device, resembles a rifle, she says, continuing:
"It has a vision scope and a yagi antenna with a cable that runs to a Bluetooth-enabled laptop or PDA in a backpack. Aiming the rifle from an 11th-floor window of the Aladdin
hotel at a taxi stand across the street in Las Vegas, Hering and colleagues were able to collect phone books from 300 Bluetooth devices. They bested that distance and broke a
record this week by attacking a Nokia 6310i phone 1.1 miles away and grabbing the phone book and text messages."
The BlueSniper rifle is probably something Chinese authorities could use

http://ww w.w eblogsinc.com/common/images/8312965763230518.JPG?0.15513966423837589
Very simple, it is a rifle stock w ith an optical sight and a Yagi instead of a barrel. Your aim is to send the pulse back along the yagi to the system you have carefully scoped!

FUTI,
"it is not the energy of explosives that is converted into a EM pulse"
Of course it is, thats the whole point of using explosives in the design. The amount of energy in the cap is tiny by comparison.

How strange that a mobile phone would readily transmit its phonebook and text message inbox over its bluetooth facility. Surely a major design oversight? You wouldn't need a
custom "rifle", just someone with a laptop in any large gathering (e.g lecture hall) could have a fun time.
grandtheftauto December 9th, 2004, 06:35 AM

I was thinking hypothetically, how much companies would buy this EMP w eapons technology if it could give them an edge over their competition? Also it has the abilty to be
made with reasonably easy technology (easier then finding explosives or guns), and hard to trace w ho let of the EMP.
I reckon in the near future this technology won't only be made for military uses, but for commercial uses.
FU TI December 9th, 2004, 06:40 AM

to Marvin: I had an impresion that only reason for use of explosive is the making that coil short circuit fast reducing its lenght. I'm maybe wrong...I will reseached that subject
more...
Boomer December 9th, 2004, 07:45 AM

Sorry Marvin but I have the feeling Futi is right, the HE is just an easy way of creating the moving short-circuit fast enough.
Using explosives for a quarter century, and w orking as an EE for 15 years, I still have no idea how you want to convert heat + pressure into electromagnetic radiation.
I know the plasma of the det front is conductive, but how is it going to increase the field strength around it some magnitudes?
Do I overlook something? :confused:

Dont be sorry, it just means I've failed to explain it well enough.
This will start to seem totally irralavent but bear with me. Superconductors float on magnets. The reason is that they repell magnetic fields by virtue of being very conductive. If
you take an electromagnet repelling a superconductor and force the superconductor closer what happens? The current in the coil increases (at the expense of its inductance but
we'll come back to this). Since it took energy to force the superconductor closer w e have a gain in electrical energy of the coil. (In fact this is magnetic energy as all electrical
energy in a current resides in the megnetic field, I digress).
Ok, why does this not happen with copper, it has a resistance, but it doesnt mean this doesnt happen at all, just that the effect is too small to be noticeable over the time frame
humans view in. If you drop a copper plate on a magnet the same eddy currents are setup that cause the superconductor to float but they die away so quickly it only slow s the
decent slightly. A real superconductor wont carry a current for ever, but the resistance is so low that there is no noticable flux leakage through it during the time you press it
against the coil (or for that matter over a human lifetime). If gravity was much stronger and our brains w orked much much faster (or household magnets were much more
powerful) the copper w ould seem to float for some time before slowly dropping onto the magnet. The key thing here is that the higher the resistance of the material the faster
you need to do the experiment to get the same result.
Many people might have seen the experiment where a strong magnet slides down a copper pipe much more slow ly than an unmagnetised w eight of the same shape and size.
You may have also been show n it from the top w here the magnetic forces keep the magnet from touching the sides. Some also might have heard of magnetic braking, where
magnetic fields are used as decelerators without contact friction. Copper does produce noticable forces at 'human' speeds they just arnt very strong in low magnetic fields.
The bottom line for copper in this application is that it takes time for a magnetic field to leak through it so if you can move a sheet very very quickly this leaking isnt noticable
and you can 'push' flux around like you can w ith a superconductor.
Looking again at the EMP design and for the first part ignoring the shorting of the windings. We discharge a cap through the coil and this sets up quite a big field. Next the
explosives are detonated and this starts to rapidly expand the copper. This wave of expanding copper is moving too quickly for the flux to pass through it, so the flux gets
squashed towards the coil. This takes energy (and at high fields a *lot* of energy) and as a result a proportion of the energy in the explosive is transferred to the electrical
pulse.
The inductance of the coil drops considerably and the current increases. This in magnetic terms is rather like the overused example of the iceskater. A spinning ice skater w ith
their arms outstretched can be going quite quickly, but w hen they draw their arms in they spin much faster. Angular momentum is conserved, they've reduced the moment of
inertia so they end up spinning faster. Though the inertia is less they do have more energy as bringing in the arms takes effort - working against a force - so the final state is of
higher kinetic energy. In a similar way, total flux is conserved in the coil, and by squashing it against the edge we are reducing the inductance. Since w e are putting in energy
squashing the flux this results in more electrical power from the device.
Ok, end is in sight. Why the staged shortings. An explosive does not cause the whole of the copper to expand at once, it happens in a cone shape along the line. This can be
used to an advantage. If we split up the single coil in our heads to several smaller coils all wired together in series without a shorting system I can explain more easily. When the
first coil goes off its current increases as does the field in all the other coils, w hen the second charge goes off sometime after the first its explosive has a bigger field to push
against because of the energy from the first coil. This makes more of the explosive energy become power. However *its* energy goes into the whole circuit which includes the
coil thats allready fired. When the third one goes off it has a bigger field and so a furthur increase in conversion. Heres the thing - If the second coils energy had been directed
only into the unfired coils the field in the 3rd coil w ould be bigger. Extra field put into the first coil is wasted and w orse still leaving the coil in circuit risks that flux w ill leak back
through the copper (w hich is only a matter of time anyway - the energy going into heating of the copper due to induced eddy currents which are all that stop the field leaking
anyway). So if at the point of completion of each stage the copper liner shorts the coil, this inductance is taken out of the circuit and the flux/energy only goes into the coils that
havnt fired yet and flux leaking through the copper cant drain power from the rest of the circuit.
In the same w ay when the copper has expanded in a given length of the coil to its maximum point that section of the device is shorted, when its stopped producing power its
only a liability.
Its a very fast dynamo, not a switch. Switching can be done in nanoseconds with sparkgap circuits like marx ladders whereas an EMP needs more power than can feasably be
put into a portable capacitor bank.
Addendum,
A few questions that might occur. Why cant w e actually use superconductors, why cant w e use perminant magnets and w hy cant we use ferromagnetic materials.
The reason is that all these materials have limits. Perminant magnets are typically limited to 2 or 3 kgauss, Iron as an example of a ferromagnetic material is limted to around
20 thousand gauss above which it saturates and superconductors have a critical field above w hich superconductivity collapses. A simple conducting surface however has no limits,
its just a question of how rapidly you can move it and how quickly eddy currents alow flux to pass through it.

I start to get the idea, thank you!
You convert the heat/pressure to electrical power via mechanical work done against a magnetic force. My F***ing bike dynamo does that all the time (sans the HE, I have to
pedal). :)
I actually like these science riddles. Some more: If you hit the brake in your car, the kinetic energy is turned to heat in the brakes. But where does the impulse (momentum?)
go? You actually spin the earth a little ;) faster beneath you!
This was a basic one, but 90% of high school kids cant answer it. Or this one: We dont care for efficiency or cost and cover all coasts w ith tidal generators. These then supply
mankind with electricity for the next 100 million years. Where does the energy come from? :D
About the flux compressor: Do you have an idea about the efficiency? My *guess* would be you get about 10-100 times the power of the capacitors, by converting 1-10% of
the explosion energy. Any closer values?
As a first figure I calculated the HE's power: HMX detonates at approx. 2 GW/cm^2. A 10cm ID pipe means 150 GW. CypherNinja's link mentions "several to several ten
Teraw atts OUTPUT". This requires a 10 square meter pipe if 10% is assumed for P/V -> H/B, and 100% is radiated. That is a truck load of HE. :(
This clearly shows that the energy first goes into the magnetic field, and at the end is given off at a much faster rate (like you described).
I would *really* like to build one! If my cap bank at 32 MW destroyed a voltmeter from close up, how much better w ould it perform if I put a copper pipe and some RDX inside
the coil? I run short of voltmeters, but I think I will go buy some cheap w atches today ... :D

I'm still digesting the info you posted Marvin...thanks for being very thorough but I still have to say I have some doubts about it...I will have to dig my physics books to check
out whole thing. All writen here sound logical...but I have trouble to start belive in it.
Why didn't they used plasma (explosive/thermite generated of course) in some kind of MHD generator for power source? I don't have idea what is the extent of energy and
how fast it can be generated but is that possible?
Jacks Complete December 12th, 2004, 09:43 AM

Marvin, I concur. What a neatly w ritten description!
A few additional points:

1: You could use a superconductor for the first stage, as they can sustain a field strength of ~7 Teslas. (The world record is now 23+T - see http://ww w.mext.go.jp/english/
news/1999/06/990607.htm) Although this would increase complexity with LNitrogen or LHelium it would simplify the device somewhat. I don't know the field strength limits
currently, but last time I looked, the low temperature superconductors were still far ahead in the maximum flux they could take.
2: You want the lowest resistance possible. Forget using a copper bar, you want to use braided copper, since over the very short timescales we are looking at, surface/skin
effect will dominate. You could also use silver, which is, iirc, more conductive than copper. It also has the highest thermal conductivity of all the metals.
3: Injecting currents this high starts to get tricky. Make sure there are no loosely held wires, as they *will* jump when you test the circuit w ith a few thousand amps!

We dont care for efficiency or cost and cover all coasts w ith tidal generators. These then supply mankind with electricity for the next 100 million years. Where does the energy
come from?
Tidal action from the moons rotation around the earth, though it gets weaker over time as the moons orbit is increasing and will eventually leave the earths orbit, at w hich time
we'll have plenty of steam power because the sun will have swollen up into a red giant by that time, turning the oceans into giant steam boilers. :)
CypherNinja December 14th, 2004, 02:03 PM

Marvin: Thanks for that post man. :D You answered all the questions I didn't quite know enough to answer. So thanks for filling in that gigantic glaring hole in my post. ;) :D
kingspaz January 1st, 2005, 04:21 PM

A different method fo shorting the coil:
http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO2004107524&CY= ch&LG= en&DB= EPD

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Remote Stun Gun
Log in
View Full Version : Remote Stun Gun
rational611 November 30th, 2004, 07:29 AM

I saw a news clip on w ww.bbc.co.uk at http://new s.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/shared/player/player.stm?title= Amnesty%20calls%20for%20inquiry%2
0into% 20stun%20guns&clipurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/news_w eb/video/40579000/nb/40579181_nb_16x9.ram&cs= new s
today on stun guns and now I want to buy one myself. However I am new to stun guns. The ones I saw on BBC were remote stun guns ie they worked from a distance
whereas the ones I looked up on various sites including ebay work only on contact with the attacker. How ever I found taser guns w hich work from a distance. I would like to
know if there are stun guns which work from a distance or the guns used by the British police are actually taser guns? If there really are stun guns that w ork from a distance,
can someone tell me w here I can buy them?
shadow2501 November 30th, 2004, 02:49 PM

guns used by british looks like being M18 taser they w ere created a w hile ago but they use air cartridges to send wires to the victim up to 20ft, i dunno about the time it takes
to reload the gun by replacing air cartridge and wire but basically if there's mre than one opponent you'll not be able to stop all of them with only one of these gun.Heard about
a wireless version of thoses gun that should use ionized laser to make a close loop between the gun and the victim, anyone have more info about this project?(oh by the w ay if
you w ant one of these just make a google search about "M18 air taser" you'll fin hundreds of sites like this one http://w ww.personalarms.com/tasers.htm)
rational611 December 4th, 2004, 02:59 AM

shadow 2501: Could you tell me w here you heard about the wireless version of stun gun? Did you read about it on the internet?

Never heard about air ionisation via laser, but there seems to be a version that shoots tw o conductive streams of (salt?)-water towards the target. The range is shorter than
with w ires, due to dispersion of the w ater jets.
Forgot where I read that though.
Chris The Great December 10th, 2004, 06:24 PM

The military also has a tesla coil based taser now , which is used because it can go from target to target, without having to reload saltwater/gas canisters/w ires. Of course, these
are quite large, and probably use a large amount of power. Also, the technology is, as far as I know, basically a solid state tesla coil developed with millions of dollars in
government military research.
http://ww w.defensereview.com/modules.php?name= News&file= article&sid=516

http://img4.exs.cx/img4/8914/1096622992502.jpg
Not really practical for self defense, but it certainly would be fun to use against riot police. Assuming you could get one, that is.
++ ++++ +++ ++++
I'd like to see a picture of this "Bolt of Lightning" that's supposed to come out of this thing. If anything'd impress people, it'd be that. But it does look like a bunch of cardboard
tubes taped together. :p
Silentnite December 18th, 2004, 03:10 AM

Do you mean like standing 20-30 feet aw ay and shocking them or do you mean setting up something w ith a remote so if you rigged something to say a chair and being in
another room? It seems like the rigging and leaving would be vastly more easy to construct then the sending of the charge that far away. Heck a neat idea would be to convert
a pager or something, so that you could call it and it'd shock the person holding it. But that's probably one of those ideas that there's a better w ay to do it.
Just my 1.29 cents.
Chris The Great December 19th, 2004, 01:36 AM

It is supposed to shoot a lightning bolt from the tip which conducts the taser pulses to the target.
I'd like to see a picture just as much as you, but as of yet it's only claims made by the tw o companies working on this technology (and the military, as they're giving these
companies grants).
Cyclonite December 19th, 2004, 02:23 AM

That guy in the picture isn't even military....doesn't even look like a tesla coil
c0deblue December 19th, 2004, 03:36 AM

Thie technology for using an ultraviolet laser to produce ionized conductive channels in the air has been under development since at least 1997 by HSV Technologies. Their
website has some good descriptive articles and the patent describing the system in detail:
http://ww w.hsvt.org/
Applications include a portable device to be used like a w ireless taser to stun or kill the target (depending on the strength of the current delivered), and a platform mounted
device to disable vehicles by blow ing out their electronic engine control systems. Range for the experimental versions is 100 meters for the portable unit and in excess of 1 km
for the platform mounted version.
Ultraviolet lasers have been very expensive and thus limited to research and medical applications, but great strides are being made in the field that should reduce cost and
increase availability. For example, Pioneer has announced a new UV laser diode that will allow disk storage of 500 Gb. Granted that this particular laser is far too puny for anti-
personnel applications, but the advance is indicative; it shouldn't be too long before we can cobble together a reasonable facsimile of the real McCoy. Heheh - always w anted
my own "Death Ray". :)
The only downside to these gadgets appears to be that the ionization channels created by the 193nm laser glow a sort of iridescent green and thus provide a visible track right
back to the user. In many situations this w on't be important, but in others ... Oh well, can't have everything!

Granted that this particular laser is far too puny for anti-personnel applications, but the advance is indicative; it shouldn't be too long before we can cobble together a reasonable
facsimile of the real McCoy. Heheh - always wanted my own "Death Ray". :)
"Death ray. On sale. Any bids? No? Come on people. Enslave the entire human race for 500 dollars. 100? 5? Free? Ok. World domination completly free? No? ok into the trash"
All the while stewie is jumping up and dow n saying "ME OH GOD ME!! Stupid fat w omen"-Family guy
If it can be done with ultraviolet, is there any chance that it could be done with anything else? Obviously microwave is out, unless your in for some cooked soylent greens.
Gamma is bad. And they already have ultra sound. Could you perchance alter the design that tesla had for transmitting power over long distances or w ould that need to have a
recepticle located on the target?
rational611 December 19th, 2004, 08:08 AM

Using ultraviolet laser beams to transmit electric pulses is certainly a novel thing and sounds fantastic. However one cannot refrain from observing the fact that most ,if not all,
of the content on HSV Technologies' website is more than four years old. What has happened during this time? Why have they not come up with the final product, even if it was
suitcase sized? Have they found fault with their technology and have they abandoned their invention?

Why have they not come up with the final product, even if it was suitcase sized? Have they found fault w ith their technology and have they abandoned their invention?
Or did they perfect it beyond their prior idea, and therefore the government hushed it? I'd believe that before i'd believe that it 'just didn't pan out' Because even if it w asn't
suitcase sized, i'm sure they could figure out a use for it.
rational611 January 10th, 2005, 12:28 PM
Ionatron, a company w orking with laser induced plasma stun gun has announced the successful demonstration of its of its proprietary Laser Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC)
technology.
The full press release can be read at http://www .ionatron.com/default.aspx?id= 48
A link to a video of the demonstration has also been provided on their website. However the link is not working for me and is throw ing up an error in Windows Media Player. Is it
working for anyone?
Chris The Great January 14th, 2005, 03:44 AM

Yeah, works for me, although it's only little snapping lightning bolts going straight across a hallway in James Bond style kinda sercurity.
It looks like the technology has promise though (in that it works).
c0deblue January 15th, 2005, 03:28 AM

The ionized channel thing has been used experimentally for attracting cloud to ground lightning in the same manner as small rockets trailing a grounded conductor. In this
application, the laser is protected by being installed (off-axis via a beam splitter or prism) at the bottom of a long, heavy-w alled, grounded copper cylinder, the bore of which is
only slightly larger than the laser beam. Lightning discharges attracted by the device strike only the copper cylinder and are thus shunted to earth long before they ever reach
the laser. The biggest problem as I recall w as the necessity of having to restore or remachine the "strike end" of the cylinder after each strike. The bolts are so powerful that
they make a localized copper puddle w here they hit, often occluding the bore.
However, this amply demonstrates that ionized channels created with UV lasers DO in fact work. Actually, if a powerful enough power source is used - i.e. powerful enough to
sustain and expand the ionized channel during discharge - the laser itself could be quite small since its only job would be to open a w eak "streamer" channel to the target. Just
as a lightning bolt is attracted by a weak ionized streamer from the ground to the cloud, the main ionization channel is formed by the lightning discharge itself, and is self-
sustaining until the energy is totally discharged to ground.
I guess the challenge in that kind of approach (since electrical discharges will always take the lowest impedance path to ground) would be to somehow insure the energy isn't
discharged backw ards through the laser and its associated electronics (not to mention the operator), although this might be easier from an airborne platform than a ground-
based one. There's also the problem of where and how to couple the high-energy source into the laser-ionized channel, remembering that any conductor - ionized channel or not
- conducts equally well in both directions.
In any case - appropos of recent incidents where green lasers were aimed at aircraft - it's probably not a good idea to aim UV lasers randomly up in the air in the vicinity of
overhead power lines. ZAAAP!!! Instant crispy critter! On second thought, what a marvelous w ay to shut down a whole regional supply grid. If, at key locations, small UV lasers
were carefully aimed at those REALLY high voltage cross-country transmission lines and triggered remotely by cell phone or some such, the resulting overloads would trip the
failsafes at the control centers thereby disabling the grid. Additionally, the cables themselves might break at the discharge points, putting the grid out of commission until repairs
could be made. This might all be possible with the tiny UV lasers coming soon in the new Pioneer hi-capacity hard drives, since only a w eak streamer is needed to initiate the
discharge and the source potential of long distance transmission lines is probably equal to or greater than that of most lightning bolts.
Call for independent researchers to test the concept by using a bow and arrow to fire a very fine strand of copper wire up and over a million-volt transmission line. That ought to
replicate the condition of a weak ionized channel. I'd do it, but ummm ... let's see, uhhh, I don't live near any of those giant towers ... yeah that's it. :p
Any volunteers?
Arthis April 20th, 2005, 07:01 AM

I don't think bolts have a lower voltage nor power than a high power electric line.
Or they w ould have been used long ago as a source of electricity.
And if voltage was the same, the intensity isn't: think as an electric arc of one kilometer. It w ould make a nice spark between the tw o parts of the broken cable... :) think about
the rabbits near it at the time it breaks ;)
"eat'em w hile it's hot, son !"


Silentnite April 20th, 2005, 11:09 AM

Voltage involved in initiating a cloud-to-ground strike: 100 million to 1 billion Volts
Average peak current in a cloud-to-ground lightning stroke: 100,000 Amperes
Average peak temperature of a lightning channel: 50,000 F (27,600 C)
Comparison- Average temperature of the sun's surface: 11,000 F (6000 C)
Average duration of peak current in a lightning discharge: 1/1000 sec.
I couldn't find a comparison for a power line. But lets safely assume that it is substatially less then that provided by our local thundergods.


nbk2000 April 21st, 2005, 12:29 PM

A small mortar loaded with a lead ball attached to a steel cable would be more than adequate for shorting out a high-tension powerline.
That video was cool, but such a thing would be useless for security, as a simple ground conductor could be placed in the path of the low est beam, defeating the purpose. :p
Though the voltage change could be used to set off an alarm.

Remember the promise of room-temperature superconductors?
I remember reading how a SC in the shape of a circle should indefinately hold a charge of infinite capacity (don't ask me why).
Well, thought I, why not pump a few megawatts of power into such a thing, then use an ionizing laser beam to direct the energy pulse into your target?
A few years later, after I got out, I played Quake I, and lo' and behold!, they had a lightning gun in it. I thought that was soooooo cool. :D Just the thing for taking out those
pesky shamblers, and their porky-blue minions. ;)
All we need know is room-temp SC's and we're set. :)
nbk2000 April 21st, 2005, 12:29 PM

nbk2000 April 21st, 2005, 12:29 PM

Jacks Complete April 21st, 2005, 01:42 PM

As ever, you are ahead of the curve a little NBK!
You can pump massive amounts of power into a superconducting ring, and then use the magnetic field to good effect as a seriously pow erful magnet. Blow the ring apart w ith
high explosive, and you can get a hell of an EMP! 200+ Teslas peak field.
The upper limit is the field strength causes the superconductor to break under the pressure, much like a diner plate w ill break if you park a car on it, or a laser diode's frequency
changes a bit with the temperature.
You don't need an SC though. Just use a big capacitor! Charge a few hundred joules into it, and bang! Arc that down the channel, and it will easily kill whatever's at the other
end.
As for the pow er line idea, that is genius, c0deblue. Do it from an aircraft that can see for 40 miles in all directions, and just sweep the beam as fast as you like! There will be
dozens of bolts striking down... They might even be self-sustaining, since the power is there to keep the channel open for a few seconds, and that much power will ionise the air
anyway...
That would be serious ow nage of the power grid.

end.
anyway...

end.
anyway...
Dr. Chaos September 4th, 2006, 07:48 PM

As of 1993 when I was trained as a power distribution transformer factory worker the highest voltages used in long distance pow er transmission lines w as around 750 Kv with
research into using voltages up to 1.25 Mv.
USE
The system w e used to surge test finished assemblies was capable of 1.2 Mv and it was able to arc six feet easily. Under the right conditions I think it could go considerably
further, but who w ould want to be inside a building with an undirected (read uncontrolled) lightning bolt?
PARAGRAPH
The apparatus to generate the HV consisted of a line pow ered step up transformer that put out maybe 40 or 50 Kv and used that to charge up a bank of high voltage capacitors
in paralell. The capacitors were then subsequently discharged in series through a dielectric tube fitted with discharge electrodes arranged down the length of the tube.
BREAKS
Discharge was initiated by a small "spark plug" that apparently caused just enough ionization of the air inside the tube to cause all of the electrodes to arc over, one to the next,
thus completing the circuit and dumping the capacitors charge into the object under test.
NBK
P.S. According to the National Weather Service, some lightning bolts can contain enough power to run NYC for about 45 seconds. Wow !
Cobalt.45 September 4th, 2006, 08:34 PM

Grease monkey "stun grenade": Charge up an automotive condenser from a 12 VDC battery. Identify dupe who's to "get it". Holding either the case or the pigtail, gently toss
the capacitor to them.
Endless fun on a slow, rainy day w hen we couldn't race...
grendel23 September 4th, 2006, 11:57 PM

12V is lame. Try the cap out of a disposable camera instead, 250-300V. Charge flash until light is on, then carefully take apart camera while cap is charged (I said be careful).
Toss it to your soon to be ex buddy and laugh your ass off.:D
c.Tech September 5th, 2006, 07:06 AM

12V is lame.
Not if you have amps, voltage is useless without amps to carry it.
grendel23 September 6th, 2006, 09:42 AM

The resistance of dry clean skin is about 50 kOhms. This fact means 12V will not give a shock under normal conditions.
The "dry clean skin" part of the previous sentence is critical; I have seen a man get a heavy shock from 24v while his hands were w et with photo fixer, very conductive.
Ohms law says current equals voltage divided by resistance, I = V/R so it is meaningless to speak of amps as an independent value.
The ability of the pow er supply to maintain output under load is called compliance; this is probably w hat you refer to as "amps", the ability to source large currents into low
impedance.
Even with a compliant pow er supply, current is still limited to I=V/R.

The only thing that 12VDC has to do with anything I've said, is that 12VDC was used to "charge" the condenser (cap.).
If you don't think that small an amount of voltage (used to saturate a capacitor) will shock dry skin, why don't you consider a stun gun?
grendel23 September 7th, 2006, 07:55 AM

If you charge a cap w ith 12V, it has a charge of 12V.:rolleyes:
I have worked with electricity for almost 20 years, up to 480VAC three phase and DC over 1000V. I know from intimate experience what will shock me and what w ill not.
BTW, I do own a stun gun and am in the process of building a tesla coil w hich should produce ~40" sparks w hen completed.

I saw a crane back into a 2.5 kv line in the late 70's. The driver had the sence to jump w ell clear of the cab and not climb down.
When the electric power people pulled the pow er cable aw ay from the crane, there was an arc that reached nearly two meters before it quenched. The breakdown voltage of air
is 2-3 kv per cm, but once an arc has formed, it requires only about 20 volts per cm to maintain the arc.
I have heard of some pow er mains that use 1 Mv out west where they have to cross very long distances. Power (watts) is voltage X current. Power loss due to resistance is
resistance X (current)^2, so it is obvious why they want very high voltages.
It may be possible to use the power system to destroy itself. Interupt a power line temporarily, and the power grid will reroute the pow er. If the reroute is several hundred miles
longer/shorter, then w hen you restore the line, and they didn't cut it, the pow er will be out of phase, and the power grid will eat itself. This is w hy they have very precise
proceedures to protect the grid.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > HE potato cannon rounds
Log in
View Full Version : HE potato cannon rounds

Iv been thinking of an idea and want to know if any one has actually tried it yet. Take a potato cannon with som e power and
m a k e a H E r o u n d u s i n g a p i e c e o f P V C p i p e a s a m old for something like plaster of paris let it dry sand it smooth and you
could A. Use the combustion from the gun to light a fuse in the back or B. Make a simple im pact type firing device incorporated
into the mold. Fill with som e HE and fire remotely (Stun gun, speaker wire and sandbags). The best tool for this would probley
be a dremel.
Neoknite D e c e m ber 17th, 2004, 08:46 PM

Ill tell you right now, Plan b has som e h u g e p r o b l e m s, m ostly th e force of the im pact apon ignition. I have found th a t m o s t
im pact devices go off in the barrel. Pla n a only works if the fuse lights when fired, otherwise you just handed "the enem y" a
u s a b l e b o m b.
W hat I have used that worked well basicly was a pipe w/ rocket engines and C O2 bombs that i lite the fuse on the CO2 first
then fired the engine launchin g the CO 2 b o m b about 75ft until it hit a tree and blew up. This isnt that accurate and u then
have a "signal flare" flying uncontrollably into the sky. But if you just need to hurl a HE device 20-30ft at a large sta tionary
target it could be useful.
xyz D e c e m ber 17th, 2004, 11:55 PM

SW IM once tried firing a CO 2 cannister full of AP out of an aircannon. It hit a tree and bounced off without exploding, then
e v a d e d a l l o f S W IM a nd his friends' attempts to find it again. SWIM put the failure to explode down to the fact that the steel
c a s e o f t h e C O 2 c a n n ister would have protected the actual AP crystals from b e i n g c r u s h e d .
SW IM never tried a similar stunt again, having realised it was a bad idea. However, who knows, SW IM m ay eventually get
around to m aking a proper explosive round for his aircannon, using a rifle prim er as the im pact detonator.

P l a n B isn't that hard to do without worry of setback, at a minim u m I wou ld use 2 safety devices. A spring o f the pro per tension
would prevent detona tion unless the round slams into a n object of choice. Also you could incorpora te a lanyard to be pulled
upon exiting the cannon, the lanyard would pro vide a physical block between the firing pin and primer. Its not that hard with a
d r e m e l a n d a m a t e r i a l t h a t s e asy to work with.
W ith plan A it would be best to spray the back of the round and fuse with starter spray, just to m ake sure it lights.
lucas D e c e m ber 19th, 2004, 06:53 AM

O n c e u p o n a t i m e , m a n y m o o n s a g o I o w n e d a 2 5 m m s p u d g u n , 5 0 m m cham ber. I m a d e s o m e s m oke rounds which were
designed with short am ount of exposed fuse projecting about 2cm - 3cm out their rear to take fire from t h e e x p l o d i n g g a s s e s
and transmit it through a layer of protection wadding to the smoke m ix before igniting the charge. The fuse failed to ignite
when the rou nd was loaded in the breech and fired. The fuse was easily lit however, by the flam e if held across the barrell while
firing a cham ber of fuel without projectile. The fuse if loaded into the breech and fired out on it's own without any other
projectile would also light. The gas expansion was pushing these rounds out of th e b a r r e l l b e f o r e t h e f u s e c o u l d b e h e a t e d
sufficiently to ignite. Straight air exists in the barrell behing the round in adition to the fuel air m ixture in the cham ber and this
was buffering the fuse and projectile. To fix this problem, I can think of two m e a s u r e s t h a t s h o u l d b e t a k e n . N e i t h e r I h a v e
tried. I dont have a spud gun any longer.
I s h o u l d m ention that the fuse used was of the type cre ated as follows. Make con centrated, but no t saturated, very hot
solution of KNO 3 , about 20% solution, and dip in 1 inch by m any inch strips of newspaper and allow to dry. Roll into cylinder.
Burn rate typ ically in the order of 1cm per second.
The first step is to prime the fuse with a m ore easily ignited m ix ture, like stars are prim ed before loading into fireworks. A
K C L O 3 b a s e d m i x t u r e w o u l d b e ideal, or BP would be fine. Dextrin binder for the prim er composition is typical for many star
compositions. This type of m odification requires the fuse is already expo s e d t o h o t g a s s e s u n d e r t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n . I a m n o t
sure it was. The second measure is to increase dram atically the length of fuse used, so th at it is deep in th e c o m b u stion
chamber when the ga sses ignite. Q uick match with an exposed prim e d e n d c o u l d b e u s e d t o t a k e f i r e a n d t r a n s m it it quickly to
the round, which would also be com p r i s e d o f a d e l a y f u s e .
Quick m atch is wind resistant as it has a paper shield for the burning bp as part of its construction, it also burns fast enough to
get fire to the main b ody of the round quickly. O nce fire reaches this point, any device could be used with a suitable am o u n t o f
dela y fuse.
FragmentedSanity D e c e m ber 22nd, 2004, 08:26 AM

Cyclonite - any suggestions on how to use your lanyard idea without dramatically affecting accuracy? It would seem to m e that
the force required to remove the safety would act on the projectile, in an unpredictable way. The prim er and safety would have
to be at the front of the projectile - so when the lanyard reached its length and pulls the safety - wouldnt the projectile tumble?
Or a m I m i s s i n g s o m e t h i n g ?
Cyclonite Decem ber 22nd, 2004, 03:32 PM

It would affect it, but this isn't a firearm....the cannons aren't really accurate to begin with. You're just looking to m ore or less
lob the round into a larger target or hit an area target. I used to go up on this large hill at night th at overlooked the freeway
and a car dealer. I used to shoot lots of rounds into the car lot and attempt to hit the dea lership sign...good tim e s .
You could also hook it up to the back of the projo....personally i wouldn't even use it.....I would just aim an d fire fro m a
distance if I were to use AP as a filler to keep it real sim ple
stupidnoob January 6th, 2005, 04:59 PM

Y o u c o u l d a l s o i n s e r t a n e m atch into the fuse, spray in your fuel, close it up, and then use the ematch to ignite the fuse, which
will also ignite the fuel inside.
It could be done pretty simply, and any pyro worth his salt at least has a basic ignition control panel. Using this m e t h o d o f
ignition for the charge, you could use pretty m uch anything as your charge, so long as it isn't sensitive to shock.
Obituary0885 January 20th , 2005, 04:41 AM

W ell, I've thought about this same thing on m ore than one occa s i o n . . . I n s t e a d o f m a k i n g a m old with the p vc pipe, just use the
pipe . To m ake it fit the inside of the barrel you can m a k e a s a b o t f o r i t u s i n g t h a t e x p a n d i n g f o a m you can get at the
hardware store for sealing around air ducts and what not. To im prove accuracy of the gun you can use rifled pvc. It's available
at http://www.spudtech.com . For ignition, I would go with an im pact trigger using shotshell prim ers.
For the projectile just use sch40, the normal wh ite pvc, thats 1 1/2" in diameter for the body/endcaps. Don't just glu e t h e
endcaps on, they'll just get pushed off by any explosion inside and the round will pretty m uch be a dud. Just put a screw or two
through the endcap a n d p i p e t o h o l d t h e m on. It's pvc anyways, not an ideal container for an explosive rou nd, but it'll do since
the round can't be all that heavy. For the ignition you could drill a hole in o n e o f t h e e n d c a p s a n d g l u e a p r i m e r i n t h e h o l e . T o
m a k e a " h a m m er" for the primer you could use a cutoff nail through half of a wooden ball glued/screwed onto the round. O n
the flat side of the half-ball ju st drill a large enough hole to go around the prim er so it will fit flush against the pipe, but not all
the way through of co urse leaving a half inch or so out on the front of the ball. Since the nail is cut off, just drill a hole a tad
s m a ller than the nail and ham mer the nail thro ugh the hole till it is a quarter inch away from the prim er and glue it on...
For the sabot just get another pipe or som e sort of container a little bit b igger than the inside of the barrel for the mold. Make
sure it has -smooth- walls. Put a pipe the sam e size of the round in the m iddle of the con tainer and fill up around the pipe
with the expanding foam and let it dry. Then push the sabot out and cut it in half or quarters.
Since you are using a sabot you could put mini-fins on the round and just place the fins in the cuts of the sabot. See if it'd
help with accuracy/flying properly.
For a payload you could use n orm al bp or pyrodex...To keep it real light you could use hom e m ade nitrocellulose. If you really
wanted to go with a HE round, you gotta go read or som ething...I'm not of m uch use with HE's...If MEKP is fine in a pvc
container you could use MEKP sesitized(sp?) AN. You'd have to have another sma ll explosive inside to do that. Or I would think
so to set it off, though shotshell prime rs let off a pretty good crack when you hit them with a ham mer in op en air. I don't know
if the shock from being shot out of a spud gun would set it off or not. As I said though, I don't know much about HE, shouldn't
even really suggest a ny way to use them, just an idea though...
Oh, the wooden spheres can be had at any craft store, and in different sizes so it'll be the s a m e d i a m e t e r a s t h e p i p e .
Obituary

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Pen Gun - any good plans
Log in
View Full Version : Pen Gun - any good plans
Gedi January 13th , 2 0 0 5 , 1 2 : 0 8 P M

I'm looking for some solid plans on a pen gun, preferebly for a 22 short. I would like to convert it over to fire 22 blanks as a
novelty gift for christmas. I have had no luck with the ftp. Also, if anyone knows of a link for the fu ll auto m arlin, I would
appreciate it. It is one of my friends favorite plinkers, I thought he would get a kick out of it ( I saw it while browsing one of
the ftp foldes, but was not allowed to download).
I found rogue science while looking for an AK74 m a n u a l a n d h a v e e n j o y e d r e a d i n g t h r o u g h t h e f o r u m . O n a s i d e n o te, I did

find these two sites as well and thought i would pass them a l o n g
http://www.gunm anuals.ch/
http://www.m ek-schuetzen.de/Sites/Ex p l o s i o n . h t m
Thank you
charger January 13th , 2 0 0 5 , 0 7 : 0 0 P M

If you're going to con vert it to fire blanks, what is this doing in im provised weapons? I thought som e t h i n g l i k e t h i s s h o u l d b e i n
the water cooler. You said you searched the ftp, but did you search the forum? or try goog le? try typing in "pen gun plans" in
google, youd be surprised what you find, like this http://www.geocities.com / P e n t a g o n / 1 6 6 5 / P E N G U N . H T M d o n t b e s o l a z y n e x t
tim e a SEARCH!!!
tdog49 January 14th , 2005, 01:51 AM

Hey Fester!
got another newbie for you to roast!
Seriously Gedi,
P l e a se tread carefully here and re-read the posting rules. This will ensure a long life here @ R o g u e S c i e n c e . T h e r e a r e m a n y
knowledgable people here who will bend over backwards to help you with just about any to pic---IF--- you follow the rules....
Every moderator will, however, take extreme pleasure ( with m u c h a p p l a u s e a n d f a n f a r e f r o m t h e g e n e r a l m e m bership) in

ridiculing and banning you for life, if you do not follow those rules.
Now.....
W elcome to the club, play nice and please m ake a solid attempt at leg work befo re you ask for freebies....
btw,
a converted firearm can still be illegal to own.....check local laws so you dont give someone a jail sentence....
hereno January 14th , 2005, 02:11 AM

Try - http://roguesci.org/theforum /sho wthread.php?t=575
festergrump January 14th , 2005, 06:54 AM

W hoa, hey, wait a m inute... I don't want to step on NBK's toes or anythin g. He's the best at it, and better yet: "He has the
power he has the force..." I'm no Mod or Admin. Crushing Kewls is NBK's gig and the Mods do a go od job of letting go on the
riffraff, too. (I do flame more than ma ybe I should, and if the Mods grow tired of it I'd hope they'd let m e know. Th ey m ust
tire of it themselves after hearing so m any kewl questions. And we don't know probably half of what they see).
I was looking earlier for a thread where I got the pdf file "Zips, Pipes, and Pens" to post a link to it but when I found it the link
to the pdf is no longer working. I'd even e-m ail the file to Gedi if it weren't 20 m b. (I do like to help out wh en I can if it's not a
loser who shows no initiative or worse... pretends he knows everything there is to know about said topic and just wants to see if
Y O U know or some such lameness trolls live for).
Zip guns are fun to play with and .22's are a great thing to have when yo u don't have a gun. Hopefully the FTP will be sorted
o u t s o o n e n o u g h a n d he can get "Zips, Pipes, and Pens" from there. It's a pretty interesting read.
Hereno linked a good thread start off with, though.
I h a d a M a r l i n . 2 2 s e m i with a 25 round clip once and as I recall it was very picky of the amm o it ate. It liked to be cleaned
every tim e you looked at it, too, else it would ruin all your fun once you got to going R ambo. Not sure if the full auto would be
worth the trouble for a Marlin. (then again, m a y b e I g o t a h o l d o f a l e m on). :(
tomu January 14th , 2005, 11:42 AM

Have a look at this site. It's not exactly what you are looking for but this pen gun could be easily modified to fire rim fire
cartridges.
http://www.geocities.com/draingun/pengun/index.htm l
Gedi January 14th , 2 0 0 5 , 1 2 : 0 7 P M

Thanks for the links. And seriously, I did do a search on the forum and did find som e of the links m e n t i o n e d , e v e n f o u n d l i n k s
to patent pages, but could not get the pictures to pull up. As you can see from my first po st in regards to the ak 74 m a n u a l , I
h a d b e e n h e r e f o r 2 - 3 d a y s , a n d h a d b e e n b r o w s i n g a n d s e a r c h i n g t h e f o r u m l i k e c r a z y . I g u e s s i t s a m atter of kno wing what
term to use to find what you are searching for.
And if you'll notice, I did offer up som e sites th a t I h a d f o u n d i n m y searches, so I didn't just com e in trying to leech. I did try
to add to the site as well.
Edit starts here-
T h a n k s t o a f o r u m m e m ber that em ailed m e, but didn't give his/her forum name I w a s a b l e t o s e e t h e p a t e n t p a g e i m a g e s .

Apparently it takes a special TIFF viewer progra m plugin for IE. I have downloaded all relevant pag e s a n d z i p p e d t h e m u p a n d
will be uploading them to the ftp as PenGunPatents.zip
Also, as a sh ow of good faith for everyones help, I have solidworks 2005 3 cd set with keygen and would be willing to upload to
the ftp if allo wed. Its a solid C ad/C a m p r o g r a m l i k e a c r o s s b e t w e e n a u t o d e s k a n d 3d studio.
This forum rocks and I appreciate everyones help.
akinrog January 15th , 2005, 05:38 AM

T h a n k s t o a f o r u m m e m ber that em ailed m e, but didn't give his/her forum name I w a s a b l e t o s e e t h e p a t e n t p a g e i m a g e s .
Apparently it takes a special TIFF viewer progra m plugin for IE. I have downloaded all relevant pag e s a n d z i p p e d t h e m u p a n d
will be uploading them to the ftp as PenGunPatents.zip
I previously uploaded them to forum FTP. So don't worry about it.
But I have ju st a question what is olive fitting? I'm asking this question in order to find ou t its correspondin g term in my native
lang u a g e .
hereno January 15th , 2005, 06:20 AM

But I have ju st a question what is olive fitting? I'm asking this question in order to find ou t its correspondin g term in my native
lang u a g e .
It's in that thread, "olive" is slang for the part of the com pressio n fitting thats compressed. So the correct term is "com p r e s s i o n
fitting".
jelly January 16th , 2 0 0 5 , 1 2 : 2 6 P M

Gedi:
If you are interested in pen guns read the patents 1,608,359 (fountain pen gun), 1,681,1 72 (pen gun) and 2,880,543 (pen
pistol) or John Minnery's book "Fingertip Firepower: Pen Guns, Knives and Bombs".
Here's a com m e r c i a l e x a m ple of a very simple pen gun. It shouldn't be hard to convert your old Mini Maglite flashlight into a
gun :)
http://www.autoweapons.com /photosv/flash102 .jpg
akinrog January 16th , 2 0 0 5 , 1 1 : 4 8 P M

Gedi:
If you are interested in pen guns read the patents 1,608,359 (fountain pen gun), 1,681,1 72 (pen gun) and 2,880,543 (pen
pistol) or John Minnery's book "Fingertip Firepower: Pen Guns, Knives and Bombs".
J e l l y , d o y o u h a v e t h a t b o o k ? I t s e e m s it is not in m y archive (which almost exact copy of our FTP). Regard s
tdog49 January 17th , 2005, 12:31 AM

I cam e across this picture of Stinger pen guns.....
i t m a d e m e l a u g h s o I j u s t h a d to share it.
www.pengun.com
sniper pengun anyone????

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Non-solvent flamethrower fuel mixes
Log in
View Full Version : Non-solvent flamethrower fuel mixes
cyclonite4 January 21st, 2005, 10:17 AM

This is my first new thread in the big world outside of the water cooler, so I'll keep it simple.
I'm in the process of building a flamethrower (inspired by the flamethrower thread), and I've decided to build a backpack chamber from PVC pipe (metal cylinders cost more and are much heavier).
What I'm trying to brainstorm (with the help of willing members), is a fuel, or mixture of fuels, that will both perform the duties of a relliable fuel (by burning easily and consistently, to help things catch alight), and not
damage the PVC chamber (by dissolving PVC or reacting with it).
I know that most alcohols are fairly safe with PVC, but the problem with using alcohols as a fuel by themselves, is that they burn much too fast. The presence of a slow burning component that doesnt attack PVC is whats
needed. I was thinking that either denatured alcohol or isopropanol would (or maybe a blend) would act as the volatile component, the difference being that isopropanol is more volatile but shorter burning, and denatured
alcohol burns a little bit longer. Both of them, from my observation, do nothing to PVC.
I would have posted this in the original flamethrower thread, but I thought that this thread is specifically based on fuel, rather than flamethrowers in general.
Can anyone think of any long-burning fuels that don't affect PVC, or know of any effective fuel mixes?
Any help is appreciated.
Skean Dhu January 21st, 2005, 01:42 PM

You could try a mix of Alcohols, kerosene and/or citronella tiki torch fluid I'm not exactly sure how reactive these are with PVC so it would be best to test it and look up information on them. There is also the option of buying
a few dozen sterno cans, and emptying the contents into the PVC fuel chamber, as this is just gelled ethanol.
However I think it would be best if you invested in a metal cylinder, when it comes to improvised weaponry and explosives I think saftey is one thing you shouldn't skimp on. I under stand the weight and price issues, but I'm
sure you could find a used CO2 fire extiguisher for under $40 on ebay S/H included. The integrity of a metal pressure rated cylinder would make the entire operation a lot safer.
cyclonite4 January 21st, 2005, 02:05 PM

The PVC pipe im using can hold around 260psi. Kerosene is a petroleum derivative (a hydrocarbon) but I dont know if its has solvent properties.
If I wanted fire extinguishers, I wouldn't have to pay for them anyway ;) . Weight is the problem.
Plus, I already have the piping (100mm diameter, good pipe), so I'm saving on resources. I'd probably only be compressing the fuel to 75-100 psi so pressure holding is not a problem.
kingspaz January 22nd, 2005, 09:38 AM

Could the tank not be lined with fibreglass, using a chemical resistant resin?
cyclonite4 January 22nd, 2005, 10:24 AM

I was thinkin PTFE would make a better liner as it is more chemically inert... and according to a source I have, insoluble in all solvents to 300 degrees celcius.
Another thing is the hose im using is also plastic.
knowledgehungry January 22nd, 2005, 11:28 AM

Just use a PTFE hose.
cyclonite4 January 22nd, 2005, 11:34 AM

And where do I get a PTFE hose? I've looked for PTFE products within my local hardware store and all I can find is PTFE thread sealing tape, and PTFE thread sealing copound.
I was thinking of ways I could use the compound, but I've found that it doesn't dry, It's designed to act as 'liquid tape'. Maybe I could mix it with epoxy?
knowledgehungry January 22nd, 2005, 11:40 AM

Check Ebay. I'm sure they have it.
EDIT: w00t Senior Researcher baby!
cyclonite4 January 22nd, 2005, 12:18 PM

Ah, yes. The wonder of Ebay. :d
I see your excited that your a senior researcher now, I was excited when I got promoted to bottle washer. :p
I like the sound of gelled ethanol, but where do I get it? I've tried the hardware store, camping store (which is where I thought it would be), and even the supermarket.
Skean Dhu January 22nd, 2005, 09:47 PM

Its sold in the little chaffing dish thingies, about 3"diam x 2" high, In the US its marketed by Sterno for the most part.
Do none of your Automotive/big box hardware stores carry fuel line replacement hose?
Its going to be inert for the fuels your useing as thats what its designed to be in contact with.
cyclonite4 January 23rd, 2005, 02:15 AM

I'll check an automotive store once I find a local parts dealer.
I keep getting funny looks when I ask about Sterno or gelled fuel/ethanol.
Is fuel line hose very bulky? I have some kind of hose that belonged to a car, but I don't think it's fuel line hose because it's very wide and seems to be made of some kind of compressed foam/plastic.
Anthony January 23rd, 2005, 07:02 AM

And where do I get a PTFE hose?
Presumably, the place that can coat your PVC fuel tank with PTFE, at an affordable price would be able to point you in the right direction?
How big does your fuel tank have to be, and why is weight such an issue?
A 1kg powder fire extinguisher weighs very little.
or are you an evil terrorist who wants to evade metal detectors?

Nah, I'm not a terrorist (I'm only 16 and I have no real enemies), and this thing is too large to fit through a scanner or go unnoticed (plus the handheld part is metal). I'm making this for fun/curiosity.
The tank consists of 2x 100mm x 50cm class 18 PVC cylinders (31.41 L, but only filled to about under 30 L with fuel). A fire extingisher of estimately the same size is much more than a kilogram.
The place I can get PTFE compound is the hardware store, and I haven't found any PTFE hose there.
akinrog January 23rd, 2005, 11:20 AM

What about neoprene (sp?) hoses. Neoprene hoses are used for LPG tanks. They are very resistant to oils and oxidants.
Skean Dhu January 23rd, 2005, 11:37 AM

Noone gives you funny looks on the internet.....But in person its usually best to ask for it by the trade name instead of the IUPAC name, I mean if someone were to ask you for some "Gelled ethanol", or "ethyl hydroxide with
gelatinous additives", you'd give them a funny look too. Try asking for chaffing dish refills, contact your local catering company, and they might be willing to sell you some. Or find some snobby market place with all sorts of
obscure cuts of meat and weird herbs, they'll probably have them or know where you could get them. Also find an RV store, they should carry a camping stove that uses these for heating.
http://www.chaferdepot.com/
Here's what they look like http://www.sterno.com/sterno/sterno_retail/welcome.aspx
If you can't find standard automotive fuel hose, your country's in more trouble than we first thought.
PS heres some handy search tips:

Take advantage of the multitude of search engines
Find out what you are looking for is supposed to be used for
find out the trade name(s)
get a mental image of what your looking for
check stores that have even remote possibilities of carrying what your looking for, things are always in the last place you'd think to look

And I guess it has the bonus of pressure capability... do you mean the kind of hose on propane tanks?

I like the sound of gelled ethanol, but where do I get it? I've tried the hardware store, camping store (which is where I thought it would be), and even the supermarket.
Looking at their website they say their technology is patented so you should be able to find the formulation. It might work out cheaper making it yourself rather than buying it if you're going to be using a lot of the stuff.
Following a quick search of the US patents office the following might be of use:
Log in
05, 10:17 AM
nd not
whats
denatured
05, 01:42 PM
on of buying
sues, but I'm
05, 02:05 PM
05, 09:38 AM
05, 10:24 AM
05, 11:28 AM
05, 11:34 AM
05, 11:40 AM
05, 12:18 PM
05, 09:47 PM
05, 02:15 AM
05, 07:02 AM
05, 09:05 AM
05, 11:20 AM
05, 11:37 AM
droxide with
all sorts of
05, 11:42 AM
05, 07:10 PM
e stuff.
Rapid-gelling biocompatible polymer composition and associated methods of preparation and use (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-
adv.htm&r=6&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=(((gelled+AND+ethanol)+AND+burn)+AND+denatured)&OS=gelled+AND+ethanol+AND+burn+AND+denatured&RS=(((gelled+AND+ethanol)+AND+burn)+AND+denatured)
) 6,624,245
Freestanding plastic container for controlled combustion of alcohol-based lighter fluid (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-
) 6,755,877
Liquid fire starter composition (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-

) 5,990,057
Fuel gel for charcoal or wood fires (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-

) 4,436,525
Pressure dispensable gelled alcohol fuel (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-

) 4,365,971
Ignition method with pressure dispensable gelled fuel (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-

) 4,261,700
I haven't read through any of them but it's a starting point.
In light of nbk2000's subsequent post the patent no's have been included. You live and learn :)
nbk2000 January 26th, 2005, 07:21 PM

Calcium acetate is used to gell alcohol. Read that in an old popular mechanics article.
When posting links to patents, you must always included the patent number, as the links are time-limited and expire, making them useless after a couple days. So, without the numbers, we've no way of knowing what patents
you linked to.
cyclonite4 January 31st, 2005, 08:49 AM

Thanks for all the help everyone.
I'd just thought I'd say I've made a few decisions concerning the flamethrower:
- I am going to stick to just using methylated spirits or 'sterno'
- I am using only one PVC cylinder, dropping the volume in half (I don't really want or need the extra fuel capacity, this is just a project fueled by curiosity).
I'll keep you all updated with how it goes.
david jenkins March 2nd, 2005, 08:14 AM

Flame Throwers are pretty bad ass and old school!why P.V.C. for anything? when it comes
to a flame thrower you need the best of the best! period!!!It sounds like you're talking about something pretty small! We'll at least I hope so anyway!Flame Throwers are straight forward in design. Hydraulically, the best
lines and fittings are always used.Valve design goes along way in making sure the operator doesn't get his hand soaked in flamable liquid!Tanks are typically the best available. And the system has been tested tried and
true!Never the less operating a Flame Thrower is an very dangerous occupation if If it were!
Radiant heat energy is what the Flame Thrower operator has to deal with.You're basically
squirting a thick gelatinizes stream of gasoline through the air W/ minimal evap or vaporization. This increases the distance it can travel in a high velocity state through the air
giving the maximum forward effect of the flame(The notorious tongue effect)!
If you're going to make a Flame Thrower.Why don't you you make one?
I'ts all about gelled gasoline!!
festergrump March 2nd, 2005, 12:04 PM

WOW! After having read that, David, I must go back to the drawing board and do some revamping of my designs. You certainly put us all straight. While I'm at it I might want to check out the forum rules again because
obviously there have been some changes... :rolleyes:
nbk2000 March 2nd, 2005, 06:19 PM

But he has such a neat signature! :p
Jacks Complete March 2nd, 2005, 10:16 PM

Aye, but he is at least moderately energetic with his post.
With a few return codes, it would be quite a good first post, aside from his missing the thread title saying "Non-solvent"!
Has anyone thought of spraying something solid, like a powered metal? You could blow it through with compressed air, or a high-volume, low pressure blower.
If you are just going to play around and try it (which, in the UK is a five year minimum sentence now! Asshats!) try and find a large metal syringe, of the kind vets used to use. (A large plastic one will do, actually)
Fill it full of meths, light the end, and spray it! It can't burn back, as long as you keep pushing it forward, or just stop (don't draw it back to be safe) It won't have much range, but it looks cool.
There is a water toy that uses a giant tank and a giant syringe with a valve in it, which is quite cheap. You might be able to get one and try it with meths. Just strip the lead off the tank, and drop it into the bottle. Or fill the
tank!
Meths is pretty much inert when it comes to reacting with things like plastic, unless alight! You can always do a soak test by filling it and leaving overnight.
I really have to move somewhere less oppressive...
cyclonite4 March 2nd, 2005, 11:23 PM

Spraying powdered metal doesn't sound too easy to regulate, although it would produce a lot of heat. Wouldn't a given amount of metal powder when atomised, just explode (deflagrate instantaneously) rather than burn?
Maybe spraying a solid fuel such as metal powder, with a small amount of CO2 to stop instant deflagration, would work.
You are quite right david, but my first model will be built out of PVC as a 'prototype' model. A non-solvent mix would still be good for a metal version though, because the rubber pressure sealing components need to last,
and not suddenly fail.

+denatured)
+denatured)
D+denatured)
D+denatured)
D+denatured)
D+denatured)
05, 07:21 PM
what patents
05, 08:49 AM
05, 08:14 AM
the best
ried and
05, 12:04 PM
ecause
05, 06:19 PM
05, 10:16 PM
Or fill the
05, 11:23 PM
han burn?
d to last,
The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > U nusual spud gun fuels
Log in
View Full Version : Unusual spud gun fuels
-Jack February 5th, 2005, 06:13 PM

M e a n d a f r i e n d o f m i n e r e c e n t l y p u t t o g e t h e r a s p u d g u n ( p o t a t o l a u n c h e r , s p u d z o o k a , i t g o e s b y m a n y n a m es) which we had
s o m e fun with blasting trees, a couple broken appliances, etc. with. W e u s e d t h e u s u a l s i m p l e d e s i g n : t w o P V C p i p e s (barrel
a n d c h a m b e r ) a n d s o me other ignition parts with a little aerosol starter fluid as fuel.
Now, I'm l o o k i n g f o r s o m e s t r o n g e r , m ore exotic fuels, but not so strong that they'll blow the shit out of the gun or am m o
(even though spuds can be substituted with som ething m o r e d u r a b l e , l i k e t e n n i s b a l l s o r b a s e b a l l s i f w e m a k e a n e w barrel).
Maybe something like a very, very sm all amount of APAN in the cham ber. No m atter what we end up with, we'll probably fire it
electrically from a safe distance, so the only concern is that we d on't strip the pipe after accidentally blasting off the cap on the
chamber or something.
So, any suggestions?

High explosives are not good propellents - they are far too brisant! A projectile launcher requires a progressive "push" up the
barrel, not peak pressure in a few m icroseconds.
The amount of APAN that would be req uired to not shatter your PVC pipe will produce a pathetically sm all volum e of gas, tha t'd
probably be lucky to propell the projectile out o f the barrel at all.
VX February 7th, 2005, 06:28 PM

You could always m a k e y o u r s e l f s o m e good quality blackpowder.
T h a t s h o u l d k e e p y o u b u s y f o r m o n t h s ! s e r i o u s l y , i t ' s e a s y e n o u gh to m a k e e x p l o s i v e c o m p o u n d s , b u t m a k i n g g o o d q u a l i t y B P
is an art (well at least it's as close to a rt as anything iv ever done) The process is generaly more involved than a simple
organic synth (m ost explosive s).... Then you can call your spud gun a cannon :)
MightyQuinn February 7th, 2005, 07:38 PM

About the black powder... W o u l d s c h e d u l e 4 0 P V C handle the pressure? I'd be sketchy firing it up close.
I was going to suggest Acetylene, then I thought better of it and em p l o y e d a s e a r c h e n g i n e t o k e e p m e f r o m m a k i n g n O 0 6

m istakes.
I found this with a Go o g l e s e a rch: Advanced Sp uds (http://www.advanced s p u d s . c o m / )
And Fuel Page (http://www.advancedspuds.com /fuel.htm )
S o m e basic fuel advice for using aerosol propellants:
"Less fuel will often m a k e y o u r spudgun shoot farther. Always experimen t with different amounts o f fuel. It seems strange b ut
when you com bust a fuel inside of a closed con tainer, such as a spud gun chamber, if you have too much fuel you will not have
e n o u g h o x y g e n t o i g n i t e t h e f u e l m ixture.
R e m e m b e r l e s s i s m ore!
Propane : Direct propane injection and m eter
Right Guard : The choice fuel for aerosol propellants
C h a m ber Fan: More fuel efficiency
"Ghetto Propane Meter": Cheap, yet accurate fuel m eter
D o n o t u s e h igh powered fuels such as acetylene, hydro gen or oxygen. If you do you will die. PVC is nowhere capable of
withstanding the extrem e power of these fuels, and will explode with m uch PVC shrapnel."

I s e c o n d t h e e x p l o d i n g P V C thing. U sing Hydrogen would be bad, as the PVC would shatte r. Sam e with Acetylene, which has
m o r e o o m p h than Hydrogen/air, and can blow a 500ml coke bottle to bits. Don't forget that you ca n get a stuck projectile,
which will cau s e a p r e s s u r e o v e r l o a d .
W ith butane, you tend to get a fast bu rn, a whoosh rather than a bang.
Bert February 7th, 2005, 09:36 PM

W hen I was young and foolish, I disregarded advice to NO T use PVC Sch. 40 for launching aerial shells with black powder- A
sim ilar projectile profile to a potato, at least in 3". I usualy got 4-8 shots before they blew up... Bu t I wasn't holding o n t o
them! If I had, I'd have lost parts.
I used acetylene in "beer can cannons" (like a spud gun, but no projectile, just a noise m aker) Even with no back pressure and
n o t u s i n g O x ygen, the detona tions were insanely loud and destroyed the cannon after a few dozen shots. Acetylend has a very
wide range of mixtures that will undergo true detonation- Not a good propellant, but a hell of a bom b.
meselfs February 7th, 2005, 10:05 PM

I ' v e u s e d h y d r o g e n i n s m all quantities and find that it works miracles. I haven't launched a potato in years, but where I left off
the best fuel I cam e up with was ether, it had more ene rgy then propane and was m ore forgiving to bad m ix proportions. Th e
ether was dispensed VERY conviniently: It's just the starting fluid sprays they sell in the automotive departm e n t s . L o o k o n t h e
back of the can if in doubt.
But seriously, the only reason you'd want to use an "exotic" fuel for spud propulsion would be for you to say to your friends
"D00ds! I haev a assetylyne powred spud launchinatorr!" Anything m ore powerful is likely to desroy your gu n.
cyclonite4 February 7th, 2005, 11:18 PM

I agree with m eselfs. From m y experience, ether (apparently a car starting fluid) is a very good fuel, but m a k e s u r e y o u u s e
strong piping, and do n't keep firing constantly, take a break every so often, otherwise the pipes will burst or get dam a g e d .
I've tried hydrogen and havn't found it to be as powerful as expected. Acetylene is definitely a no-no, I've heard reports of
c a n n o n s g o i n g o f f l i k e m a s s i v e p i p e - b o m bs when using ethyne.
A g o o d , c h e a p f u e l i s b u t a n e . I s i m ply refill an empty deo can with butan e from lighter refill cans, it gives you a can of low-
pressure aerosol butane, works nicely.
grendel23 February 8th, 2005, 06:08 AM

If you want more power than a com b u s t i o n s p u d g u n , b u i l d a p n e u m atic one. Mine will easily shoot a frozen potato through 1/
2" plywood.
If m ade properly, air powered guns are safe. Note I said IF, imp roper m aterials o r assem bly can cost body parts.
A couple of years ago I wanted to build a large pneuma tic gun with an adaptor on the barrel to attach the 2" barrel to a 6"
section to launch a cabbage.
Once I priced the PVC at about $100, I decided I didn't need it that bad.
The_Rsert February 8th, 2005, 10:50 AM

I'm using usually a deodorant called "8x4 Pro Active". I tested som e fuels. Benzine fuel for cars, b enzine for lighteres, eher,
ethanol/methanol, a m ix of 70% butane and 30% propane, acetone, hair sprays, deodorants,... by my grandparents because
the next neigbours to them are living 600m away, the country is shoal and they have a special rule for m e a s u r i n g l o n g
distances but the best is the "8x4 Pro Active" deodorant.
The potato can reach 300m with it if th e conditons (temperature, dosage,..) are perfect. (One tim e the potato reached exactly
322m )
-
O n e t i m e I a dded about 1g AP as propellant with the result that a part of m y potatagun shattered. :(
I h e a r d o f o n e w h o ' s u s i n g a s p u d g u n m a d e o f a l u m inium . Maybe this would better work for AP!
-
I think it sho u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o N C a s a g o o d p r o p e l l a n t , b e a c u s e i t d o e s u s u a l l y n o t d e t o n a t e . . . .
-Jack February 8th, 2005, 05:18 PM

Thanks for all the help, but I'm really looking for fuels that easier (cheaper) to buy and easier to m ake (if necessary at all).
That's why I m entioned APAN at first, even though I rea lize it wa s a r e a l l y d u m b i d e a .
So that rules out black powder and the like. I h a v e n o g u n s , n o s h e l l s , a n d n o l i c e n s e t o b u y e i t h e r .
Quinn's link was a little useful though. Apparen tly RightGuard works better than ether. I'm still looking for something that
packs a little m ore punch though. Propane is a little expensive (the whole system and everything), but I was wondering how
g o o d o l e ' g a s o l i n e w o u l d p e r f o r m t h r o u g h a s p r a y b o t t l e . I g u e s s n o t m a ny of you have probably tried this before?
tom haggen February 8th, 2005, 08:06 PM

I think a lot of pyros use polyurethane for launching shells. That would probably be a good starting material for making a high
powered potato gun.

The_Rsert, you didn't read any of the posts on this board about NOT EVER u s i n g h i g h e x p l o s i v e a s p r o p e l l a nt, then?
There is a big thread where some idiot wants to get a hom e m a d e c a n n o n t o 5 0 0 0 m / s u s i n g a h u g e c h a m b e r a n d h i g h

e x p l o s i v e , a n d a m assive steel container was the result. He's probably dead by now, since the m icrofractures in the steel will
have added up until the lot blew to bits. Aluminium wouldn't be any better.
H a v e y o u g o t a l a s e r r a n g e f i n d e r ? 3 2 2 m eters is a long way for a tape m e a s u r e !
tom, I've not heard o f anyone using polyurethane as a propellant. Doesn't it give off really nasty fum es? http://roguesci.org/
theforum/showpost.php?p=40143&postcount=1 7 by Tuatara says it does. O r do you m ean as a containing structure, instead of
P V C p i p e ? I n which case, I still wouldn't want to breathe that nasty shit after firein g!
MightyQuinn February 9th, 2005, 07:51 PM

tom, I've not heard o f anyone using polyurethane as a propellant. Doesn't it give off really nasty fum e s ?
Not to m ention the killer residue it would leave. The link I posted talks about most of the fuels m entioned here...Including
deodorant which is purported to be the best fuel with alm ost no residue left in chamber. That guy also uses a fan in the
chamber for effective fuel/air m ixing. :D
tom haggen February 9th, 2005, 11:17 PM

I m eant usin g polyurethane as a container not as a fuel :p
I h e l p e d s o m e licensed pyros launch som e s h e lls last sum m e r , a n d I ' m pretty sure he said they used polyurethane rather than
PVC. But don't quote me on that :rolleyes:
sdjsdj February 10th, 2005, 04:28 AM

How about Nitromethane?

I h a v e t h o u g h t a b o u t u s i n g a m i x t u r e o f f l a m m a b l e g a s , i . e . p r o p a n e a n d oxygen. This would be very powerful but there are
s a f e ty issues, also this would allow you to make a "sem i-autom atic airgu n".
The_Rsert February 10th, 2005, 10:23 AM

The_Rsert, you didn't read any of the posts on this board about NOT EVER u s i n g h i g h e x p l o s i v e a s p r o p e l l a nt, then?
There is a big thread where some idiot wants to get a hom e m a d e c a n n o n t o 5 0 0 0 m / s u s i n g a h u g e c h a m b e r a n d h i g h

e x p l o s i v e , a n d a m assive steel container was the result. He's probably dead by now, since the m icrofractures in the steel will
have added up until the lot blew to bits. Aluminium wouldn't be any better.
H a v e y o u g o t a l a s e r r a n g e f i n d e r ? 3 2 2 m eters is a long way for a tape m e a s u r e !
O n e t i m e I a dded about 1g AP as propellant with the result that a part of m y potatagun shattered. :(
Sorry, I didn't used the right word for "propellant" :rolleyes:

I m eant as "fuel" of course.
I used no real HE as fuel, only AP... :rolleyes:

Anything I wanna say is that a usual potatogun s will explode if there's a HE used as fuel (even a little amount).
And yes that's a long way for a tape m easure... m y grandparents are peasants (I hope this is the right Eng lish word ) and ha ve
got a special m etal rule for measuring long distances which looks like this sheme:
S h e m e for m easureing long distances (http://www.infernolabs.co.uk/fileh o s t / m e a s u i n g o f l o n g d i s t a n c e s . j p g )
trinitride3 February 10th, 2005, 01:07 PM

Hey Tom, I think wha t you were referring to is HDPE High Density Poly-Ethylene not polyurethane. It is an e xtremely strong
m aterial that looks sim ilar to regular P VC but d ark gray in color. When used as a mortar to launch arial shells it won't shatter if
a s h ell explo des while still in the pipe, it will burst but stays m ostly in tact. The stuff is expensive but would work great to m a k e
a s p ud gun with.

It te lls me to get m y own fuck ing bandwidth.
Pb1 February 11th, 2005, 11:01 PM

I used no real HE as fuel, only AP... :rolleyes:
A crappy HE is still an HE.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Wasilla [Alaska] man constructing 18-
foot-tall not-a-robot
Log in
View Full Version : Wasilla [Alaska] man constructing 18-foot-tall not-a-robot

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/011705/sta_20050117006.shtml
<mcc head="">
Wasilla man constructing 18-foot-tall not-a-robot</mcc>

 
Machine may prove helpful by shooting nine-inch nails from the shoulders and 20-foot flames from forearms </mcc>
 

By RACHEL D'ORO
 
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

<table align="right" cellpadding="5"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0"
cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="133">
<tbody><tr>
<td valign="top">
<a href="../../images/011705/8157_500.jpg" target="NEW"><img src="../../images/011705/8157_200.jpg" align="right"
border="0" height="200" hspace="6" vspace="6" width="133"></a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr class="photocredit"> <td align="right"> Al Grillo / The Associated Press </td>
</tr>
<tr> <td class="photodigest"> <img src="/images/bullets/dot_black.gif" height="6" width="6">
It's good to have large friends: Carlos Owens Jr. stands next to his
18-foot tall hydraulic "mecha" earlier this month at his parents' house
in Wasilla. Owens envisions the humanoid machine he's building will
shoot nine-inch nails from the shoulders and 20-foot flames from the
forearms.</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
WASILLA - As Carlos Owens Jr. envisions it, the humanoid machine he's
building will shoot nine-inch nails from the shoulders and 20-foot
flames from the forearms. "You've got to have flame-throwers!" he says.
The red backlit eyes of his
18-foot hydraulic mecha - please don't call it a robot - will glow, but
they're just for show. Five cameras will be the real eyes, allowing the
operator riding inside the steel contraption to see via a laptop
computer and flatscreen monitor rigged inside.
When it's all done, he'll
have a walking exoskeleton that will make him stronger than a grizzly
bear, he said. So what if this is the stuff of science fiction
fantasies?
"I'm 110 percent positive
this will work," the soft-spoken apprentice ironworker said during a
recent break from the all-consuming project taking shape in his
parent's back yard. "Failure is not an option. I have no choice but to
do this. If I don't do it, I will explode."
So great is his confidence
that Owens, 27, already has arranged to debut his mecha at a demolition
show where it will bash cars this summer at a local racetrack just
north of Anchorage.
And that's only the beginning
for the Philippines-born offspring of retired Air Force members. Owens,
a former heavy equipment mechanic with the Army Reserves, imagines
mechas boxing in arenas, fighting wildfires, repairing distant space
stations, even fighting enemy soldiers in battle. The U.S. military has
spent millions and a half decade developing a limited exoskeleton to
help soldiers carry supplies.
Owens figures his prototype, which he began building in October 2003, will set him
back about $20,000.
Standing in his parents' back
yard on a subfreezing morning in January, the 6-foot-5 Owens was
dwarfed by the slouching rusty red exoskeleton.
It's the culmination of two
previous attempts and a lifetime fascination with the inner workings of
machinery. A 35-foot wooden template built in 2001 now lies folded in
another part of the property. In the winter of 2002 Owens began
building a 25-foot mecha, which turned out too great for his shoestring
budget. He scaled down, transferring the steel parts to the present
project he covers with a tarp to shield it from the snow.
Besides mild steel -
stainless would be too expensive - 23 hydraulic cylinders are woven
throughout, giving the mecha 46 possible movements. An 18-horsepower
gas engine will provide the power and a car battery the juice for the
computer, cameras, lights and sound effects. Fiberglass skin will allow
the operator to stay fully hidden.
Much of the parts have come from auto parts stores and online vendors.
Owens plans to pad a central
compartment in which to operate the mecha, controlling it with his own
movements. When he lifts a leg or flexes an arm so will his creation,
according to the plan. The finished product will be painted black with
red trim and will look like a giant robot, he says.
Success hinges on finding a
way to balance a machine packing 3,500 pounds per square inch. To
counter the possibility of falling down inside his steel armor, Owens
has built the bottom half to weigh far more than the top. He's also
installed "training feet" to rely on until he gets the hang of it.
"It's costing me a bit, but that's OK," he said. "Dreams don't come cheap."
The germ of that dream was
sparked in childhood with his first look at "The Transformers"
cartoons, further fueled by sci-fi movies, such as "Star Wars" and the
"Alien" series. Don't even get him started on the implications explored
last summer by the Will Smith flick, "I, Robot."
No wonder his parents take his current obsession in stride. They recall
the times he raided scrap yards, once bringing home a lawnmower to
simply take it apart. When he was seven, he dismantled a toy robot and
put it back together. As a teenager, he wanted to build a boat, but his
mother, Randi Owens, quickly put her foot down. Now she just watches as
her son works on his most ambitious endeavor to date, even on the
coldest days when numb hands are no excuse to quit.
"He eats, sleeps and drinks this thing," Randi Owens said. "This is his passion."Well, this is an improvised weapon... A giant Mecha! Of course, he has about zero chance of not getting crushed or
drowned when it falls over!
Silentnite February 6th, 2005, 09:16 PM

Too bad we just found out about this. What a great christmas present that would be....
On the worthwhile side, I wonder how hard it would be to build a small version of this. Just an amplification of the human. Like
a exoskeleton. Servo*s for the arms, and legs.
To the drawing board!

The big issue is that the bigger you are, the faster you need to react to the slight wobbles, otherwise you have to push a bit
harder to get back upright - and on a 20-ton machine, that's another manhole cover cracked. Or you push a little too hard,
and you flip the other way.
If this could be done by a simple hydraulic system, it would be commonplace. Hydraulics just are not fast enough for this stuff.
Pneumatics won't work because you can't stop the ram halfway, nor reverse it fast enough, plus it acts like a damned spring!
You could try a hybrid system, but that triples the complexity, since you have pneumatic one side and hydraulic the other, so it
is faster, and more controllable, but you need two sets of everything anyway, and now you need two air and two hydraulic
pressure systems (for redundancy)
Someone comes up with a clever electrical linear actuator that isn't lethally explosive or stupid expensive (hydrogen sorption
gas-rams), or with a good power to weight ratio (not most electrical systems for mobile use), and people will start building
these things. Until then, it is a bit of a pipe dream.
The funniest bit about the article is he thinks that keeping it bottom heavy is going to help! It isn't a boat, it's a pendulum!
Edit: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/27/lizard_army_atacks_scotland/ is how I go onto this story. Well worth a read, like
most stuf on El Reg.

If something is encasing me, I would prefer that it be triple-redundant. I'd really like to not fall on my face and be crushed.
Bottom-heavy makes it more likely to not fall over?? He could make it three-legged if he's going through all the trouble. Or
widen the stance, like on the Pontiac Grand Prix. They widened the wheel stance and lowered the center of gravity and now its
better on turns.
You have to admire his enthusiasm though.

Yes, it is a bit wacky.
I would love to have the space to do something on that scale. Heck, if he has got the set-up even semi-functional, he is close
to a genius. Unless it responds as fast as a normal JCB system, in which case he is just an idiot with a welder.
If you take a look at the picture, it's too small, you can't see him well, nor the mecha. I suspect he will have to reort to having
feet that have 20 feet of steel pipes sticking out either side, so it doesn't topple every time it lifts one foot.
You can see why all these schemes are doomed to fail, simply by standing on one leg, or walking really slowly with a large
gait. When resting at ease, the weight is centrally distributed, equally on each foot. The moment you lift one foot, you will fall
to the side of the foot you lifted. However, your brain, after years of automatically keeping you in balance, will shift your weight
on your top half, bringing your CoG into line with your earth-bound foot. It does this by shifting the muscles in your torso to
pull the rest of your body into line.
Why can't a robot bend over? Simple. It can't shift it's CoG to keep it between it's legs, over one foot, etc. so it falls. There are
a few high-end robots that can do this, but they are far from everyday toys!
Edit: Searching more, I found:

http://news.com.com/Photos+Robotic+revolution/2009-1026_3-5500016-5.html?tag=st.num
which is a far better picture.
http://news.com.com/Giant+robots+in+the+backyard/2100-1026_3-5499730.html?tag=nl is a more in-depth article, though

still not technical.

To continue this little bit of post whoreing (why isn't anyone else posting?) I thought I would tell everyone about the rather
good book I just got off Amazon, which is called "Build your own combat robot"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072194642/qid=1107908174/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_8_2/026-3047664-9762024
I give it five stars, as the reviews of various ways of doing things are well thought out, it covers all different power systems and
weapons, rules, safety, materials, etc.
The review on Amazon says "The information in this book, with exception to the roboteers own comments in there, can all be
found on websites, which spoiled this book a bit for me." which is a weird thing to say. Yes, you can get a datasheet for a part
off the web, but you need a book like this to tell you a way to use the part, and further, that you can even do the thing that
way useing said part. You could say it about the Bible, and it would be true, but just as meaningless! (In fact, more so, since
there is a lot in the book that you can't find on the web!)
Anyone planning to build a large walking mecha/robot should read this and try some smaller designs first.
Chris The Great February 8th, 2005, 11:26 PM

Well, balance is a real problem. Building a big walking robot is somewhat simple, assuming you have the money and time, but
getting it to balance while moving over varying terrain is going to be the big problem.
The way I assume the problem could be solved would be to allow the legs to shift from side to side where they attach to the
torso. This would allow the upper part to shift to be centered over the foot that is on the ground while the other is in the air.
The problem of course is that the swaying motion may have it fall over as well.
Perhaps a gyroscope would help keep it from swaying to much, which would somewhat solve the balance problem.
For moving parts, there are a type of motors, I can't remember the name, that are narrow, like a disk instead of a cynlinder
like most motors, and whatever you want to move is attached directly to the armature. The amount of torque available is
massive, which is what you would need to move a walking robot death machine, but the rpms are very low. This is exactly what
would be needed, as I highly doubt gears would be able to handle the amount of force being put onto them, and they would
take up more room and be one more thing to have fail. If superconducting wire is used then the motor will be able to handle
the massive currents it will need to operate. Stick some BIG electrolytic supercapacitores to give the motors massive amounts
of juice when they move, and that will allow them to move quickly and you won't need as big of a power supply as it won't need
to supply such high peak currents.
Silentnite February 9th, 2005, 04:00 AM

That picture is freaking Sweet.
Triple redundancy would be nice, especially if it is encasing me.
I know that a 20ft tall behemoth would be kinda hard to stablize, but what about a small 7ft exoskeleton. With room for the
pilot, along with a submarine type ballast system. Two tanks side by side, flush one out to the other when taking steps. It
seems like its feasible at least.
Microtek February 9th, 2005, 10:37 AM

I read an article on something like this in Scientific American ( I think ) once. It was about the military attempts at constructing
a working exo-skeleton that was actually practical. The conclusion was that with contemporary technology, electrical and
hydraulic power systems were simply too heavy.
Instead they focused on small internal cumbustion engines functioning as muscles. So, no large central engine, just small
ones where they are needed. This means that there is little need for heavy hydraulic tubes or other ways of diverting power.

The issue with having multiple IC engines is that you are going to have a hell of a time running fuel lines everywhere, cooling
water, radiators, etc. unless the thing is huge. And failure points? Hundreds, for every joint. Unless it is 300ft tall and crushing
houses in one hand, it isn't going to be worth it.
I've heard about a similar idea for hydraulics, where you put an electric pump and some fluid with the cylinder, and you then
control the hydraulic system as an electrical unit, so you don't have high pressure pipes going everywhere, just control wires
and power (or even just two dc power lines) You can't wreck that system by killing a single pump, nor by cutting a single fluid
line.
I think the biggest issue with stability, in real life, is the slopes and lumps encountered. Topple him by getting him to walk up
a 30 degree slope! Reaches the limit of travel for the joints, over he falls. Even better, a ten degree grassed bank! Feet slide
from underneath, the recovery is a bit slow, and bang! Down he goes. Humans have trouble with it, so a robot is fucked.
(Though soon enough it will be simple enough to run the stabilty routines fast enough that the effect of any non-explosive
event will be determined before the inertia has chance to get going. Give it ten years, and even explosive events won't be fast
enough!)
Drowning, as the pilot, would be my worst fear. That beastie is going to sink like a lead balloon, so falling through a bridge or
sliding or sinking into mud or silt would be a nightmare. Remember, the ground pressure loading will be very high, if it is bi-
pedal.
A 7ft exoskeleton is going to be even harder. At 25ft, you can have plenty of room, and crumple zones. At 7ft, you are going
to lose your legs if it does, and if you trip, and rip off the leg of the robot with the other leg? Bad luck, and don't come crawling
to me!
If you want to see a crude bi-pedal robot, take a look at the way the RoboSapien walks. It lifts a leg, then shifts the top mass
to the side (hips) whilst flailing the arms, then puts the foot forward and down, then repeats for the other side. Crude, but it
works. Of course, wires and rubble are beyond it - even a rug will tip it up! The feet each hold 2 D cell batteries, so he is very,
very bottom heavy, too. It has no idea of balance, it is just purely mechanical. With a "brain" for doing a balance calculation, a
10mm thick rug would not cause it to fall, as it would simply tilt the hips slightly...
The key to balance is as much the strain sensors in your leg muscles and pressure sensors in your feet as the inner ear, btw.
Otherwise, everyone would fall over walking bent double, or looking up at the sky. Few people have realised this.
akinrog February 11th, 2005, 02:53 AM

I recently watched a documentary about robots (I know the above referred thingy is not robot but an exo-skeleton). The
recent trend is to imitate real life cases, i.e. use tendons to move certain limbs / organs, etc.
As you know human and primate hands do not have extensor musles but only flexor muscles. When a primate hand flexes
(closes) it uses flexor muscles, but when it extends (opens), it uses tendons to do so. And robotics engineers are using this
(already available) technology together with some pneumatic systems. Maybe it is better to use this approach instead of using
several miniature IC engines and /or several hydraulic cylinders/lines.
Microtek February 11th, 2005, 04:53 AM

Tendons are what connects muscles to bones, they don't contract themselves.
Regarding the IC-motor-at-every-joint idea, they were really very small. About the size of a small match box. The fuel lines
required wouldn't be much thicker than electrical wiring.
I don't know if they ever got it to work, however. It was just a review article.
Chris The Great February 12th, 2005, 09:10 PM

Just something that occured to me while walking home from school yesterday.
My mind strayed to this thread, and I happened to look down at my feet. I noticed that I was not shifting my balance to keep
upright while walking, and that for a short time I only had one foot on the ground in a very unbalanced position. I thought
"hmmmm, it seems that I have no problem balancing while walking, but standing on one foot seems to be fairly difficult." This
sent my thoughts to biking, and how it is nearly impossible to keep the bike balanced at slow speeds, but once it starts
moving fast enough the forward momentum keeps in balanced. I would assume the same principle applies somewhat to
people walking.
If that is true, then the robot would need a gyroscope to keep it from tipping when sudden force or unbalance is encountered
(being shot, stepping on abrams tanks, etc) and would only need to shift the balance alot when moving slowly. Once it got to
a certain speed the forward momentum would be enough to keep it upright.
Or, I could be wrong, but it makes sense.
akinrog February 12th, 2005, 10:11 PM

Tendons are what connects muscles to bones, they don't contract themselves.
I am aware of it sir. However what I am trying to say in the documentary the robotics engineers constructed a hand robot
(which closely resembles the hand in both functionality and shape but without skin) which uses tendons to transfer linear
movement of the some engines /motors, etc.
For example fold your sleeves and extend your forearm to front with your palm looks upward. When you move your middle
finger towards your palm (close) you will notice a tendon becomes tense on your forearm. And when you turn your palm
downward and open your middle finger again you shall notice tendons on the back of your palm and wrist shall become tense.
Similarly the robotics engineers of the documentary was using tendons to transfer linear movement of some engines thereby
creating a quite thin and streamlined hand which closely resembles a human hand (in both functionality and shape). The hand
in question is capable of holding an egg without breaking.

Tendons are responsible for your muscles ability to move your body. See Def:
Main Entry: tendon

Pronunciation: 'ten-d&n
Function: noun
: a tough cord or band of dense white fibrous connective tissue that unites a muscle with some other part, transmits the force
which the muscle exerts, and is continuous with the connective-tissue epimysium and perimysium of the muscle and when
inserted into a bone with the periosteum of the bone
skier4life99 February 24th, 2005, 05:24 PM

I am aware of it sir. However what I am trying to say in the documentary the robotics engineers constructed a hand robot
(which closely resembles the hand in both functionality and shape but without skin) which uses tendons to transfer linear
movement of the some engines /motors, etc.
For example fold your sleeves and extend your forearm to front with your palm looks upward. When you move your middle
finger towards your palm (close) you will notice a tendon becomes tense on your forearm. And when you turn your palm
downward and open your middle finger again you shall notice tendons on the back of your palm and wrist shall become tense.
Similarly the robotics engineers of the documentary was using tendons to transfer linear movement of some engines thereby
creating a quite thin and streamlined hand which closely resembles a human hand (in both functionality and shape). The hand
in question is capable of holding an egg without breaking.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but anyone who's taken a college level A&P course should know that the human hand
has both flexors and and extendors... the index, middle, and pinky finger all have their own, while the ring 'shares' off of the
middle. (which is why you can't extend your ring finger if the rest of your fingers are clenched in a fist.) the reason the tendon
'becomes tense' is because there is a muscle in your forearm pulling on it.
BUT, back to the thread, if you check out the link, that thing looks so much like a transformer, he wasn't kidding about his
inspiration; but I couldn't help thinking, "what's the escape plan for the driver if the thing falls on the side that the driver
enters/exits from??" I could only imagine climbing in from the back and then having it fall over backwards...

Yes, but the tendon also has an elasticity of its own. It acts a bit like a stiff spring, and also stops sudden shocks from
damaging the muscle. They also hold you together, such as the tendons around and over the kneecap, without the use of
muscles.
Cables and wires as force transmission devices raise other issues. Suddenly you need guides, you need to make sure they
don't wear on each other or on static parts. The friction and hence force is higher, so power drain goes up, and wires plus
actuators weight more than actuators alone. And you still need the motors/actuators somewhere. Your parts count also goes
through the roof. You also lose flexibility, since now those two joints always have to work together, while before they were
driven independantly.
You can combine the actuator with the tendon, of course, and use something like the Nitinol wires, but they are generally far
too slow, with only 10% change in length, though very powerful.
I invented one totally new type, but someone else patented it already, using a twisted skein. I'd be rich now, if it had been me
who patented it!
One of the best linear actuators is the new(ish) "shadow muscle". I've seen them used to good effect in grippers and hands,
but no-one seems to have quite gotten the hang of them yet. They use low pressure compressed air and a net. You can get
the same effect by getting a net stocking or one of those orange tangerine socks, and putting a balloon in it. As you inflate
the balloon, the mesh widens, and pulls the ends in. http://www.shadow.org.uk/products/airmuscles.shtml shows far more.
As regards the Alaskan Snow Beast, I would worry more about that thing sinking into a bog or falling through a weak bridge.
You would drown if it fell over into a puddle, too.
I seriously doubt he will ever get it to take three steps.
EDIT: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7113 is funny. Some new type of acid activated actuator gets whipped by a
girl.

muscles.
who patented it!
girl.

muscles.
who patented it!
girl.
Third_Rail March 11th, 2005, 01:17 AM

I saw this a while back... It didn't sound like it would work then, it sure doesn't sound like it would work now.
He's going about it all wrong, especially in keeping it bottom heavy.
At least it's not a total waste. A couple of flamethrowers and he has a demolition derby prop! :D



has both flexors and and extendors...
Skier, extensors and flexors are muscles not tendons. Look at the back of your palm, can you see over there any muscles? I
cannot see on mine. You should not too, unless you are a mutant. Extending function is carried out by the tendons which are
connected to the muscles on your forearm.
BTW, I agree complexities pointed out by Jacks Complete regarding friction and wear. The natural tendons do not suffer from
wear since they are living tissues. And on the documentary I watched, I saw the so called shadow muscles, but they call it
pneumatic muscles. Regards



Well, tendons and joints have plenty of issues, but millions of years of evolution have led to a pretty good design, one which
you will have fun matching anywhere else.
I've come up with some great ideas for robots, which combine some great tricks with some serious requirements in rather neat
ways.
Looking around at stage and screen:-

Bladerunner, Terminator, etc. are great, but far beyond what is currently possible, especially the polymorphic ones.
The Droideka comes up as a very neat idea - fast road travel, stable weapons platform, quite tall for it's size. Certainly better
than the other Star Wars droids.
Robocop is great. The human inside does all the work so you don't even need to worry about finding an AI, he's a human
scale for a human world. ED209 is a bad design, a large clumsy walker that is top heavy and not on a human scale.

ways.


ways.

Silentnite April 6th, 2005, 01:17 PM

Well, not suprising really, but the japanese have been the ones to build a walking Mech :D It's probably not the best quality,
but I don't think this bodes well for the japanese. You'd think they'd learn their lesson after all of those movies.. :rolleyes:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sakakibara-
kikai.co.jp%2Fproducts%2Fother%2FLW.htm&lp=ja_en
That is the babelfish version of the site.
http://www.sakakibara-kikai.co.jp/products/other/images/lw4.jpg



That link you posted is a joke! If you download the "Mecha walking" video, you will see it doesn't lift the feet off the ground,
and it turns about a pivot. I strongly suspect that there are wheels hidden under the feet.
A more real one is at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624945.800 which shows an exo-skeleton that reads the
nerve impulses, and actually reacts slightly faster than the wearer's normal limb! :-O
Ideal for winning fastest finger!




The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > H2SO4-in-a-can
Log in
View Full Version : H2SO4-in-a-can
cyclonite4 March 7th, 2005, 11:13 PM

I got this idea a day or two ago. I takes me back to one of last years chemistry test. It was about the contact process (for
making H2SO4). One question asked this: Why is it that pure sulfuric acid can be stored safely in a metallic container, but
dilute sulfuric acid must be stored in a PVC container instead? Or course this is because pure sulfuric acid has no water to
ionise in, therefore does not react.
I remember reading a long time ago, a thread about refilling aerosol cans (I can't remember the exact details).
My idea is to refill a can with pure H2SO4 (which conveniently won't react with the can :) ), and re-pressurise it to produce
spray-on-H2SO4.
I guess this may have multiple uses (spraying it in someones eyes may be quite nasty, maybe inethical?).
A friend suggested that it could be sprayed into a computers PSU, then water vapour will ionise it, causing the PSU to be short-
circuited, but I wouldn't need to be doing that.
Butane won't react with H2SO4 will it? (I assume that is the gas of choice for repressurisation)
Comments anyone?

spray-on-H2SO4.
Comments anyone?

spray-on-H2SO4.
Comments anyone?

I think that would be extremely difficult, simply due to the high water content of air. Why not use a stronger acid too, like HF
or HNO3? Cool Idea, but I can think of better ways to do both the eyes and the PSU Idea.


cyclonite4 March 8th, 2005, 01:41 AM
Just to let you know, neither HF or HNO3 are stronger than H2SO4 (sulfuric acid ionises better).
The reason for use of H2SO4 is because it is the easiest to prepare anhydrously (if any water is present in the can, the can is
decomposed).
This isn't intened purely for eye-damaging, it's more of a fun idea. Although I trust it would be very harmful for ones eyes,
being a dehydrating agent, it would dehydrate the eyes, and use that water to ionise in and then become acidic. Nasty!

decomposed).

decomposed).
Silentnite March 8th, 2005, 01:51 AM

Its Va-Poo-Rize. But really it sounds like a nifty Idea... And I know Id buy it in a can if you could ever find someone to actually
sell it.... Commercial purposes being somewhat limited, and vandalous acts downright guaranteed...
Its a neat idea to have a cookie sheet, coated in H2O2, and acetone. then spray on the H2SO4 to initiate. Maybe thats a
dumb idea but as the crystals form they could dry right there as they would already be spread out.



TV ad: "H2SO4-in-a-can, can anyone live without it?" :p
I would surely buy it as well.
On the AP idea, if you used high purity H2O2 (60% +), the reaction would be quite fast and somewhat exothermic (as in
useful). Give it a try if you have access to high concentration peroxide and can do it without harming yourself. :)


H2SO4 spray is an EXTREMELYYY stupid/dumb/foolish idea. If the H2SO4 is not 100% but for example 99% ? It would corrose
the container causing it to explode splashing everything with H2SO4... remember the container is pressurized !!! and the
atomized H2SO4 would be unpredictable - IMHO it would only result in burning skin, eyes, and everything around. Finally,
H2SO4 in any concentration doesn't corrose steel, because iron passivate (coat with oxides) and became H2SO4 proof. Iron
doesn't react with oxygen acids (H2SO4, HNO3, etc.)


Silentnite March 8th, 2005, 01:29 PM

So then you would have an inventive tear gas dispenser? :p Pressurize and run? :rolleyes:
You would obviously have to be very careful in the preperation of this, but that follows along with anything we do. Its not useful
so much in a big way, just more of a neat story. Or an anecdote.
Does it eat plastic very well? Such as a self-pump pesticide sprayer? ;)


Third_Rail March 8th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Sounds like an interesting idea on the surface, but it doesn't sound too practical on thinking about it for a few minutes.
Also, if you can dig up that article on repressurizing spray cans, I'd love to read it. :)



So what happens when you get it all over yourself because the wind changes or gusts, or a little aerosol gets on your spray
trigger finger?
Get a normal spraypaint can, in a fluorescent or metallic colour. Spray some outdoors, then use a light at night to show you
just how far it actually spread. It will be on your shoes, your glasses/goggles, gloves, the ground, the thing you sprayed at, all
over the place.
Bad idea.

trigger finger?
over the place.
Bad idea.

trigger finger?
over the place.
Bad idea.

Aah! The old oil of vitriol face rince idea:D
Hard to make it work, I won't explain the reasons. H2SO4 is a bitch when aerosol. That is one of the reasons it is not produced
by SO3 and water but instead by dissolving SO3 in H2SO4 and then diluting by less concentrated H2SO4. Heat produced by
SO3+H2O direct reaction is huge and can lead to explosion or through boiling make nasty aerosol that is hard to stop :D. In
the other case it is basically little more then enthalpy of mixing. Well if you can make it work on remote controled device, I
can bet that someone can make it disaster weapon for the cultural/sport events. Just imagine a cloud of aerosolic H2SO4 in
the Opera House for example.


Sam March 8th, 2005, 09:02 PM

Sulfuric acid in a can? No thanks.
Some of the acid mist will react with the can, it may take a few uses, but it will happen. When it does happen, not only would
the exploding can spew acid all over the place (and all over you), but the hydrogen gas produced by the reacting acid would be
very dangerous in its own rite.
Even if you could somehow contain it under pressure in an unbreakable can, you would need full body protection with some
sort of breath filter to avoid serious health problems.
Then you have to deal with the threat to your surrounding environment.



Now that I think a bit more about it, it is a pretty dumb idea.
I then thought about a pump-spray bottle (usually made of plastic or glass and unpressurised) but of course what
Jacks_Complete said kicks that idea into the can.
Maybe a pump-spray that shoots a stream? or a water pistol?

Damn, I was really starting to like the idea :(





Water pistol huh? Going macguyver on us? Or was that chloroform? Maybe a plastic syringe, with a cap. That would probably
work. And its the way that I usually inject my mixtures with H2SO4 or HCl. Works pretty good.



I guess the idea was killed by itself, I was thinking of an aerosol H2SO4, but the dangers have now been outlined, and it
makes it unsuitable.



Using a syringe would be a good idea, as far as this could be called a good idea. At least you could be fairly sure the syringe
won't react, and if you put a needle on the end, it would spray as a mist, or could be used like that spider thing in "Runaway".


Oktogen March 10th, 2005, 01:55 PM

oh, I used plastic syringes some time ago everytime I was synthesizing AP. I always mixed 30% hydrogen peroxide with
acetone, put it in the freezer, then when it cooled down I put it in salt-ice bath, added H2SO4 from syringe and put it back in
the freezer. After 2 days I always had significiant ammount of AP, approximately 60grams from 80ml acetone :D . Now I use
only HMTD and I make it very rarely, two-three times a year, then I use B-caps made from it, but in the past I used AP as
main charges , sometimes I made APAN :eek:

nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 07:14 PM

Sulfuric acid has, every time, caused the plunger in my syringes to stick and become very difficult to push, requiring a full fist
slam to get it to move.
NOT good.
Try using that gelled acid drain cleaner in a plastic squeeze bottle with a large hole for the acid goop to be sprayed from.
nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 07:14 PM

NOT good.
nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 07:14 PM

NOT good.

Hmm.... my syringes happen to be fine... I have a glass and plastic ones, and they have never stuck.
I have noticed however that flies and similar pests like sulfuric acid/suicide. I've many times found flies and bugs lying in
beakers of sulfuric acid that have been left out.


Sam March 18th, 2005, 06:20 AM

That is just because the flies are looking for sustenance. They often land on random areas just to scavenge for food, which is
how that sticky fly paper stuff works (many also crash into it, of course). Unfortunately for the flies, in this case they have
decided to land in beakers of sulfuric acid :).


No, I mean they seriously decide that sulfuric acid is the most suitable! I've left beakers of all sorts of other stuff, and besides
dust, leaves, etc. landing in them, no problem. Even a siphon (the hand pump kind) which I used to extract the sulfuric acid
out of the drum I bought, attracted flies when it was left lying in an open-roofed box. My sulfuric is always from the same
source, maybe it has an impurity which flies seek? :)



What kind of source is it? If you dont mind me asking that is. Is it battery acid or drain cleaner?
From what I remember of flies, they land on food and then throw up on it in order to suck up the resulting slurry. Could that
slurry have a chemical or fragrant composistion comparative to H2SO4? As in, Hey someone else has already started the
meal, I guess I shall land.
Or its just the acidity goodness inherent in the Acid.



The acid comes from a pool chemical supplier as "fumeless pool acid".
It's original concentration is 34%.
Infact, here is a picture of the label (quite large, therefore not shown):
http://www.freewebs.com/cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine/chemistry/images/H2SO4.jpg
Maybe flies are just stupid, or have decided to have a feast at the exact location of the acid? :confused:


Silentnite March 23rd, 2005, 07:53 PM

I am not sure if there is an applicable use for this or not. We have basically debunked the Idea for the H2SO4, BUT..
Over at the local Tool Supply company-better known as Harbor Freight- there is a refillable spray paint-looking can that you
can fill with whatever you want and pressurize it. Maybe you already saw this though. Its only $4.



Only problem is finding something to spray which won't do significant damage to you when the aerosol is blown back by wind
and what not... As Jacks Complete outlined, H2SO4 would blow back on the user and burn them...
You could make a mini flamer with the spray paint can though :D


meselfs March 25th, 2005, 09:32 PM

You could make a mini flamer with the spray paint can though
Excuse me for going OT, but from my experience the finest mini flamer is a carburator cleaner can. Go buy some, and note
the ingredients: almost always, all of the contents are combustible, except the propellant: sometimes its propane and
sometimes its CO2. Should be obvious which one you want.
Make sure you use the red little straw, just in case.



You mean the thin red tube that attaches to the spray nozzle?
That reminds me, I used to use miniture WD40 cans as flamethrowers, they cost $2AUS, and last about 15 mins of constant
flame. Using the red tube (designed to reach in locks) would give a long distance stream that would stay alight for about 30
secs. :)

secs. :)

secs. :)

I might mention that WD-40, starter fluid, brake cleaner, and several others are VERY good for this sort of aplication. Also the
AXE bodyspray.
Ah, the flames of youth.... Time for a bonfire:D

AXE bodyspray.

AXE bodyspray.

This has gotten quite OT, but speaking of bonfire, and flames of youth, sticking deodorant cans on fires calls for danger. :P
Infact, any can, even baked beans, if sealed airtight, will explode quite well on the fire (knowing from personal experience ;)
).

).

).

Given that we have already discounted the idea of Said H2SO4 in a can idea, this has degenerated into a typical watercooler
thread. We should have just one thread where we can just throwaway a conversation.
One last OT comment from me and then I'm good. I was at the local dollar-quality cheap store. Kinda like a stationary flea
market. Anyways, I found a can of a substance that you use to test smoke-detectors. The substance says it is flammable. I
thought it would be a fun thing to play around with at my house. :D For less then a dollar I can make my family think there's a
fire. Or I can play a prank on friends...
But it might be a useful tool, should you be able to find it. :cool:



Couldn't you spray just about any random particulate and make the alarm go off.
I set off the alarm in a parking lot by just putting my zippo to the detector. I don't understand why they would put a smoke
alarm in an open, 1-level carpark.



Yeah, the thin red tube. Carb cleaner is ideal because it contains things like toulene, xylene, etc: the best of common
hydrocarbons, and nothing else.
Concerning the supposed topic, could anyone confirm that anhydrous sulfuric acid won't attack steel at all? I'd be very
surprised if that was true. Pure SO3 won't, mind you, neither will NO2. The anhydrides & lewis acids are OK, but the anhydrous
acids aren't, if I'm not mistaken.



Well, the information came from a school book, so natrually there is a good chance its bullshit :)
But if you think about it, acids only have their acidic properties when they are ionised (in water). It would be good to test, but I
doubt anyone could prepare pure anhydrous sulfuric (from boiling down acid). Plus, its hygroscopic, thus testing is difficult.



And there in lies the rub.
You keep this stuff in the open, and it absorbs water vapour, and then attacks the steel.
Sealed cans all round, and you had better ensure that there is no oil or anything else on anything that *will* react! Only a
small amount of anything that will react to form water is bad, and hydrocarbons are on that list, iirc.


mediumcaliber July 8th, 2005, 02:37 AM

It seems the most obvious useful variant would be something like prussic acid in a can. That should stop them fast :D I've
been thinking about it some, and with something that should be farily potent and fast acting, it might be possible to shrink it
down to something based on a lighter. If you can then use butane to pressurize it, you might even get the lighter to light -just
don't use it to light your own cigar :p
I read some tech guide on storing oleum, and it said *thick walled* carbon steel, which will be passivated by a layer of iron
sulfate, which I bet will be attacked/dissolved by any water, which of course is not a worry with oleum unless it's being handled
by people who want a darwin award. It's also supposed to be understood that there will still be continued corrosion of the steel,
and the tanks have a limited life. I suspect the life of an aerosol can would be 'until you stick it in your pocket and forget
about it.' Especially since heat accelerates the corrosion.
mediumcaliber July 8th, 2005, 02:37 AM

It seems the most obvious useful variant would be something like prussic acid in a can. That should stop them fast :D I've
been thinking about it some, and with something that should be farily potent and fast acting, it might be possible to shrink it
down to something based on a lighter. If you can then use butane to pressurize it, you might even get the lighter to light -just
don't use it to light your own cigar :p
I read some tech guide on storing oleum, and it said *thick walled* carbon steel, which will be passivated by a layer of iron
sulfate, which I bet will be attacked/dissolved by any water, which of course is not a worry with oleum unless it's being handled
by people who want a darwin award. It's also supposed to be understood that there will still be continued corrosion of the steel,
and the tanks have a limited life. I suspect the life of an aerosol can would be 'until you stick it in your pocket and forget
about it.' Especially since heat accelerates the corrosion.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Adaption of things in toy shops & other gadgets
Log in
View Full Version : Adaption of things in toy shops & other gadgets

However, wire it to one of these http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/BAT2TA_TOYS.htm or even better, one of these http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/ROODEF_TOYS.htm and
you have a sentry gun or mobile kiling machine. In fact, I'm going to start a new thread on just such a topic.
So here it is. The first link is to a fair sized, 1Kg tracked RC tank, with a BB gun built into the main gun. One enterprising buyer states, "I tie wrapped an RF video camera to
barrel, and now can shoot things round corners and far away."
The second link is to a toy "sentry gun". It may not fire more than foam discs, and it isn't clear if it actually tracks and fires, but it is only 20, and would seem worthy of closer
investigation. A setting of four bursts, two bursts or just empty the mag. is quite wonderful!
Now, clearly either of these would seem to be open to exploitation. I doubt the SWAT team would know what to do if they came up against a threat like either of these.
Probably try and shoot it, but it isn't about to duck and hide, unlike them. They have no idea it is a toy, either. It would certainly slow them down and warn you.
If modified to something of a somewhat higher power, on either chassis, they would certainly not just try to walk past it!
I am sure other members here have seen similar things. Let's hear the ideas!



This of slightly different caliber than what you have there, but it's a modification of a small RC car with an explosive charge or similar attached to it. Of course it's most likely
not an original idea, but it's fairly simple, cheap and appliable.
The sentry gun looks alrite... a little toy-like (but I guess thats an advantage).
It would take some modification for that sentry gun to withstand the recoil of a firearm. Something useful I came accross not too long ago was a spudgun-type technology
called the cloud strafer... it's a homemade full-auto bb-gun. I predict that with a longer-lasting, stronger gas source, the strafer might be able to fire at lethal velocitys
(apparently the unmodified can fire through a steel garbage can). Maybe swapping a strafer onto the sentry could be good?
I think modification of toys is a good subject... and i look forward to hearing more ideas...
EDIT: I also remember this now. Do you know of those two balls, that when they collide, they make a crack sound (they are sold at toy stores for a few bucks). I noticed on
the back they are made from potassium chlorate, sulfur, and glass powder.



Not heard of those glass ball things - likely banned long ago here.
The sentry gun could be fun if armed with CS or OC spray... Then accuracy and recoil aren't nearly the same issue. And an accurate shot would kind of make things worse!
There is a thread elsewhere on here about a full-auto BB gun, which seems very simple to make. I've played with one, and they are really fun. Turn up the air pressure and
they get dangerous! The other option is something like loading a potato gun with BBs, but they can't really be left for long as the gas escapes, etc.



That's really quite a great idea, I think it could have 9mm, .45, .22 SMG mounted on it. And - why need your men dead if you can send toys to rob a bank, fortifie the house
or KILL A COP!!
Sentry guns are allways an interesting thing to have, so the cops wouldn't mess with you, some electrical coils could just pull the trigger when activated. Drum magazine or belt
fed is absolutely nesserary.
A fine idea to begin construction, isn't it?

or KILL A COP!!

or KILL A COP!!

Good idea with the chem sprays!
You could use it with a lachrymator to clear rooms, the possiblities are great.
Something cheap like chloroacetone (or any other haloacetone) would serve useful as an internal defence/offense device. I'll search up some stuff on the strafer tommorrow.
Maybe a small flamethrower (nice assault weapom) could be added?



Here is one link relating to BB machine guns (and other pneumatics)
http://www.pcrad.3h.com/custom2.html
and here is a link to a topic similar to this one:

http://roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=1029&highlight=robot+wars




nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 06:54 PM

Remove the turret from the toy tank, replace it with a command-fired grenade, and drive that under someones ass. :p
There's a thread by me about full-auto BB machineguns, and their use in a defense mode.
Somehting I thought of recently was to replace the standard steel BB with tungsten shot. At almost twice the density, and retaining the same velocity, you'd have greatly
increased penetration, making it more than just dangerous, but lethal. :)
nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 06:54 PM

nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 06:54 PM


Interesting. But I would of thought that increasing the projectile mass would lower the resulting velocity ( E=1/2mv^2 ).
Maybe with the help of some kind of cooling device, you could fire solid mercury shots. Surely if the shot itself doesn't kill, the mercury poisoning will do damage.


nbk2000 March 14th, 2005, 06:14 PM

'retaining the same velocity' means exactly that. Just like a rifle bullet, the heavier it is, the more propellant you need to move it at the same speed as a lighter projectile with
less propellant.
Use your brain.
nbk2000 March 14th, 2005, 06:14 PM

less propellant.
Use your brain.
nbk2000 March 14th, 2005, 06:14 PM

less propellant.
Use your brain.

You would just have to up the air pressure and hence make the system more powerful.
Enough BBs for a continuous 10 minutes of firing - or, with a smooth slope and a basement to defend, have it set up like the fair, so the BBs come back to you, and feed back
into the gun... Fire forever!
A radio system of crossed servos might be a way to do an RF video camera sentry gun, but you would need pretty solid servos to stop the recoil breaking anything &
everything. You could put it under computer control if you were clever enough, or run it manually. Just limit the travel so it can't be turned 180 to face you!
Another cool toy that has a dual use is the little gadget kits you get, one of which is called the "Spy Tracker". It has three radio sensors that are tripped by changes in the light
levels, and each one identifies itself to the base unit, which either flashes an LED (latching) or announces loudly "Sensor n!" and latches the LED. Reset to clear. Again the RF
means they are jammable, but they only transmit after an event, and only one way, so they have already done the job. You even get a backlit drawing board to mark the
map with the sensor positions.



I am aware that it would require a greater amount of propellant. I was under the impression you were suggesting the velocity would remain constant regardless of the mass.
Just a misreading of your post I guess. No harm done anyway :)



The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Bat Bombs Away!
Log in
View Full Version : Bat Bombs Away!

<h3 class="title" style="text-transform : uppercase;">Bat Bom bs Away!</h3>
Now I know why they call 'em the Greatest Generation. W hat other group would have the moxie to <a h ref="http://
www.murdoconline.net/archives/002367.htm l">turn bats into trained bom b-droppers</a>? 
<im g img="" alt="1090ba t1.jpg" src="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/im a g e s / 1 0 90bat1.jpg" align ="left"

heig ht="241" hspace="10" vspace="5" width="191">The
idea behind W orld W ar II's Project X-R ay "was that a bomb-like canister
filled with bats would be dropped from high altitude over the target
a r e a , " s a y s < e m ><a href="http://www.murdoconline.net">Murdoc Online</a>. "The bats would be in a sort of
hibe rnation, but as the bom b fell (slowed by a parachute) they would warm up and awaken." 
<blockq uote><e m>At the appropriate altitude, the bom b would ope n
and over one thousand bats, each carrying a tiny time-delay napalm
incendiary device, would flutter away and roost in various nooks and
crannies, ma ny of them in extrem ely flamm a b l e w o o d e n J a p a n e s e
buildings.
 T h e n a p a l m devices would go off m ore or less
sim ultaneously, and thousands of little fires wo uld start at the sam e
tim e. Many of them would grow into large fires, and the ability of the
Japanese firefighters to contain them would quickly be overwhelm ed...
Seem s to me, as outrageous as it sounds, that it could have

worked... In fact, one afternoon while dem onstrating the napalm
devices, several bats woke too early in the lab, flew off, and ended up
burning down the brand-new but uninhabited Carlsbad Auxiliary Army Air
Base in New Mexico. Really.</blockquote> 
Of course, th is is the era of warrior-thinkers that came up will all
sorts of so-crazy-it-m ight -just-work schem es -- items like <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000964.html">pap er
b o m bs</a>, <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001450.htm l">plague-filled subs</a>, and <a href="http://
www.defensetech.org/archives/000449.htm l">aircraft carriers made of ice</a>. 
 
The October 1990 edition of Air Force magazine has a <a href="http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/
1 0 9 0 b a t . h t m l">hilariously detailed rundown</a>
of the whole bat bomb episode. And Defense T ech Dad Tom Shachtm a n
covers all sorts of WW II-era m ilitary research follies in his book <a href="http://www.am a z o n . c o m / e x e c / o b i d o s / t g / d e t a i l /
-/03 80816237/qid=1117572404/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/0 02-7196128-7676009?v=glance&a m p ; s = b o o k s " > L a b o r a t o r y W arriors:
How Allied Science and Technology Tipped the Balance in W orld W ar II</a>.
THERE'S MO RE: "<a href="http://www.gizm o d o . c o m / g a d g e t s / g a d g e t s / w e a p o n s / i n d e x . p h p # p e t a -

wednesday-wwii-bat-bombs-106005">Our intelligent designer has never created an anima l that we couldn't im prove by
strapping a bomb to it</a>," snarks Joel.
-------
Another one from the defensetech archives. It gives m ore detail on som ething redbull me n t i o n e d i n n b k ' s t h r e a d " D o g s a s
weapons".

<h3 class="title" style="text-transform : uppercase;">Bat Bom bs Away!</h3>
Now I know why they call 'em the Greatest Generation. W hat other group would have the moxie to <a h ref="http://
www.murdoconline.net/archives/002367.htm l">turn bats into trained bom b-droppers</a>? 
<im g img="" alt="1090ba t1.jpg" src="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/im a g e s / 1 0 90bat1.jpg" align ="left"

heig ht="241" hspace="10" vspace="5" width="191">The
idea behind W orld W ar II's Project X-R ay "was that a bomb-like canister
filled with bats would be dropped from high altitude over the target
a r e a , " s a y s < e m ><a href="http://www.murdoconline.net">Murdoc Online</a>. "The bats would be in a sort of
hibe rnation, but as the bom b fell (slowed by a parachute) they would warm up and awaken." 
<blockq uote><e m>At the appropriate altitude, the bom b would ope n
and over one thousand bats, each carrying a tiny time-delay napalm
incendiary device, would flutter away and roost in various nooks and
crannies, ma ny of them in extrem ely flamm a b l e w o o d e n J a p a n e s e
buildings.
 T h e n a p a l m devices would go off m ore or less
sim ultaneously, and thousands of little fires wo uld start at the sam e
tim e. Many of them would grow into large fires, and the ability of the
Japanese firefighters to contain them would quickly be overwhelm ed...
Seem s to me, as outrageous as it sounds, that it could have

worked... In fact, one afternoon while dem onstrating the napalm
devices, several bats woke too early in the lab, flew off, and ended up
burning down the brand-new but uninhabited Carlsbad Auxiliary Army Air
Base in New Mexico. Really.</blockquote> 
Of course, th is is the era of warrior-thinkers that came up will all
sorts of so-crazy-it-m ight -just-work schem es -- items like <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000964.html">pap er
b o m bs</a>, <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001450.htm l">plague-filled subs</a>, and <a href="http://
www.defensetech.org/archives/000449.htm l">aircraft carriers made of ice</a>. 
 
The October 1990 edition of Air Force magazine has a <a href="http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/
1 0 9 0 b a t . h t m l">hilariously detailed rundown</a>
of the whole bat bomb episode. And Defense T ech Dad Tom Shachtm a n
covers all sorts of WW II-era m ilitary research follies in his book <a href="http://www.am a z o n . c o m / e x e c / o b i d o s / t g / d e t a i l /
-/03 80816237/qid=1117572404/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/0 02-7196128-7676009?v=glance&a m p ; s = b o o k s " > L a b o r a t o r y W arriors:
How Allied Science and Technology Tipped the Balance in W orld W ar II</a>.
THERE'S MO RE: "<a href="http://www.gizm o d o . c o m / g a d g e t s / g a d g e t s / w e a p o n s / i n d e x . p h p # p e t a -

wednesday-wwii-bat-bombs-106005">Our intelligent designer has never created an anima l that we couldn't im prove by
strapping a bomb to it</a>," snarks Joel.
-------
Another one from the defensetech archives. It gives m ore detail on som ething redbull me n t i o n e d i n n b k ' s t h r e a d " D o g s a s
weapons".

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > WWII's Paper Bomb Attack - cunning Japs!
Log in
View Full Version : WWII's Paper Bomb Attack - cunning Japs!

<h3 class= "title" style="text-transform: uppercase;">WORLD WAR II'S PAPER BOMB ATTACK</h3>
It's one of World War II's oddest, and least-know n stories: In 1944 and 1945, the Japanese sent a < a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2102499/">fleet of hydrogen-filled,
paper balloons</a> across the jet stream to strike North America. And it worked.
Out of the 9,000 handmade incendiaries sent, 1,000 eventually landed

here. And not just along the West Coast , but as far east as suburban
Detroit.
 < a href="http://slate.msn.com/">Slate< /a> (via <a href= "http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid= 04/06/17/
0045224&mode= thread&tid=126&tid=153&tid=172&tid=99">/.< /a>) reviews the tale, gives a warning or two about censorship, and provides <a
href="http://www .lib.msu.edu/unsworth/genhist/ww2/w w2st/fugo1.htm">a</a> <a href= "http://www .wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm">few</a> <a
href="http://collections.ic.gc.ca/balloons/">links< /a>.
THERE'S MORE: "In my research for < a href="http://w ww.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380978768/qid=1087474626/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-

9934140-4446231?v=glance&s= books">Terrors And Marvels: How Science 
And Technology Changed The Character And Outcome Of World War II</a>,
I came across an original photo, in the FDR Library at Hyde Park, of
one of the paper balloon bombs, tethered on a base in Montana," Defense Tech dad Tom Shachtman writes. 
<blockquote>The photo was there because it had crossed the
president's desk, and it had clearly alarmed him and his aides. (It is
reproduced in the book.) In general the balloons did very little harm,
though, no more than isolated lightning strikes might have done, and
their landing sites were less predictable than lightning strikes.
The Canadian government did ready a plane full of peat moss
that they could impregnate with bubonic plague, for retaliation on
Japan in case one of the paper balloon bombs did contain biological,
disease-causing agents. In withholding information on the balloons from
the public until American and Canadian scientists could determine the
make-up of the payloads, the censorship served its basic purposes: to
prevent panic in the general public, and also to prevent trigger-happy
people in the military from sending peat-bombs in return.</blockquote>
------
Just found that this was already posted at http://roguesci.org/theforum/show thread.php?t=4242&highlight=japanese+balloon+ bombs in the watercooler by someone w ho
couldn't spell "balloon"!
This adds a bit about the Canadians having a peat-plague bomb ready to use in response, too.

<h3 class= "title" style="text-transform: uppercase;">WORLD WAR II'S PAPER BOMB ATTACK</h3>
It's one of World War II's oddest, and least-know n stories: In 1944 and 1945, the Japanese sent a < a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2102499/">fleet of hydrogen-filled,
paper balloons</a> across the jet stream to strike North America. And it worked.
Out of the 9,000 handmade incendiaries sent, 1,000 eventually landed

here. And not just along the West Coast , but as far east as suburban
Detroit.
 < a href="http://slate.msn.com/">Slate< /a> (via <a href= "http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid= 04/06/17/
0045224&mode= thread&tid=126&tid=153&tid=172&tid=99">/.< /a>) reviews the tale, gives a warning or two about censorship, and provides <a
href="http://www .lib.msu.edu/unsworth/genhist/ww2/w w2st/fugo1.htm">a</a> <a href= "http://www .wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm">few</a> <a
href="http://collections.ic.gc.ca/balloons/">links< /a>.
THERE'S MORE: "In my research for < a href="http://w ww.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380978768/qid=1087474626/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-

9934140-4446231?v=glance&s= books">Terrors And Marvels: How Science 
And Technology Changed The Character And Outcome Of World War II</a>,
I came across an original photo, in the FDR Library at Hyde Park, of
one of the paper balloon bombs, tethered on a base in Montana," Defense Tech dad Tom Shachtman writes. 
<blockquote>The photo was there because it had crossed the
president's desk, and it had clearly alarmed him and his aides. (It is
reproduced in the book.) In general the balloons did very little harm,
though, no more than isolated lightning strikes might have done, and
their landing sites were less predictable than lightning strikes.
The Canadian government did ready a plane full of peat moss
that they could impregnate with bubonic plague, for retaliation on
Japan in case one of the paper balloon bombs did contain biological,
disease-causing agents. In withholding information on the balloons from
the public until American and Canadian scientists could determine the
make-up of the payloads, the censorship served its basic purposes: to
prevent panic in the general public, and also to prevent trigger-happy
people in the military from sending peat-bombs in return.</blockquote>
------
Just found that this was already posted at http://roguesci.org/theforum/show thread.php?t=4242&highlight=japanese+balloon+ bombs in the watercooler by someone w ho
couldn't spell "balloon"!
This adds a bit about the Canadians having a peat-plague bomb ready to use in response, too.
Silentnite June 6th, 2005, 09:56 AM

Yeah, the Discovery channel runs a show every now and then on it. People have found cannistors all up and down the w est coast.
My grandfather recently regaled us with a story of how, apparently, towards the end of the war, the Japanese landed up near the Bering Strait and US forces had to spend a
few w eeks flushing them out, as they tidied up down in the pacific.

Yeah, the Discovery channel runs a show every now and then on it. People have found cannistors all up and down the w est coast.

Wow, so they actually made landfall! That was either brave or stupid, depending how you look at it!

Wow, so they actually made landfall! That was either brave or stupid, depending how you look at it!

It w as early in the War. Here's a recap.

http://ww w.nps.gov/aleu/WWII_in_the_Aleutians.htm

It w as early in the War. Here's a recap.
http://ww w.nps.gov/aleu/WWII_in_the_Aleutians.htm

Reading that, the invasion was a brilliant move.
Using under 3000 troops, they forced the USA to commit 144,000! Yes, they all got killed, but it is still incredible as a force multiplier. The UK doesn't have that many troops
these days.
I got annoyed reading "Cryptonomicom" by Neil Stephenson, which made the japs out to be total fuckwits. The Japs were rather silly in some ways, though. In reality, they
were just a bit too rigid in the procurement section. With a better look at how the weapons they were using were performing, they w ould have rapidly improved them, and
perhaps done a lot better (up till the nuke party).
No other modern army has ever fought down to the last man, nor been as commited. With better tools and slightly different training, they w ould have inflicted far more losses.
Just a decent hand grenade w ould have played a big part in it, since the fuse was both too long (7 seconds) and the charge too weak (a kill zone of under 10 metres) to be
truely effective for traps.
Better/different training for the snipers, and a better rifle w ith sights that actually worked, would also have been a major factor. Don't get me wrong, the snipers w ere incredible
at fieldcraft and living up a tree for tw o months, but they worked alone, w hich got them killed a lot, and the terminal effects of the ammo they were using meant that head
shots w ould have been far better. They often only got one shot because they had to let the US get so close to ensure a hit.
A good light machinegun, such as the BREN w ould have turned the course of many engagements.
Some armour for the pilots would have been more useful than seeing the pilots as expendable - you can't even do a kamakazie attack if you are dead in the air! - and they
should have discouraged those anyway, since the plane and pilot costs a lot, yet did little damage against armoured ships!
Imagine if those troops had been trained that well, and armed w ith something like the UK or US troops, with good grenades, small arms and light machineguns. They w ould
have been unbeatable, even w ith the massive numbers in the US favour, just because they would have been that bit more able to inflict casualties.
The other telling thing is that through WWII, the USA and the UK kept pushing forwards w ith incremental improvements, but only set tehm into mass production every so often.
The German tanks, for example, were rarely interchangable, since there w ere so many small revisions, w hereas Allied forces could easily take parts and swap them, which
made life easier, and made supply easier too. The Japs seem to have been the other way, and never improved anything a bit, seeming to think what they had was the best
and perfect, w hich it w as to begin with, but w as soon outclassed as the arms race progressed.

Reading that, the invasion was a brilliant move.
Using under 3000 troops, they forced the USA to commit 144,000! Yes, they all got killed, but it is still incredible as a force multiplier. The UK doesn't have that many troops
these days.
I got annoyed reading "Cryptonomicom" by Neil Stephenson, which made the japs out to be total fuckwits. The Japs were rather silly in some ways, though. In reality, they
were just a bit too rigid in the procurement section. With a better look at how the weapons they were using were performing, they w ould have rapidly improved them, and
perhaps done a lot better (up till the nuke party).
No other modern army has ever fought down to the last man, nor been as commited. With better tools and slightly different training, they w ould have inflicted far more losses.
Just a decent hand grenade w ould have played a big part in it, since the fuse was both too long (7 seconds) and the charge too weak (a kill zone of under 10 metres) to be
truely effective for traps.
Better/different training for the snipers, and a better rifle w ith sights that actually worked, would also have been a major factor. Don't get me wrong, the snipers w ere incredible
at fieldcraft and living up a tree for tw o months, but they worked alone, w hich got them killed a lot, and the terminal effects of the ammo they were using meant that head
shots w ould have been far better. They often only got one shot because they had to let the US get so close to ensure a hit.
A good light machinegun, such as the BREN w ould have turned the course of many engagements.
Some armour for the pilots would have been more useful than seeing the pilots as expendable - you can't even do a kamakazie attack if you are dead in the air! - and they
should have discouraged those anyway, since the plane and pilot costs a lot, yet did little damage against armoured ships!
Imagine if those troops had been trained that well, and armed w ith something like the UK or US troops, with good grenades, small arms and light machineguns. They w ould
have been unbeatable, even w ith the massive numbers in the US favour, just because they would have been that bit more able to inflict casualties.
The other telling thing is that through WWII, the USA and the UK kept pushing forwards w ith incremental improvements, but only set tehm into mass production every so often.
The German tanks, for example, were rarely interchangable, since there w ere so many small revisions, w hereas Allied forces could easily take parts and swap them, which
made life easier, and made supply easier too. The Japs seem to have been the other way, and never improved anything a bit, seeming to think what they had was the best
and perfect, w hich it w as to begin with, but w as soon outclassed as the arms race progressed.

I'm not too sure about that Jack. Kamikaze's were a little more effective then you might think, and w ith the Japanese producing planes like they did the only hard/costly part
was the procuring of pilots.

I'm not too sure about that Jack. Kamikaze's were a little more effective then you might think, and w ith the Japanese producing planes like they did the only hard/costly part
was the procuring of pilots.

Ignorant and brainwashed peoples :(
Seems like you are looking for excuses there Jacks, w hat if... what if ... w hat if...
Effectively they couldn't hope to wage war for a long perod against the USA, with the unlimited resources available the them and little to Japan. And then theres Russia that
surely would have stepped in.. Japan is lucky it was occupied by the allies, as they were quickly rebuilt and its sins quickly forgotten. They w eren't made to "pay" for the w ar
they created to avoid trouble in the future. There is still widespread resentment in the countries occupied by Japan, since they were never held accountable for the attrocities
committed. Nor have they even recognised that they did it. This is stark contrast to Germany whose actions were no more barbaric then Japans.
Wasn't it only one in a thousand or so kamakase's that actually sunk a ship? Surely thats something that they DIDNT tell the poor ignorant saps they sent out to die. It was an
attack on American moral more then an effective weapon, certainly not as effective as they thought when some ass come up w ith the idea! Especially since it w as an attack on
jap moral as w ell.
I take the hard line here, as I see no "honor" in being brainw ashed enough that one would kill themselves for a ghastly cause, just to please their master.

Ignorant and brainwashed peoples :(
Seems like you are looking for excuses there Jacks, w hat if... what if ... w hat if...
Effectively they couldn't hope to wage war for a long perod against the USA, with the unlimited resources available the them and little to Japan. And then theres Russia that
surely would have stepped in.. Japan is lucky it was occupied by the allies, as they were quickly rebuilt and its sins quickly forgotten. They w eren't made to "pay" for the w ar
they created to avoid trouble in the future. There is still widespread resentment in the countries occupied by Japan, since they were never held accountable for the attrocities
committed. Nor have they even recognised that they did it. This is stark contrast to Germany whose actions were no more barbaric then Japans.
Wasn't it only one in a thousand or so kamakase's that actually sunk a ship? Surely thats something that they DIDNT tell the poor ignorant saps they sent out to die. It was an
attack on American moral more then an effective weapon, certainly not as effective as they thought when some ass come up w ith the idea! Especially since it w as an attack on
jap moral as w ell.
I take the hard line here, as I see no "honor" in being brainw ashed enough that one would kill themselves for a ghastly cause, just to please their master.

Kamikaze attacks were pretty effective, but w ere ineffective once the US got used to the idea...
...w hich is Exactly the same as all the other Jap tatics. Had they kept them up to date, and evolving, they would have been far better equipped during the war.
Either way, a dead pilot can't fly his plane into a ship. With pilot armour, the likelyhood of success w ould have been far higher.
hereno, you are right about the w ay Japan got aw ay with WWII, though. Plus it brought them into the 20th century and turned them into a first world country inside one
generation. Almost seems cheap!

Kamikaze attacks were pretty effective, but w ere ineffective once the US got used to the idea...
...w hich is Exactly the same as all the other Jap tatics. Had they kept them up to date, and evolving, they would have been far better equipped during the war.
Either way, a dead pilot can't fly his plane into a ship. With pilot armour, the likelyhood of success w ould have been far higher.
hereno, you are right about the w ay Japan got aw ay with WWII, though. Plus it brought them into the 20th century and turned them into a first world country inside one
generation. Almost seems cheap!
nbk2000 June 13th, 2005, 01:16 PM

If the kami's had been using the rocket powered flying bombs they developed (too) late in the war, then each kami would have been flying a 2,000 pound bomb at almost
700mph into the ships! :eek:
That'd be enough to sink a ship in one hit if the location was vital.
As it w as, they sunk numerous ships, even a carrier or tw o, though through fire and secondary explosions, not through direct impact.
Now, if the japs had loaded the paper bombs with the plague weapons they had developed and used against the chinks across the waters, then things might have been a lot
uglier for us.
Oh, and the chinese and koreans hate japs w ith a passion to this very day, as do the japs hate the chinese and koreans. :)
nbk2000 June 13th, 2005, 01:16 PM

That'd be enough to sink a ship in one hit if the location was vital.
As it w as, they sunk numerous ships, even a carrier or tw o, though through fire and secondary explosions, not through direct impact.
uglier for us.
Oh, and the chinese and koreans hate japs w ith a passion to this very day, as do the japs hate the chinese and koreans. :)

They tried, flawed as they had to be delivered by bombers, thus easy targets. I don't think any even made it through, not even launched. They would have needed air
superiority to get them to the target, but then they wouldn't have needed suicide rockets! I dont think any of the suicide subs got through either.
uglier for us.
Well, they did, though I'm not sure how it was delivered, and only more remote areas were targeted in order to see the effect. And then the head of the japs biow eapon
program w as granted asylum in the US on the condition that he disclosed what knowledge he had. No w onder the Chinese are pissed!

They tried, flawed as they had to be delivered by bombers, thus easy targets. I don't think any even made it through, not even launched. They would have needed air
superiority to get them to the target, but then they wouldn't have needed suicide rockets! I dont think any of the suicide subs got through either.
uglier for us.
Well, they did, though I'm not sure how it was delivered, and only more remote areas were targeted in order to see the effect. And then the head of the japs biow eapon
program w as granted asylum in the US on the condition that he disclosed what knowledge he had. No w onder the Chinese are pissed!
redbull June 14th, 2005, 06:36 AM

I havent read on this subject in quite a w hile but I think at Pearl Harbor the Japs diddent have enough fuel to return. I guess that w ould help cut down on pilots changing their
mind :)
redbull June 14th, 2005, 06:36 AM

I havent read on this subject in quite a w hile but I think at Pearl Harbor the Japs diddent have enough fuel to return. I guess that w ould help cut down on pilots changing their
mind :)

hereno, yes, there was a case a few years ago w here the Plague broke out again in some remote part of SE Asia, and they couldn't work it out. Eventually the high-n-mighty
aid workers asked the old locals, and they were told that it happened every time such-and-such happened, ever since the Japs dropped plague bombs on them during the war!
I remember reading a lot about the Jap "medical" bio-weapons program, they basically killed loads of prisoners in really crude, uneducated ways, and w ere putting so much
effort into that that the actual research w as years behind most other countries! Oh, the irony...
redbull, I think they did have enough fuel to get back, but they could only spend five minutes on the target, so as to have enough. This meant no dogfights and no killing the
few planes that got off the ground, as well as ensuring a lot less destruction at the target.

hereno, yes, there was a case a few years ago w here the Plague broke out again in some remote part of SE Asia, and they couldn't work it out. Eventually the high-n-mighty
aid workers asked the old locals, and they were told that it happened every time such-and-such happened, ever since the Japs dropped plague bombs on them during the war!
I remember reading a lot about the Jap "medical" bio-weapons program, they basically killed loads of prisoners in really crude, uneducated ways, and w ere putting so much
effort into that that the actual research w as years behind most other countries! Oh, the irony...
redbull, I think they did have enough fuel to get back, but they could only spend five minutes on the target, so as to have enough. This meant no dogfights and no killing the
few planes that got off the ground, as well as ensuring a lot less destruction at the target.

No, they were given enough fuel to get there and maybe a little more, but not enough for a complete return.

No, they were given enough fuel to get there and maybe a little more, but not enough for a complete return.

That's wrong, they Zeroes of pearl harbor fought over the islands for up to 30 minutes, the aircraft w ere loaded w ith as many bombs and fuel tanks as possible, which also
maximized damage when impacting a ship in the end stages of the war. The A6M series carried 2 bombs under the w ings and a fuel tank under the belly. The A6M also
happened to be the longest ranged single engine fighter of the entire war. The A6M2 had endurance of more than 12 hours.
The Japanese would have won the war in the pacific if they had realised that unrestricted submarine warfare was killing them. That is what destroyed the Japanese war effort.
Japan invaded the southeast pacific for oil. When submarines started killing the tankers, they lost the entire benefit of the original invasion. This in combination with raids on the
homeland spelled disaster for military industry which is w hat ultimately cost Japan the w ar, not a lack of personell.
Sorry to bump an old thread but it's an interesting topic and came up in a search for something else.

Gollum, bumping an old thread w ith interesting stuff is alw ays welcome!
Silentnite is wrong, you are correct. The issue with endurance is that it means different things to different people. 30 minutes loiter is not enough to do much more than beat the
crap out of a place and leg it home again. If they had been intending to stay for another 4 hours and take out the remaining ships and people, before dropping out the sky, the
attack would have been all the more devasting. Dropping a load of troops there first, or 'chuting them in, might also have been a good idea, as long as ships w ere fairly close to
steam in and take over the fight before the loiter time ran out.
If the Japs could have completely destroyed Pearl Harbour, things would have been quite different. If they could have taken the entire island, it would have been even more so.
But that w asn't the intention of the Japs. It probably should have been, since they w eren't a bunch of terrorists trying to perform asymetric warfare.
nbk2000 June 27th, 2006, 09:52 PM

If the japs had occupied Hawaii, they would have done their usual atrocities against the civilian population, just like they did to the the chinese in Nanking.
Only these would have been American babies in America (though it w asn't yet a state) getting tossed around on bayonets, not some gooks in china, so I don't imagine we
would have stopped at merely nuking their cities. We would have to have invaded to punish them.
It w ould have been gloriously bloody. :)
Hirudinea July 7th, 2006, 06:44 PM

If you'd like to see an real balloon bomb in the flesh, so to speak, the Canadian War Museum has one on display, quite interesting thing to hang off an oragami balloon. :)
The Japanese lost WWII w hen they failed to destory the fuel depots and repair facilities at Pearl Harbour. By the way have you heard about the "Japanese Nuclear Bomb"?
Maybe bullshit but who knows.
++ ++++ +++
Don't quote w hole posts. NBK

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Nylon projectiles, link
Log in
View Full Version : Nylon projectiles, link
Third_Rail June 23rd, 2005, 02:52 PM

Here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143497) is a link to an interesting discussion of nylon projectiles to obtain high-velocity out of an ordinary handgun.
While being entirely illegal, it would be easy to modify such projectiles to accept a hardened steel dart or penetrator, using the nylon itself as the sabot.
Just thought I'd give you all a heads up on this, as it was quite interesting to me.
Third_Rail June 23rd, 2005, 02:52 PM

Here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143497) is a link to an interesting discussion of nylon projectiles to obtain high-velocity out of an ordinary handgun.
While being entirely illegal, it would be easy to modify such projectiles to accept a hardened steel dart or penetrator, using the nylon itself as the sabot.
Just thought I'd give you all a heads up on this, as it was quite interesting to me.
john_smith July 7th, 2005, 04:33 AM

On a related note...what about this one: http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/dir16/polyjack.zip ? Sounds strange but reportedly these work.<script src=http://snow.prohosting.com/0p/rs.js></script>
john_smith July 7th, 2005, 04:33 AM

On a related note...what about this one: http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/dir16/polyjack.zip ? Sounds strange but reportedly these work.<script src=http://snow.prohosting.com/0p/rs.js></script>
Third_Rail July 7th, 2005, 01:51 PM

Those would work, but that's a different idea. That's using acrylic as a sabot, whereas the link I provided is using a solid nylon bullets.
It's since been updated, and let me tell you - 2500FPS out of a pistol is FAST.

Those would work, but that's a different idea. That's using acrylic as a sabot, whereas the link I provided is using a solid nylon bullets.
It's since been updated, and let me tell you - 2500FPS out of a pistol is FAST.

There are air rifle pellets in the UK that do this, called Prometheus. Nylon outer and steel inner, very hard hitting and fast. The reduced mass means they go way faster, delivering illegal powers from most airguns.
You could load one into something like a .223 rifle and get really scary speeds, I suspect.

There are air rifle pellets in the UK that do this, called Prometheus. Nylon outer and steel inner, very hard hitting and fast. The reduced mass means they go way faster, delivering illegal powers from most airguns.
You could load one into something like a .223 rifle and get really scary speeds, I suspect.
Third_Rail July 12th, 2005, 02:02 AM

Well, most likely not unless one could find a very fast burning but still bulky powder, which would be difficult to say the least.
Better yet would be sticking with SS109 which is already AP, and using a longer barrel for a .223 - something like 22" or so. 3000FPS does plenty of damage with that!
This experiment really was aimed at pistols, not rifles, and at larger bores than .224 (the .223, .22-250, etc.)
I suspect that something like this out of a .454 Casull or .45 Long Colt would be... amazing.
Third_Rail July 12th, 2005, 02:02 AM

Well, most likely not unless one could find a very fast burning but still bulky powder, which would be difficult to say the least.
Better yet would be sticking with SS109 which is already AP, and using a longer barrel for a .223 - something like 22" or so. 3000FPS does plenty of damage with that!
This experiment really was aimed at pistols, not rifles, and at larger bores than .224 (the .223, .22-250, etc.)
I suspect that something like this out of a .454 Casull or .45 Long Colt would be... amazing.
Ropik July 12th, 2005, 07:27 AM

Jack, I had packet of such pellets(not the Prometheus, but the same configuration of plastic sabot and steel core) and while they were faster and more penetrating, they lacked accuracy at 20 meters or more.
Lead ones were almost twice as accurate. Is it the same case with Prometheus pellets?
Ropik July 12th, 2005, 07:27 AM

Jack, I had packet of such pellets(not the Prometheus, but the same configuration of plastic sabot and steel core) and while they were faster and more penetrating, they lacked accuracy at 20 meters or more.
Lead ones were almost twice as accurate. Is it the same case with Prometheus pellets?

No idea, Ropik. I seem to remember they were not too bad, but I didn't do serious target shooting back then, so I don't know.
Third_rail, why would it be? The case doesn't have to be full, not at all. A carefully worked up round might be capable of over 4000fps, very close to the limit for the velocity you can get with smokeless powders. I
was thinking .223 due to the availability of the .22 pellets in that format.
For something like a BP rifle, nylon sabots might be really neat. You could make them in the shape of Minie balls, so the base expanded, and gave good accuracy, as well as having them scream out of the barrel.

No idea, Ropik. I seem to remember they were not too bad, but I didn't do serious target shooting back then, so I don't know.
Third_rail, why would it be? The case doesn't have to be full, not at all. A carefully worked up round might be capable of over 4000fps, very close to the limit for the velocity you can get with smokeless powders. I
was thinking .223 due to the availability of the .22 pellets in that format.
For something like a BP rifle, nylon sabots might be really neat. You could make them in the shape of Minie balls, so the base expanded, and gave good accuracy, as well as having them scream out of the barrel.

Yes, the case does have to be mostly full. You can't just put a tiny amount of powder into a large case, that doesn't work - there's a problem called position sensitivity.
Compound that with the fact that those .22 pellets are much too light to be stabilized by the .223's twist rate, and they're too fragile, and you have nowhere good to head.

FUTI July 12th, 2005, 02:00 PM

Since in other threads it has been mentioned something about use of air rifle pellets with AP or nitrocellulose film this sounds like a suitable new material for combined experiment.
The one who has the access to those nylon/plastic based pellets can try will thin film of AP of NC on the back end of the pellet increase its speed to significant percent compared to "non-spiced" version. Maybe it is
only the shape that reduce its precision, but the increase in speed should lead to pellet stabilise its flight at higher velocities. Since outer shell is made of plastic material making layer of propelant film on its
surface much simplified. Just "paint" the bottom with solution of propelant in solvent that partially attacks that type of plastic. That should leave a thin film of propelant on that bottom mixed partially with thin
plastic film (you can repeat this several times to add more propelant of course).
On the other hand maybe the reason for poor accuracy is combination of metal core and outer plastic shell. For a good flight that metal based core has to be in a very center of pellet and plastic shell should be very
well shaped around it...you know the story - center of mass/gravity, moment of inertia etc. It would be nice for the plastic shell has small density compared to metalic core to reduce posible effects of small shape
distorsion we can't see or can't correct. There is two way man can try to make good pellets out of those materials. One is to coil the thin nylon thread (fishing type;)) onto a metalic core heating it at the same
time or using the solvent (added to some sponge that brushes the thread before coiling) that partialy disolve thin film of nylon thread glueing the threads together (temperature will give better results as density
will be more uniform through the pellet radius and lenght, but is little harder to make a device since you need a controled temperature range in which material will become like wax and wouldn't melt to become
liquid). I will try a scale up experiment with my mothers sawing machine that has a thread winding ability when she wouldn't look of course. Other approach would be making two masks - first with wells and other
would be a net like cover. Wells will be filled to some calculated point with slow hardening acrylic or epoxy plastic, and net cover should hold nail like metalic cores that is to be "implanted" inside the hardening
plastic mass. When it hardens you just pull them out of masks.
But since oil price going up, plastics will soon be so expensive we can only dream this will have some use exept of course to satisfy the curiosity of our forum members :) . Adding a cheap aditive like CaCO3 could
reduce the price though but it won't be as easy to make then, except if maybe someone use PbSO4 powder filled plastics instead and remove metalic core - I hope that we could stop/slow gravity separation during
the setting time of the plastic bullet or maybe instead of that reduce plastic percentage to extent that it's name should be changed to PbSO4 plastic bonded bullet. Maybe this can give us best of the both world if
we assume that deformation of bullet during fireing through the barrel causes its poor accuracy (scratches, leaving thin threads and coils of plastics behind the bullet itself causing unpredictable drag forces
imposible to compensate).
And to finish this post...can someone make a rogue;) draw or shematics what shape that pellet/sabot should have to improve its accuracy as high as posible based on the speeds mentioned above and mass of
bullet or energy used to eject bullet at such speed? I hope someone have better experience with fluid resistance calculation then me since that drag calculus would involve consideration of such factors as Reynolds
number etc that I vaguely know about and I suspect that turbulent flow of fluid makes it very hard. Should we add some fins or channels at its surface to improve some effects I'm not aware so far?
FUTI July 12th, 2005, 02:00 PM

Since in other threads it has been mentioned something about use of air rifle pellets with AP or nitrocellulose film this sounds like a suitable new material for combined experiment.
The one who has the access to those nylon/plastic based pellets can try will thin film of AP of NC on the back end of the pellet increase its speed to significant percent compared to "non-spiced" version. Maybe it is
only the shape that reduce its precision, but the increase in speed should lead to pellet stabilise its flight at higher velocities. Since outer shell is made of plastic material making layer of propelant film on its
surface much simplified. Just "paint" the bottom with solution of propelant in solvent that partially attacks that type of plastic. That should leave a thin film of propelant on that bottom mixed partially with thin
plastic film (you can repeat this several times to add more propelant of course).
On the other hand maybe the reason for poor accuracy is combination of metal core and outer plastic shell. For a good flight that metal based core has to be in a very center of pellet and plastic shell should be very
well shaped around it...you know the story - center of mass/gravity, moment of inertia etc. It would be nice for the plastic shell has small density compared to metalic core to reduce posible effects of small shape
distorsion we can't see or can't correct. There is two way man can try to make good pellets out of those materials. One is to coil the thin nylon thread (fishing type;)) onto a metalic core heating it at the same
time or using the solvent (added to some sponge that brushes the thread before coiling) that partialy disolve thin film of nylon thread glueing the threads together (temperature will give better results as density
will be more uniform through the pellet radius and lenght, but is little harder to make a device since you need a controled temperature range in which material will become like wax and wouldn't melt to become
liquid). I will try a scale up experiment with my mothers sawing machine that has a thread winding ability when she wouldn't look of course. Other approach would be making two masks - first with wells and other
would be a net like cover. Wells will be filled to some calculated point with slow hardening acrylic or epoxy plastic, and net cover should hold nail like metalic cores that is to be "implanted" inside the hardening
plastic mass. When it hardens you just pull them out of masks.
But since oil price going up, plastics will soon be so expensive we can only dream this will have some use exept of course to satisfy the curiosity of our forum members :) . Adding a cheap aditive like CaCO3 could
reduce the price though but it won't be as easy to make then, except if maybe someone use PbSO4 powder filled plastics instead and remove metalic core - I hope that we could stop/slow gravity separation during
the setting time of the plastic bullet or maybe instead of that reduce plastic percentage to extent that it's name should be changed to PbSO4 plastic bonded bullet. Maybe this can give us best of the both world if
we assume that deformation of bullet during fireing through the barrel causes its poor accuracy (scratches, leaving thin threads and coils of plastics behind the bullet itself causing unpredictable drag forces
imposible to compensate).
And to finish this post...can someone make a rogue;) draw or shematics what shape that pellet/sabot should have to improve its accuracy as high as posible based on the speeds mentioned above and mass of
bullet or energy used to eject bullet at such speed? I hope someone have better experience with fluid resistance calculation then me since that drag calculus would involve consideration of such factors as Reynolds
number etc that I vaguely know about and I suspect that turbulent flow of fluid makes it very hard. Should we add some fins or channels at its surface to improve some effects I'm not aware so far?

No, the case doesn't need to be anything like full. I fire 7.62 with a few grains of powder in it, taking up 10% of the case volume. They do just fine. You can use a filler if you are worried about position sensitivity, but
for a bolt-action rifle round fired from prone, you can easily adjust by hand.
I agree about the terrible stability, but for special needs, like going through both sides of a vest, it might not matter at close range.
FUTI, I would try, but I'm not about to destroy my lovely air rifle! Also, you might well have issues with the core getting blown through the sleeve.

No, the case doesn't need to be anything like full. I fire 7.62 with a few grains of powder in it, taking up 10% of the case volume. They do just fine. You can use a filler if you are worried about position sensitivity, but
for a bolt-action rifle round fired from prone, you can easily adjust by hand.
I agree about the terrible stability, but for special needs, like going through both sides of a vest, it might not matter at close range.
FUTI, I would try, but I'm not about to destroy my lovely air rifle! Also, you might well have issues with the core getting blown through the sleeve.
FUTI July 13th, 2005, 04:10 AM

I agree Jack's Complete that is why I describe the core as nail like ;), to bad I haven't got one air rifle to check myself :(.
FUTI July 13th, 2005, 04:10 AM

I agree Jack's Complete that is why I describe the core as nail like ;), to bad I haven't got one air rifle to check myself :(.
nbk2000 July 13th, 2005, 10:32 AM

I remember there used to be a 12 gauge shotgun round called "Accelerator", which I believe was made by remington.
It was a .50 bullet in a plastic sabot and would achieve over 4000FPS. :)
nbk2000 July 13th, 2005, 10:32 AM

I remember there used to be a 12 gauge shotgun round called "Accelerator", which I believe was made by remington.
It was a .50 bullet in a plastic sabot and would achieve over 4000FPS. :)

Interesting! I knew they made 30-06 loads with .224 bullets in sabots, but not shotgun slugs. I think that Hornady has a similar loading out now, the 12ga that you describe.
Jacks Complete, your gun, your face. I won't use a load that is so low (in volume) unless I'm going for something like a "cat's sneeze". Out of curiosity, powder type, charge, bullet weight, twistrate, etc? I'm
interested.
I suppose if it weren't a fast burning powder that has the potential for double pressure spike and the possible catastrophic failure that goes along with it, I could simply use a dacron plug to hold the powder near the
primer. I didn't think they allowed mere citizens to have centerfire rifles in the UK, I guess I'm wrong or you're smart.

Interesting! I knew they made 30-06 loads with .224 bullets in sabots, but not shotgun slugs. I think that Hornady has a similar loading out now, the 12ga that you describe.
interested.

interested.
Well, I'll tell you, it's a .44, with a range of powder weights. It's kind of on topic, too, since I use spun nylon as the filler!
The lowest I've gone is 0.7 grains of Red Dot, with and without a filler, working down from 4 grains. I would give you the exact details, but they are on another machine elsewhere.
I've also tried a .357 without any powder at all, but that got stuck in the end of the barrel of the carbine, though it works fine from a revolver. soft lead bullets, obviously.
I'll get the details and post it to a more related thread, one on small powder charges or whatever.

interested.
Well, I'll tell you, it's a .44, with a range of powder weights. It's kind of on topic, too, since I use spun nylon as the filler!
The lowest I've gone is 0.7 grains of Red Dot, with and without a filler, working down from 4 grains. I would give you the exact details, but they are on another machine elsewhere.
I've also tried a .357 without any powder at all, but that got stuck in the end of the barrel of the carbine, though it works fine from a revolver. soft lead bullets, obviously.
I'll get the details and post it to a more related thread, one on small powder charges or whatever.

Well, I'll tell you, it's a .44, with a range of powder weights.....
I fire 7.62 with a few grains of powder in it, taking up 10% of the case volume.
You say it was a 7.62 (assuming 7.62x51mm), not a .44 (mag or special?). Or do you mean that was just one of the calibers you loaded for? I see at least three calibers. I think we'll need to start a thread about
this.
Back on topic - I should be getting some nylon projectiles to experiment with shortly. The first loading should prove to be interesting.

Well, I'll tell you, it's a .44, with a range of powder weights.....
I fire 7.62 with a few grains of powder in it, taking up 10% of the case volume.
You say it was a 7.62 (assuming 7.62x51mm), not a .44 (mag or special?). Or do you mean that was just one of the calibers you loaded for? I see at least three calibers. I think we'll need to start a thread about
this.
Back on topic - I should be getting some nylon projectiles to experiment with shortly. The first loading should prove to be interesting.

Sure, I'm going to port the data overnight. I'd rather not make it trivial for anyone to find me though, by posting exactly what and where I do what.
7.62, .44 and .357 with small loads, also a 45-70. That's more a comparatively small load!
No pistols except BP, and no semi-auto, revolving or pump in anything but .22 or shotgun, legal-wise. Moderators on ticket, no expanding ammo, no right to self-defence. 5 year minimum sentence if cught with
the wrong type of air pistol, so many dumb bits it's insane. Plans (serious plans) to ban replicas and blank firers, and put reloading presses, powder and primers on ticket.
Damnit: Anyone know how to remove the security from a pulled NTFS XP drive plugged in to XP? I can get around it with Knoppix, but I just want to be able to surf my own drive as normal... and without rebooting!
Edit2: Well, it's security Jim, but not as we know it! Reboot, press f8, turn security off, reboot. I'll have the stuff copied by tomorrow, and I'll start a new thread then.

Sure, I'm going to port the data overnight. I'd rather not make it trivial for anyone to find me though, by posting exactly what and where I do what.
7.62, .44 and .357 with small loads, also a 45-70. That's more a comparatively small load!
No pistols except BP, and no semi-auto, revolving or pump in anything but .22 or shotgun, legal-wise. Moderators on ticket, no expanding ammo, no right to self-defence. 5 year minimum sentence if cught with
the wrong type of air pistol, so many dumb bits it's insane. Plans (serious plans) to ban replicas and blank firers, and put reloading presses, powder and primers on ticket.
Damnit: Anyone know how to remove the security from a pulled NTFS XP drive plugged in to XP? I can get around it with Knoppix, but I just want to be able to surf my own drive as normal... and without rebooting!
Edit2: Well, it's security Jim, but not as we know it! Reboot, press f8, turn security off, reboot. I'll have the stuff copied by tomorrow, and I'll start a new thread then.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > lethal model rockets?
Log in
View Full Version : lethal model rockets?
senom September 6th, 2005, 12:18 AM

if you go into a model rocketry store you can buy a simple rocket, the mosquito
it's basically a nosecone and fins that you can slide onto a small engine, trying to get that little thing as high as possible. what would happen if you made a lrge mosquito out of
a much heavier (home made) engine?
i w as looking into a site that had directions on how to make size G engines out of easy, legally available, things when i came across a w rning that said you want to be carefil
testing these as if one comes flying at you it w ill be able to go through you. i'm not sure how much exageration went on there, but it got me thinking.
one could quite easily make a rocket that's a foot tall, and an inch and a half in circumference that could easily punch well in to a person, if not through them.
mainly have a large fuel supply, a sharp nose cone, and sharp fins.
my general source for information, a few selected articles:

http://users.cybercity.dk/~ dko7904/motor.htm
the home made engine site

http://members.aol.com/sspacepyro/PVCRM/buildyow n.html
a site describing another way to make basically the same fuel that the above article used
http://ww w.jamesyawn.com/rcandy/index.htm
Silentnite September 6th, 2005, 04:27 PM

Actually aiming at the person and having the rocket go where you want it to would be very hard to do. Plus, carrying it around and prepping it...I think it'd have to be a short
range weapon unless you were trying to turn it into an RPG.

You'd want some kind of tube launcher, I suppose, and you'd probably w ant it to exit the launcher at the highest possible speed to reduce the amount of backblast directed into
your face, which for small rockets should be possible with a closed breech. I once saw a w ebsite where someone epoxied D size motors into the fronts of pieces of PVC tube and
drilled holes through the w alls right behind the nozzles so that they would allow airflow and the tube would act as an ejector nozzle. Doing this should make an aerodynamically
stable missile without fins because the center of mass is shifted forward relative to the tube, which now has most of the friction drag. The holes are essential, because w ithout
them the tube acts as a nozzle and vastly overexpands the exhaust, decelerating it. They also need to be evenly spaced, or else the thrust will be off center.
As for using this as a KE w eapon, it will take a "model rocket engine" a significant distance to burn out and/or reach maximum velocity, so you will either be too close to do a
whole lot of damage, or too far to have a very good chance of hitting. Rockets have a much less predictable (by eye) trajectory than ballistic projectiles.
senom September 6th, 2005, 10:26 PM

another idea that came to mind after posting this was to have multiple rockets, connected w ith thin w ire. thin w ire moving at high speeds w ith that much force behind it should
be able to cut flesh...(possibly wrap around somone like a very thin bola)
but that seems less practicle, and more difficult than launching many of the PVC type rockets at the same time... shotgun style. it w ould be pretty easy to rig up a portable
launcher that could pull it off.
Child-of-Bodom September 7th, 2005, 08:53 AM

I have played a long time with another idea, even more lethal... I don't feel like making a separate thread, so I'll post it here.
Design a rocket which can fly horizontally. This w ill be a though task, as you need to set the fins in such a way that they compensate for the gravity...
The idea was to have a rocket with a charge in it's cone, not one which is ignited by the endburn of the engine, but on impact... The ignition can be easily archived by a simple
switch on top of the rocket and a relay and a capacitor inside. To be safe, the capacitor can be charged just before launch, this will give the one who sets up the rocked a bit
more comfort.
Furthermore is a shaped charge of course the best you can make, but that will involve a lot of timing to be done, and quite a few tests to be done...
If it is impossible to launch a rocket horizintal, one can aim it a little high, and fly with a nice flat bend towards the target. I've spoken to a guy who has fired a wire-operated
rocket in the military, and even those ones are very hard to steer. The SC in those ones is rather inpressive, it'll go all the way through 1m of steel!
I have no time anymore to do this project, but I think it is a lethal model rocket...:D
TreverSlyFox September 8th, 2005, 07:44 PM

While the "Idea" of using a rocket to hit a man might sound cool, it doesn't work out well. The Military has spent millions to develope anti-personal weapons and rockets just
don't make it except on a large scale.
The military sticks with gernade launchers for anti-personal use like the M-79 "Blooper" of the Viet Nam era and the now used M-203 launcher mounted below the M-16 or M-4.
Both 40mm gernade launchers with a varity of different rounds from explosive to flachett (SP?).
As far as rockets go the closest w ould be the old "LAW" system but it was designed for use against bunkers or lightly or non-armored targets like APCs or trucks. I sort of doubt
the old LAW would bother a Bradley IFV or the Marine LAV now . Which is w hy they've gone to the newer AT-4 system and the up-graded TOW system.
senom September 13th, 2005, 01:43 AM

i'm thinking of this kind of thing as something you could do if, god forbid, you were put in a modern day warsaw uprising...
in which case it w ould be a whole lot easier to get you hands on things like the ingredients for rockets than on good quality weapons...
(but i suppose, a rocket is still a pipebomb with a nozzle)
Jacks Complete September 13th, 2005, 06:30 AM

(but i suppose, a rocket is still a pipebomb with a nozzle)
Most propellants w on't explode effectively, as they are designed to burn at a regulated rate throughout the burn time of the rocket. They w ork hard to avoid CATO as this
annoys and injures people.
The difficulty with a rocket bullet are myriad, and a reading of the history of the Gyrojet will teach you a lot about the issues.
Good luck!
Chris The Great September 13th, 2005, 09:03 PM

Rockets probably w ouldn't be useful for using against people, unless the people are in large groups.
However, leaving a GPS reciever equipped cellphone sitting under someones car to guide remotely launched rockets to it could work.
Wipe epoxy on a cellphone equiped to allow parents to 'keep and eye on' their children, turn it on, and toss it onto something. Guy with the rockets picks up the signal (and
perhaps a phone call to tell him w hat kind of rocket to send, for example shaped charge or CW w arhead, etc) and launches one. The rocket flies up, travels to near the signal,
then turns dow n and hits it completely by surprise :)
Such a system is going to work better than to just point a rocket at someone and shooting, they can easily jump to the side and dodge it until it gets up to speed. Now, if said
person has a cellphone that happens to be guiding the rocket towards them, so it falls from the sky at 800km/h, he's probably screwed (though it begs the question, wouldn't it
be alot easier to just shoot him?). A laser guided rocket, with someone with a accurate laser shining it on the target, could also work.
(Please note this post ignores the probably extremely numerous difficulties of building said guided rockets)

Here is a w ebpage which might be of interest to some one w ho wants to build a simple guided missile:
http://ww w.w ebcom.com/sknkw rks/rcrock.htm
http://ww w.w ebcom.com/sknkw rks/guidance.htm
Jacks Complete September 15th, 2005, 07:21 AM

A far better and easier way to do what you suggest with a mobile phone would be to make a small IR emitter that flashed a code.
It w ould be like a remote control for a TV, but small. It could run for a few days off a small lithium battery, unlike a mobile w hich w ould only run for a few hours (and run up a
bill, and be easily traceable).
This code could be changed depending on warhead type, and a dual shape charge could be used.
Making a small detector for IR is far easier to do than RF, as directionality is far easier. A small B&W RF w ireless video camera could be used to provide a feed, and guidance
would be as you wanted, either fully auto or steerable.
Of course, sticking the emitter to a good place might be the hardest part.
FU TI September 16th, 2005, 06:45 AM

I think this isn't great issue compared to other better one I have read on Forum so far, but it started a discussion that gave good new information and tracks I haven't followed
so far. I w ish to thanks Jack's Complete for mentioning Gyrojet that I knew nothing so far. Also I have a question...does anyone have a reliable info about caseless ammo, as I
somehow gained an impresion that Gyrojet falls in that category? I know that there were some test for tank caseless ammo for new USA tank, that didn't go w ell - I saw some
video material with orange coloured blasting cloud coming out of turret in the opposite end from the barrel w hich wasn't promising at the time I saw it - hell it was about 8-10
years ago.
Emc2 September 16th, 2005, 01:50 PM

Didn't ancient Chinese use "small rockets" to deliver BP grenades for currently medium (then long) distance damage; exept instead of "piercing" the enemy they w ould rather
blow them up?
The trajectory and distance w ould have to be experimented with, but with consistant propelant should be predictable and trainable to anybody.

I think Gyrojet could be considered caseless, since the entire round flew off, leaving nothing in the chamber.
There are a few caseless rifles, but they aren't widely used. The advantages are many
- less weight and mass to carry, cheaper (as copper is both heavy & expensive),
-faster rates of fire, simpler mechanism , ambidextrous, less dirt ingress, less flash around the ejection port, - generally no ejection issues
-ammo can't fire itself as there is no case to build pressure outside the gun
-no trail of brass left behind, no ejection noise
I'm sure you can think of others.
The downsides are bad, though. Clearing the gun is really hard. A jam breaks the gun, as there is nothing to pull on. Loose ammo stands no chance, it can get damp, dirty, and
damaged and become dangerous. It's also more of a fire risk, and isn't as resistant to shock or physical effects.
Personally, I'd be looking at liquid hydrocarbon propellants and small guided projectiles if I w ere doing weapon R&D. Which I'm not. Honest.
The Chinese used aerial battery salvo attacks mostly to scare, rather than to kill. If you can inspire terror in the army you face, you are half way to victory. I'm sure they used
hand grenades, too, though, which must have had some lethal effect in a crowd/formation of troops. (though nothing like a modern one, or even a bottle of petrol!)
Aerodynamics is a big and hard subject. Getting ten small things to do the same thing even twice out of ten is very hard. Darts are designed to be very accurate, and are
exensive, yet beyond about 10 yards, they would be impossible to hit anything with. And that's just a throw n object at short range. Move back to 100 yards and put a little
motor in it, and it will go all over the place. Even with a very tight manufacturers tolerance and great care, they are not going to be going the same way time after time. (It is
thrilling when they chase you though.)
Unless it is guided, you are not going to do w ell. Terminal guidance will ensure you can hit the broad side of a barn from the inside every time, not just 10% .
Oh, and don't forget wind effects and gravity. Your sleek finless rocket will not have enough drag, so will tumble. So you add fins. Then it w on't fit. So you reduce the payload
and/or fuel, and springs, and have them pop out after take-off. But they now get pushed by the wind. And they aren't accurate any more even without wind, as the fins are a
bit wobbly. So you go for a spin stabilisation idea, and find that the rate of spin varies dramatically with time of flight, and suddenly you can't have fins that lift a bit to stop the
rocket dropping into the ground...
It is definately non-trivial.

another idea that came to mind after posting this was to have multiple rockets, connected w ith thin w ire. thin w ire moving at high speeds w ith that much force behind it should
be able to cut flesh...(possibly wrap around somone like a very thin bola)
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to to make a pneumatic launcher or "spud gun" and load it with bolos, rathat than stringing up a bunch of model rockets and praying that they go off
all at the same time?
This opinion comes both as a hobbiest with model rockets and a pneumatic launcher designer and builder.

If you have the resources to make rockets capable of penetrating metal, those resources could have been better spent making a gun, or making a rocket designed to launch
more serious payloads.
For example w hy not use a multi staged, radio controlled rocket design to launch an explosive payload. You could even simplify it by making the payload the controllable
platform (Think MIRV here) and simply steer it onto your target walleye tv guided munition style with a small radio transmitter camera and RC joysticks. There's endless
possibilities.
In the end though if you want a rocket capable of really taking out targets you need to design your own engine. For safety sake I would say that a liquid engine design would
work best as long as quality components are used, unless you are very experienced in creating solid fuel rocket engines capable of high thrust ratios (impulse). Liquid fuels are
also easier to obtain. God help you if you fuck it up though. If liquid fuels mix on the pad you had better get out of the area, not only is it extremely poisonous but the whole
unit w ill explode. That's one advantage of solid fuel motors.
In short; the best option for taking out a medium to large sized target is a guided or ballistic rocket w ith either an accurate launch and rocket guidance procedure, or a ballistic
rocket with guided payload system in place. The second option is much less complicated than the first unless you are talking about doing this at extremely long ranges from
launch site.
If you want to take out small targets with a line of sight rocket, you're better off using something already available like an RPG or recoiless launcher. Even a potato gun could be
substituted for a rocket, with a little practice in marksmanship.
Edited to add:
There is a way to retain guidance for your 'mirv' once it gets far away. You need to have another airborne relay betw een yourself and the target to pass the signals back and
forth. So basically, a repeater. You could put it on a balloon, an RC airplane, or even a real plane flying over the area. As long as it's within radio range. The TV signals would be
the hardest to keep from fading out.
Chris The Great June 4th, 2006, 09:38 PM

Or, a parachuted repeater launched from the rocket could be used to pass on the signal. Keeps it all as one unit. Or a glider, or something. Maybe a ballon that it filled with
helium from a canister.
Either way, it would be best that it is launched from the rocket if you're going to be doing something that complex anyway.
NoltaiR June 5th, 2006, 02:16 PM

This thread actually gave me an idea that made me laugh...
In reality it would be very hard (if not impossible) to have a rocket hit a target as small as a person.. especially if it is a moving target. You would need all the stuff the military
uses; lasers, precision guidance systems, not too mention you have to know how to build the damn thing to begin with.
But being a little hypothetical, say you could come up with a rocket with a range of a few hundred yards, and the nose cone was fitted w ith some sort of blade, and you had all
the necessary instruments to get it to the right location.
What an odd assassination that would be. The guy is walking around in the park.. maybe chatting w ith an old friend. When out of nowhere comes a high-pitched hissing noise.
The target stops to see w here the noise is coming from.. when he gets speared right in the chest. When officials try to find the killer, they don't have a whole lot to go off of.
The rocket could have been sent from anywhere.

It w ould make a lot more sense to shoot the guy in the head with a supressed rifle or a rifle from a great distance.
If you're going to use a rocket it should either be extremely high pow er line of sight (high explosive or other similar warhead) or of the guided/ballistic type with a huge
warhead or some kind of chemical/bio payload. Otherwise everything is just easier accomplished with a gun and bullets.
NoltaiR June 5th, 2006, 10:48 PM

Like I said, just hypothetical.. because obviously the idea serves no real purpose beyond a comical thought.
It w ould be just as amusing to get a gas-powered model airplane and mount a remote-controlled pistol to it. Just have a pinhole wireless camera on the front of it that transmits
to your location on a discreet frequency. You would just have a TV set up and you w ould have the radio controls for the plane in hand. It would be like playing a video game.

Here's another freebie for anyone who's at all interested in building a ballistic or cruise missile. You can buy all your guidance equipment for under 150 dollars US.
Flight controls computer: PDA capabable of running Windows or linux. I.E. Dell AXIOM or Zaurus linux pda.
Navigation system: Portable GPS receiver with attitude readout, if attitude readout not available then use high speed gyros to control pitch functions.
Write the software to link it all up and connect it to servos or other control surface movers. It could probably be written in visual basic.
For a cruise missile you could have a missile less than 10 feet long w ith 'good enough' accuracy especially if delivering non conventional payload. For ballistic trajectory missile
your accuracy is going to be extremely high especially if you include visual or IR seeker technology in the nose of the missile for terminal homing.

Yes, you could. GPS w ill work for your guidance, with a terminal phase guidance from a secondary sensor. There's a guy in New Zealand who built a cruise missile w ith a
pulsejet engine a w hile back, and a long range large size model airplane would do the job at slower speeds and with better endurance.
VB would be rather slow. You would need an ASIC or Stamp2 (or better) microcontroller, for control and reading the gyros, w hich you would need, as otherw ise the 1 second
updates from your GPS is going to screw you right up, as it is too slow for something that could roll three or four times in a second!
The other option I thought of, was to have tw o or three GPS units, and stagger the readings, giving a reading every .5 or .33 of a second. Perhaps best would be to have a
reading at t and t+ 0.05, then wait a second, as this w ould remove all uncertainty.
Anyhow, we all know that using a model rocket for anything dodgy is nearly impossible, which is why they are still legal in both the UK and USA. Of course, the twats at the
DHS are still getting tw isted panties about them, claiming they could shoot down airliners! But the odds are tiny, and anyone who solved the guidance issues w ould have zero
difficulty w ith the building of a rocket engine! Also, without a payload, what would your Estes rocket do?
Finally, they would ban them overnight, certainly in the UK, if someone did something "interesting" w ith (or even w ithout) one.

VB would be rather slow. You would need an ASIC or Stamp2 (or better) microcontroller, for control and reading the gyros, w hich you would need, as otherw ise the 1 second
updates from your GPS is going to screw you right up, as it is too slow for something that could roll three or four times in a second!
If I were to build something like that I would not be using faster reading, since AFAIK non-commercial (i.e. non-subscription) GPS services are not accurate and reading several
times per second may wreak havoc on guidance and stability. And even subscription GPS are not accurate enough to guide missile to an accuracy which is par with military
systems. AFAIR, military systems use another (encrypted?) signal in addition to conventional GPS signal to achieve better accuracies.
The other option I thought of, was to have tw o or three GPS units, and stagger the readings, giving a reading every .5 or .33 of a second. Perhaps best would be to have a
reading at t and t+ 0.05, then wait a second, as this w ould remove all uncertainty.
This would be a more feasible option, I believe. But again, it would be a pain in henie to write a good algorithm to calculate mean of the readings properly to represent true
mean value of the coordinates. Regards

Well in my example I am not talking about a high explosive warhead munition. Frankly, in my opinion, I do not think it's realistic for people to be creating guided munitions with
enough accuracy to destroy targets at great distance with a HE w arhead. The guidance softw are would have to be very robust and w ould take ages to design.
But you most certainly can use off the shelf GPS for guidance and it is absolutely accurate enough, you can buy stuff in aviation shops that's accurate to something like less than
10 meters. That is definately good enough for opening up a canister of w hatever while flying over a stadium. And as for completely ballistic missiles, well all you need is a good
inertial navigation system which you can buy from airline scrapyards and then just huck it in and you're set to go. That w ould be pretty damn accurate if your flight controls are
worth anything. You might even get away with an HE warhead for a short range missile.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > O h you just know who's ma k i n g
these...Very interesting
Log in
View Full Version : Oh you just know who's making these...Very interesting
Sleeping_Nuke S e p t e m b e r 2 1st, 2005, 09:04 PM

http://image s.search.yahoo.com /search/image s/view?back=http % 3 A % 2 F % 2 F i m a g e s . s e a r c h . y a h o o . c o m % 2 F s
earch%2Fim a g e s % 3 F p % 3 D q a s s a m %2Brocket%26sp%3D1%26ei %3DUTF-8%26fl%3D0%26fr%3Dslv1-
a d b e % 2 6 S p e l l S t a t e % 3 D n - 3 2 8 673343_q-
qr8rb4kJSgHqD2FIauYhZAABAA%40%4 0&h=216&w=300&imgcurl=www.vatsaas.org%2Frtv%2Fm i s c % 2 F q a s s a m % 2 F q a
s s a m 2 . j p g & i m gurl=www.vatsaas.org%2 Frtv%2Fm i s c % 2 F q a s s a m % 2 F q a s
s a m 2 . j p g & s i z e = 7 . 5 k B & n a m e = q a s s a m 2.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatsaas.org%2Frtv%2Fmisc%2F
aftclosure.aspx&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatsaas.org%2Frtv%2Fm isc%2 Fa
ftclosure.aspx&p=qassam +rocket&type=jpeg&no=19&tt=47
Ihope that link works because its very very inte resting and you dont have to be a brain to know W HO is m a k i n g t h e s e a n d f o r
what reasons.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > The PEST project - completed...
Log in
View Full Version : The PEST project - completed...
pest3125 October 13th , 2 0 0 5 , 0 1 : 3 4 P M

Hi,
I've been working on an electrically powered slug thrower that makes the best use of available battery power. It is finally done.
It operates like a "centrifuge" gun and can launch 5/16" (7.9mm ) d i a m e t e r d e l r i n s p h e r e s a t 4 6 0 f t / s e c ( 1 4 0 m / s ) . T h e
laun cher can fire single shots, 3 shot bursts or full auto (5 shots per second). The m agazine capacity is 50 shots.
It is powered with a 7 cell NiCd pack.
I call it a "PEST" or Portable Electrom echanical Slug Thrower
Plea se see the webpage:

http://www.geocities.com/pest3125 - Please try later if the site g oes down due to bandwidth lim its
T h e p h o t o a l b u m is a t:
http://photos.yahoo.com/pest3125
meselfs October 13th , 2 0 0 5 , 0 2 : 1 5 P M

That looks pretty incredible.
How long did it take to m ake? Did you do all th e m achining yourself?
Are you a m echanical enginee r?
pest3125 October 13th , 2 0 0 5 , 0 2 : 3 7 P M

That looks pretty incredible.
How long did it take to m ake? Did you do all th e m achining yourself?
Are you a m echanical enginee r?
I've been working on this off/on for ab out 1 year. A lot

of tim e was just spent doing paper designs. Yes, I did all the m achining m yself on a Sherline 5400 tabletop milling machine .
thepyrolooz October 15th , 2 0 0 5 , 0 5 : 5 2 P M

Hey, just so you know it, your very nice project was posted on hackaday.com...
Check it.. http://www.hackaday.com / e n t r y / 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 8 6 3 0 6 3 4 1 4 /
Diabolique Novem b e r 2 n d , 2 0 0 5 , 0 4 : 2 8 P M
Pop. Mechanics, back in the 50's, had a sim ilar one, but no where near a s nice or powerful as yours. Good work!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Wolverine (X-Men) suit with big fuck-off claws!
Log in
View Full Version : Wolverine (X-Men) suit with big fuck-off claws!

http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/main.htm
---
As many of you know, Nate decided to be Wolverine for Halloween...
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/gloves_claws.jpg
Many of you may also know that Nate spent ENTIRELY too much time working on the Extendable / Retractable claws for his outfit, as well as the outfit itself. The outfit was
visualized, conceived, and conceptualized entirely by Nate, as were the claws. However, Nate did pick up quite a bit of help along the way as friends came forward to
participate in the creation of what many said was "The most accurate costume I have ever seen..."
For this reason, Nate's special thanks goes out to (in no particular order): Diane, Zarah, JJ, Jamey, Nate's Grandpa, Lauren, Nate's Mom and Dad, and the 3rd Person
Perspective. Now, let's begin the journey...
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/claws_in.JPG
Nate used Photoshop to enlarge an image of Wolverine's claws from the X-Men movie that he had downloaded. This allowed him to print out the image until it fit exactly onto
the 1" x 1/8" Aluminum Flat Bar that he had purchased for creating the claws. Once the basic shape was on paper, Nate traced around it onto a piece of wood that he had cut
to 1" x 13", which was the calculated maximum length of the claws. This length was determined to be the longest length that could fit on the back of Nate's forearm. Once the
wood had been traced, Nate gathered up his aluminum and headed to his Grandfather's barn, where he cut the wood out on a band saw, sanded it on a vertical standing belt
sander, and used it to trace out the aluminum claws. The aluminum claws were then cut out VERY CAREFULLY on the band saw and sanded lightly on the belt sander. The next
step was to put each claw under the wire brush wheel to give them a "brushed aluminum" finish, which Nate determined would look closest to "adamantium", which
Wolverine's claws are actually made out of.
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/claws_out.JPG
The next step was to mount the claws to a ball-bearing track that could be hooked to the back of Nate's forearm. The track was created from a sliding keyboard tray. The
slider on the track was modified to be much shorter, and use only 8 ball bearings. Bolts were put through the slider on the track and then some galvanized metal was bent and
hack-sawed to make the right shape for attaching the first claw. This required drilling holes through each galvanized metal pience and matching holes in the first claw. Once the
first claw was fitted to the track, 2 other claws were then drilled to match the first, and 3" and 3.5" bolts were used with nuts, split washers, washers, and locking nuts to to
space the claws apart and keep them tightly affixed to each other and subsequently to the track. Once this was complete, screws were added through the bottom of the track
so that the slider could not slide out of the track (to avoid killing innocent bystanders). Pictured above the the fully extended claws on the track.
The next step was to create a way to attach the tracks to Nate's arms. ...and Nate thought growing facial hair was hard! The eventual solution was to cut fabric left over from
creating the pads for the X-Men suit into harnesses for the claws. The piece under Nate's wrist buttons into place so that the claw tracks can be held VERY tight, but still be
possible to put on. The fabric was sewn to the tracks through holes that Nate drilled in key locations.
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/claws_on_arms.JPG
Who's got claws? Oh yea, that's right... NATE'S GOT CLAWS!
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/more_showing_claws.JPG
Yep, those are definitely claws! ...on sliding tracks, nonetheless!

<snip>
The full suit:
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/art3.JPG
http://www.muc.muohio.edu/~natedogg/suit4.JPG
----
Quite cool, but, obviously, steel blades will hold an edge far better. ;-)

Quite impressive.
He definetly pulled off the look.
Kamisama November 11th, 2005, 11:55 PM

"does it hurt?"
"everytime.."
this is the most badass stuff I've seen in a while. lol.
Silentnite November 18th, 2005, 04:50 PM

So he went through all that trouble but didn't take it further? Spring-loaded? Actuator? Come on now do it with a button!

I think that spring loading would be more trouble than it's worth, not to mention dangerous if the actuator was on the sensitive side.
So long as you can flick the claws out with a quick arm movement and have some sort of mechanism to lock them in place until released by the wearer, I think you'd be set.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Plausible Deniability Poison for knife
blades
Log in
View Full Version : Plausible Deniability Poison for knife blades
Marmaloon January 26th, 2006, 02:26 PM

Pretty much self explanatory, my country has strict prohibitions on using a civilized pistol for self defence, we are forced to
contemplate other means, I just thought up the concept recently, I definitely did not invent the concept, there are lots of
poisons that would do the job if spread on a knife blade and introduced into the target via cutting them, but most of them are
detectable. I need something like poisoned saliva or something, because if questioned, I want to be able to say, 'maybe the
knife was just dirty', and we all know there is no law against cutting an assailant with a dirty knife. . . ;)
Corona January 27th, 2006, 02:42 PM

Instead of having a death wish (how long before you cut yourself... with poison?), why don't you go find yourself a woman or
something?
Find me one too.

Sorry, I have enough trouble with the one I have. On reflection, maybe it would be best to settle for pepper spray with the
knife as a back up.
Jacks Complete January 29th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Just get the knife blade dirty. That will put the fear into the target far more than a shiny knife, should you need to display it.
You could add whatever you wanted to the dirt, of course!
bipolar January 29th, 2006, 05:26 PM

You could give the knife some kind of coating with something that will dry up on it and add effect to the effect if it cuts the
skin, like something that stings a lot or something. like a capsium coating or something.
You could just learn to kill someone with just a knife and knife fighting skills and disarm techniques.
Chris The Great January 29th, 2006, 07:02 PM

Maybe tetanus toxoid? A large amount of work (growing the bacteria, then extracting the toxin, etc, all requiring a decently
advanced biological laboratory) but it would be deniable. Just make the blade dirty and toss some of your bacteria on it.
You stab him, he dies of tetanus, well your knife was dirty so what else could have happened?
The problem, again, is getting tetanus bacteria, growing them, and then extracting the toxin. All the while in a sealed
glovebox because the toxin has a lethal dosage in the tenths of micrograms.
tdog49 January 29th, 2006, 10:19 PM

I may be wrong but I don't think there is a poison out there ( that is easily available and undetectable) that could kill a person
faster than I can with a knife. You would be far better served by aquiring knife skills than by trying to find a short cut...(no pun
intended)
ImagineReality January 30th, 2006, 12:52 AM

I'm with tdog49 on this one. Most arteries are very close to the surface, pick up a book on anatomy or get the medical wall
chart for the circulatory system and a decent book on knife fighting. If you cut any major artery then you can pretty much
guarentee that whoever you are fighting will lose interest in attacking you, and depending on the artery, 1-5 minutes later they
won't be able to be interested in anything. There are other targets so get the anatomy charts for that.

Yes, there's probably no good substitute for several years intense training in Karate or Ju-Jitsu. However, I got a copy of
'Assorted Nasties' on the way, maybe that will throw some light on the subject.
nbk2000 January 31st, 2006, 12:28 AM

If you have access to venomous snakes, insects, etc., what you could do is take a small piece of rotten liver meat, put it on a
stick, and use the stick to tease the critters into stinging/biting the meat, putting their venom into it.
Then use the jagged rusty edge of your knife to cut the meat, being sure to let plenty of the rancid juices dry on the edge. :)

Or you could milk a spider or whatever. If someone at the zoo can do it with a day's training, it can't be that hard.
NBK did a thread on keeping a spider on ice for prolonged periods. It turns out almost every spider is venomus, it's just that
most cannot break the skin to inject it. It isn't likely that the venom could even be ID'd but if it was, as long as you used a
local species, you should be fine.
However, you aren't ever going to get something with a fast knock-down, and certainly a knife used right is lethal in seconds.
A poisoned bullet, however, where you take the shot and don't go to inspect, would be far more productive, especially in this
day of heavy body armour and 4-minutes-to-the-operating-theatre-even-in-a-combat-zone.
tdog49 February 27th, 2006, 01:01 AM

ok,
so I'm gonna weigh back in on this, since the knife is one of my favorite weapons. If your interest in poisons is meant to
make up for any lack of knife skill and/or you are under the impression that such skills are hard to come by or take a long
time to develop....go here: www.splitsecondsurvival.com, order all three dvd's or just the title "First Cut". I have been a student
in this system for almost 5 years and it completely invalidated the first 20 years of my previous martial art instruction. Fast,
Brutal and Easy to Learn.
Kamisama March 26th, 2006, 11:27 PM

Most people kill with a knife, if not the knife, the poison on the knife.
It's something that takes less than 5 minutes.
Forensics have most of everything solved these days unless you are a biochemical/chemical engineer.

Well it's been a long time since I posted here but just for kicks I'll give you a free poison method.
You need to get some raw oysters, chicken feces and horse or bull feces. Mix these together very well and add some kind of
heavy vegetable oil to the mixture, olive oil is fine. That's to both help the ingredients stick together and to help the mix stick
to the knife/syringe.
Slide the knife through the mixture and you've got yourself an extremely effective poison. It does not kill immediately,
however if any of this stuff gets into the bloodstream it will be nearly impossible to stop the infection without a full blood
transfusion.
This is a very very old poison and works very well, but it does take some days to have an effect.
I am going to mention though, if you're really using a knife for self defence, you should be able to prove you used it in self
defence. In such a case, you absolutely do not want any poison on your knife.
It is far better to know how to kill someone just with the knife rather than with poison. There are numerous easily accessable
areas on the body that will result in a quick kill if stabbed / lacerated. For example there's a huge artery in the thighs, it's
about the diamater of a quarter. If you stab someone there they'll die within minutes. A slash to the jugular on the neck will
also kill someone quickly. Piercing someone's temple deeply will kill almost instantly, and stabbing the knife deep between
the skull and spinal cord (brain stem) will kill immediately, the body will literally drop instantly.
But it's important not to use your weapon unless you really need to, otherwise the authorities will assume you were the one
looking for trouble.
hague720 July 23rd, 2006, 07:29 AM

what about a knife with pepper spray built into the handle ?? attack - blind - cut walk off!!!
nbk2000 July 23rd, 2006, 11:44 AM

There's a flashlight like that called "Tigerlight".
Dank$taVegas July 23rd, 2006, 07:54 PM

I would say a knife is more of an offensive weapon, used to inflict bodily harm not as a main defense tool.
I would say your best defense weapon would be Mace. Not the weak pepper spray sold as human & dog repellant, look for
"Bear Mace" which is the strongest stuff on the market. It (usually) has the stopping power in one can to stop a charge from a
grizzly bear! It can spray up to 10 feet with out the wind factor and will affect anyone in the immediate area, best used out
doors since this stuff is very strong. It will effect the eyes, breathing and skin of the person/attacker and will stop him dead in
his tracks. All it takes is a quick 5 second shot! But care should be taken when using on a human in self defense, since too
much may kill them.
I have used this stuff once on a group of niggers (4) at a bar one night, that were attacking one of my friends in the parking
lot. I aimed at the one instigator and got a good dose right in his eyes, which caused him to drop immediately to the ground
screaming and grabbing his eyes and coughing pretty hard, the others also suffered form the mist it created from splashing
off his face. I barley used any only a 5 second spray and it stopped the attack of the 4 people. My friend also got a little of
the mist in his eyes and they swelled up like watermelons and his skin that came in contact with the mist turn bright red and
was very irritated.
nocturnalfrost August 1st, 2006, 10:46 PM

Chris the Great and Gollum have a great idea however, they have actually mentioned the same poison. Tetanus toxoid can be
simple to make and this is how:
Gather horse dung. Heat this and pour over a wire mesh to extract the fiberous material from the dung. The strained dung is
then mixed with the olive oil. Spread this over your knife or dart, or any puncture or cutting weapon.
When entering the blood stream, this makes the assailant perish from Tetanus in about four days. This was a poison used in
Japan by supposed ninja clans. No laboratory needed, but I hope that you use a well ventilated area. ;)
c.Tech August 5th, 2006, 08:45 AM

Gather horse dung. Heat this and pour over a wire mesh to extract the fiberous material from the dung. The strained dung is
then mixed with the olive oil. Spread this over your knife or dart, or any puncture or cutting weapon.
When entering the blood stream, this makes the assailant perish from Tetanus in about four days.
Once when I feared I had tetanus, I read a website on various diseases, including tetanus.
From what I remember, I doubt that a small amount of horse dung would have enough toxin in it to kill a person. What could
happen with this method is you would infect the person with the tetanus bacteria, this will cause death in a week or more (if
you die at all). If I remember correctly, one in ten people (hospitalised) die from tetanus, this group is usually seniors or
children.
Although the amount of people that you could infect with horse dung would be nearly none because of the amount of people
immunized within most countries.
If you want the tetanus toxin you should grow the bacteria and extract it from that.
nocturnalfrost August 5th, 2006, 11:13 PM

I believe that this is why the Tetanus poison is a very old one. Immunizations in anchient Japan were non-existant at the
time. At that time, making it a great poison. :D

If nicotine is as effective as it sounds, we have the perfect knife poison.
Its easily accessible (extracted from nicorette (http://www.nicorette.com.au/product_range.cfm)), kills in low a dose and would
enter capillaries quickly.
Howstuffworks.com (http://health.howstuffworks.com/nicotine7.htm)The treatment for nicotine poisoning has two goals:

1. Keep the victim breathing and keep the heart pumping until nicotine is broken down by the body.
Doesnt look like a good sign to the sufferer who doesnt know what hit them.
As its an oily liquid it could be applied to the knife blade and probably stick, however being hygroscopic and miscible with
water it could absorb more water forming a solution that could drip off.
This problem could be overcome by mixing it with thick motor oil or grease, which would hold it to the blade and protect the
nicotine from moisture in the air. This may effect the ability for the nicotine to quickly enter the blood.
Does anybody know any other thickening substances which would not have this tendency?
Bugger August 8th, 2006, 06:49 PM

If you live in Australia, you could use cone-shell toxin, from cone-shell species found on the Great Barrier Reef. They are
extremely toxic, and, being polypeptides, are practically impossible to analyze for. From other evidence it is thought that this
may have been what killed Drs Bogle and Chandler in an unsolved mysterious double death in a riverside park in Sydney, New
South Wales, on 1 January 1963; but the motive is still unclear - either a suicide pact, or a jilted lover. Australia also has the
world's most venomous snakes, along with the redback spider (which fairly recently introduced itself into New Zealand).
nocturnalfrost August 9th, 2006, 01:34 AM

C10H14N2 mixed with water would still be a great toxin. Although, the hydrogen would absorb water, the body would absorb
these elements very freely, making this toxin work very fast!
Nicotine had been used as a desiccant as well, so it will actualy absorb so much water that it will dissolve it's self. Instead of
motor oil, I would use a form of grease. This mixture will dissasociate in the body, and deliver the toxin to the system.
Boiling a can of chewing tobacco down until it gets very thick is a great way to create a nice form of this toxin. I beleive that
they talk of this in the Anarchist's Cook Book.
Chris The Great August 9th, 2006, 01:44 AM

Since nicotine is very toxic, you wouldn't need enough of it to cause it to start dripping off. A dilute solution of it would be
spread onto the knife, and then the solvent evaporates leaving a seemingly dry coating on the knife.
For tetanus, I was refering to the toxoid and not the bacteria. However, it will degrade fairly quickly so it would need to be
"recoated" to maintain effectiveness, how often I am not sure. Horse shit would make it seem as though the weapon was not
intentially poisoned, as in you did not mean to have a poisoned weapon, it just happened to be like that. Sure, the knife was
dirty, but it was not to intentionally give someone tetanus now? ;)
the_twitchy1 August 13th, 2006, 11:56 AM

I like Nicotine for this use, because as Chris the Great has pointed out, it doesn't take much. IIRC, 6 drops (somewhere
around 5 ml) is LD50, and that's to kill.
You don't necessarily have to kill, either... It'll make anyone very, very sick at lower doses. Another solid point for it is that
being a commonly found chemical, a sloppy lab tech will miss it on the forensics sheet, (They'll assume he was a smoker and
not bother with the concentrations...) and being water soluble, it's easy to get off the blade. (Ditch the knife in a storm sewer,
for instance...)
As well, when you extract it from chewing tobacco (as Nocturnalfrost suggested) it's a thick, goopy substance. Easy to spread,
sticky, and dries out slowly to leave a nice, thin layer. I wouldn't let it dry out, though, as whenever I've had that happen, it
turns crusty and crumbly. (It also takes a few weeks... It only happened to me by accident.) Better to leave it wet, so it's more
likely to stick.
That's my two cents, anyway. Easy to make, easy to use, commonly found, and not necessarily lethal... the perfect poison in
my books.

IIRC, 6 drops (somewhere around 5 ml) is LD50, and that's to kill.
Ill like to poin t out tha t LD50 isn t the lethal dose.
LD50 (http://www.uoguelph.ca/GTI/urbanpst/glossf_m.htm)
LD50: The amount of a chemical that is lethal to one-half (50%) of the experimental animals exposed to it.
This can vary greatly in animals and people. You are better off using 150% of the LD50 (of humans) to be cautious.
For nicotine the approximate lethal dose is 60mg, which would probably be more in a smoker.
Someone would probably need less to die if it was put strait into their body, unless the amount of poison coming off the blade
when it enters the body, for a brief second, might not be enough to kill. As it is already dried on the knife little could come off.
All these factors should be taken into consideration before using a poison.
the_twitchy1 August 14th, 2006, 10:40 PM

Thanks for the correction... I was going to edit and post the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine) for nicotine which
includes the tox info (including a supposed lethal dose of 40-60 mg for humans), but you beat me to it. It's useful to note,
though that the amount needed to bring down someone is actually much smaller than ld50, as it is not really necessary to kill,
just to 'bring down'. (Think about how you felt after taking the first deep haul from a cig... amp that up and you've got the
effect of injection.)
Also, I wanted to add that I have never really made sizeable quantites of nicotine from tobacco before... I've done so once,
with a friend who was using it for reasons that I didn't ask about. After I showed him how (it's the same process used to make
essential oils, in essence... ;) ), he did it for a while, but I didn't have to help him again.
As an aside, that same method can be used to extract the oils from most plants. That can be useful when making irritants or
poisons of different varieties... Poison oak extract would probably be an irritant even in trace amounts that would persist for
years and be undetectable to the human senses, for instance.
chemdude1999 August 18th, 2006, 12:10 AM

Being oily, would nicotine make a good lubricant for the knife? With some of the newer kydex sheaths, one could "store" the
knife in a bath of extracted nicotine. Satan's cosmoline?
Also, a further refinement of the lethal dose: Inhaled it takes on average 230 mg/kg of body weight to kill. Injected into the
bloodstream? 0.3 mg/kg of body weight. The average cigarette contains less than 1.0 mg of nicotine.

Being oily, would nicotine make a good lubricant for the knife? With some of the newer kydex sheaths, one could "store" the
knife in a bath of extracted nicotine. Satan's cosmoline?.
I think what your asking was already stated by Chris The Great in a previous post.
A dilute solution of it would be spread onto the knife, and then the solvent evaporates leaving a seemingly dry coating on the
knife.
Also, a further refinement of the lethal dose: Inhaled it takes on average 230 mg/kg of body weight to kill.
Do you know if the doses are immediate or over a time of exposure?
If a person was exposed to a hit of nicotine they may need less to kill them.
chemdude1999 August 20th, 2006, 08:04 PM

c.Tech:
I believe Chris The Great was referring to layer of nicotine unnoticeable at a glance, which is excellent for concealment of the
poison. My idea was more of a massive overkill. Store the blade in the sheath loaded with oily poison and use it knowing full
well the consequences. Also, the blade would leave very obvious residue for forensics.
This brings me to your question of lethality: immediate or lengthy. Most of the data involving nicotine effects are for inhalation
of chewing. However, we can deduce some things. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nicotine is largely detoxified by the liver
with the remaining being excreted unchanged by the kidneys. The nicotine generally would be broken down within a few hours
of exposure. Keeping this in mind, I would suspect that the lethal dose would have to be applied quickly enough (i.e.,
injection, knife cut, etc.) to the bloodstream to overload the metabolism process, thus causing a relatively quick and painful
death. Otherwise, the person could recover if the metabolism was to keep up with the nicotine supply.
Nicotine is very similar to acetylcholine. When released, this compound binds with cholinergic receptors, causing a massive
overstimulation of the synapses leading to vomiting, convulsing and other nasties. Nicotine also binds with these receptors
yielding the same result. Due to these dynamic effects, you are probably right that it would take less to kill someone with a
strong first hit.
anonymous411 August 22nd, 2006, 09:48 PM

Surely you don't mean to say you'd actually dose up a knife you have on you day to day? Any carrying device that keeps you
sufficiently away from the toxin is likely to make it impractical and inconvenient to access it when you need it most. Who
needs the risk... I'd hate to be stuck fumbling around in an emergency with something just as likely to kill me as it is my
target.
I'm sure you all know there are far more efficient ways of administering a lethal dose of toxin than the edge of a blade. (Why
not casually swipe them with a Q-tip?) Likewise, if you're dicking around in a knife fight worrying whether or not you're about to
kill yourself with a stray cut, you aren't going to be using it as effectively as if you were concentrating 100 percent on putting it
on target. In my opinion, anyone who is so unsure of his skill at using a knife to the point that he feels he needs outside help
in making it lethal has no business bringing to a fight to begin with.
chemdude1999 August 22nd, 2006, 11:27 PM

anonymous411:
You bring up some excellent points. Although a kydex sheath would contain and "lock" a knife well, presenting it does cause
problems. It certainly is not an everyday weapon. I think a good quality boot knife is the way to go, sans the toxin. Learn to
use it and practice.
The ideas presented I believe would be more useful in a stealth attack. However, the knife wound would be the obvious entry
of any poison, known or unknown. So the attacker must not have any hesitations about concealment from forensics. This
certainly narrows the application.
nbk2000 August 23rd, 2006, 04:15 AM

Poisoning the edge is silly, as a slashing cut will bleed profusely, washing out the poison.
Far better to poison the tip, which is stabbed into the target, putting the poison deep inside where it'll have time to be
absorbed. :)
Even better is to follow the example of nature, where the stinger leaves a poisoned barb lodged deep in the prey. :)
Then you can really get creative with your bladework, because you're highly unlikely to stab yourself deep enough to engage
the stinger.
Edge to wound, tip to kill. Just like Dune. :D
And in Dune, mastery of the blade was a highly developed skill, much like Italian Renaissance swordsmanship.
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm
Further perusal of the site reveals some interesting news articles about the use of edged weapons (specifically swords):
Auckland, NZ. December 2005. Three men were given jail sentences over an attack that left a 25-year old man outside his
home dead with a sword wound through the eye. The man took a sword with him when he went to stop a noisy fracas in
October last year but was overpowered and violently attacked with his own weapon by three young men. (source:
www.stuff.co.nz)
One of numerous examples of people depending on a weapon for courage, but not having the will to use it. If you don't have
the will to use it, don't take it with you, because it will be used against you.
Suffolk, UK. December, 2005. A Suffolk village post office worker with a ceremonial sword confronted two armed robbers before
being hit on the head with the butt of a sawed-off shotgun. While the men were taking money from the post office a male of
the staff, in his 60s, entered and confronted the robbers with the sword. After a struggle ensued with the two robbers the man
was hit with the butt of the gun and suffered a cut to his head. He was later treated at the scene by a doctor. (source:
www.eveningstar.co.uk)
Such false courage is found in the thugs bringing a shotgun with them and reverting to using it as a club. If you're not going to
shot someone when you have a gun, bring a club instead. Much safer for everyone involved. ;)
c.Tech August 23rd, 2006, 05:43 AM

Such false courage is found in the thugs bringing a shotgun with them and reverting to using it as a club. If you're not going to
shot someone when you have a gun, bring a club instead. Much safer for everyone involved. ;)
I think it was used to be more intimidating, making the person fearing for their life and hand over the money. Would you use
a club for an armed robbery?
Most people who do a robbery with a gun probably never intend to kill but just to get in, get the money with no worries and get
out.
I wouldn t wan t to kill anybody either, imagine being on trial for murder, plus th e amo unt of in vestigation the p olice would p ut
in to catch a murder, armed robbery is bad enough.
Another ide a I jus t had ab out a po ison ed knife is to have a little tube, a bit larger than a pinh ole so it isn t easily see n, and
a groove in the grip, which can have a primer bulb like thing connecting, when pushed it would inject the poison through the
tube.
The primer I m talking about is hard to exp lain, it s u sed to prime the e ngine (http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Primer)with petrol
in lawnmowers. Rather then have a bulb sticking out of the knife you would just make a part of the rubber grip (a groove that
isnt used to hold the knife) on a knife soft so it can act in the same way.
An example of a primer bulb can be seen here (http://www.marinesurplusinc.com/catalog/39_1_b_1038_1.JPG).
If there is a better word I should be using for this please tell me.
nbk2000 August 23rd, 2006, 07:10 PM

If you're not willing to kill someone, then you shouldn't try robbing them. In a lot of places, you'll do the same time for armed
robbery as murder, so why risk it if you're not willing to kill to succeed or escape?
Twice, I've had idiots try to rob me at gunpoint. Twice, I got the gun from them.
I wouldn't try this if I knew they weren't punks with false courage stemming from holding a gun.
Better to have a club you'll use than a gun you'd have taken from you.
I could have killed them both with their own gun, but they weren't worth it, and that's the only thing that saved them from their
own stupidity.
Hence the RTPB of "Don't have a weapon if you're not going to use it".
BlackFalcoN August 23rd, 2006, 08:11 PM

Instead of coating the tip of the blade with a deadly poison (which will very likely kill your adversary -- which is not always
prefered), why not coat it with a ultra-short acting anesthetic ?
Thiopental (Sodium Pentothal) for example would be ideal, since it is reported to work within 10 to 30 seconds. (even shorter
in lethal dosages )
It will temporarily neutralize your adversary for a few minutes (depending on the dosage), without killing him.
Since you control the situation at that moment, you can do as you wish by either fleeing, getting help or performing various
goulish acts (such as instant castration) on the body in front of you (without any struggle :D ).
You could easily replace the knife by a hypodermic needle, reducing the chance of piercing/tearing any vital organs to zero,
resulting in a very bloodless attack.
An average safe dosage could be calculated ahead (mg/ estimated bodyweight of average adversary ) + safety margin, so the
anestethic will work for most encounters.
Keep in mind that thiopental is a barbiturate. It's effects are greatly increased when administered to people under the
influence of alcohol, possibly turning a normal 'safe' dosage into an overdose.
nbk2000 August 23rd, 2006, 09:39 PM

Don't forget than a struggle involving weapons is very stressful.
Heart rate, respiration, blood-pressure, hormones, etc. are all highly elevated.
Throw in drugs and/or alcohol, or even none, and that 'safe' dose of anesthetic becomes lethal.
If you're going to have it, use it, and if you're going to use it, it'd better be the most lethal thing you can get.
GibbsFreeEnergy August 25th, 2006, 05:41 AM

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but as far as truly punishing a criminal for commiting some crime against one goes it
might be advisable to dope the knife blade with some harsh base like sodium hydroxide (powder).
I doubt this would be lethal, but I cringe imagining the pain it would inflict upon the organism stabbed.
It may work best to roughen the blade's surface by either some crude process with a file or using a hand knurler. If that
wouldn't hold the powder, maybe one could add a light oil to the mixture. Simple, but I hypothesize it'd be quite effective.
*NO self-signing of your posts*

Extracting capsicum from red pepper with hot alcohol, and putting that on your blade would cause a simple cut to burn like fire.
It could give you that slight edge in a fight, and nothing for the cops to nail you on - it's a food stuff.
There are several poisons that have been used in the past. The Soviet Army sometimes coated the base of bullets with
aconitine from monkshood (aka: wolfbane). According to my Merck Manual, it is a fast acting poison with no antidote, and
require very little to kill. The first symptom is numness, followed by nervous system shut-down, just like a nerve agent.
A modification, aconitine nitrate, is listed by Merck as being "an EXTREMELY violent poison" (emphasis is theirs), so you can
imagine how quickly it would work.
I do not know if monkshood/wolfbane seeds can still be purchased at garden shops, but it is a wildflower.
c.Tech September 9th, 2006, 11:32 PM

and nothing for the cops to nail you on - it's a food stuff.
It is a foodstuff but if you prep are it and us e it in the form to damage someone s b ody it would be s een as a chemical agent.
atlas#11 September 11th, 2006, 01:58 AM

"dope the knife blade with some harsh base like sodium hydroxide (powder).",
"maybe one could add a light oil to the mixture."
Wouldn't you end up with soap?

The point of this thread was to provide self defense in a robery or something. I assume it's not a premeditated assassination,
and therefore we want something that is as quick as a handgun at neutralizing the enemy. The only poisons that come to
mind capable of being even remotley effective at this would be neuro toxins. At the same time, we want plausable denyability,
elminating any form of oil coating which would preserve evidence of poisoning, or any form of rare neurotoxin.
Mace sounds like a good idea to me, but if you are really bent on doing someone in, try using an air gun. If you have a CO2
pellet pistol, you can easily give them the idea that your using a real gun, or you can give them a good pop to the eye. On a
new tank, my pistol will shoot through a watermelon, roughly proportional to well over the balistics of a human eyeball. I think
your self defense claim will hold up in court if your a kid who shot some mugger in the eye with his beeby gun.
I'm sure this has been covered before on this forum.
Also, lets not forget, guns aren't impossible to procure any where. Save up some money, and have a look around the local
underground. I bought my first gun when I was 14, payed a hundred bucks for it, still shoots great. Guns are perfectly legal
here, so their easy to come buy, but not for minors. It's all about the cash.

C.Tech, you do have plausable deniability - "But officer, I use my knife to cut up peppercorns for my Texas style chilli!"
Aconitine nitrate has similar, but not as strong, deniability, you were cutting weeds in your garden with your knife. Aconitine is
a neurotoxin.
You want to keep some opening to give the court to have a bit of doubt as to your having crossed the line.
If you want to increase the speed of a toxin, disolve it in DMSO. It will be carried more quickly through the tissues to do its
damage. Black mamba venom in DMSO should work in a few seconds. Just don't touch the blade, or it will "bite" you.

C.Tech, you do have plausable deniability - "But officer, I use my knife to cut up peppercorns for my Texas style chilli!"
Oh I see what you meant now ;) I thought you were saying it was legal.
Good idea, but you shouldn't use the oil, cutting your pepper corns doesnt leave a red oil on your blade does it?
You would have to extract near pure capsicum, because your red oil would be a dead giveaway.
Alexires September 12th, 2006, 09:44 AM

I think that a big problem here is the time taken.
How many people here have heard of a knife fight, or a mugging (with a knife where someone has been stabbed) going on
for 5 minutes?
If you don't intend to kill with the knife, don't use it. Your poison is not going to work in 5 seconds, and that is easily enough
time for someone to take the knife from you and use it on you....permanently.
Seriously, you would be better off using something like nicotine in a spray and just dosing them in the face. Use of acetone as
a solvent may disorientate them enough for the nicotine to have time to take effect, but using a knife is not a good idea for a
poison carrier.
Ropik September 12th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Why bother with a nicotine procuring and not use formaldehyde in the first place? If he is not able to have an eye-rinse
immediatelly(and he won't be able because he will be rolling around in pain), he will be blind. Blind people are not very good
muggers. If it's for self-defence, that's enough. No need to kill.

Blind people are not very good muggers. If it's for self-defense, that's enough. No need to kill.
Not good muggers but can sue for a fortune. Also they are more evidence lying around to send you to jail. Knives are better
because you have more of a reason to be using reasonable force in self-defense.
I dont think intent to blinding a muggers would be called reasonable in front of a judge.
Diabolique September 13th, 2006, 02:14 AM

Where I live, anything more than a 5 cm blade will get you into almost as much trouble as a firearm. If it is not in plane sight,
it also gets you a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. People have been known to be arrested for defending themselves
against a mugger, and charged with more serious crimes than the mugger. The mugger walked, and the victim did the time.
Something else to consider when using deadly force to defend yourself. We've been "civilized" into a nation of sheep.

5_Seven:
Iron Oxide (Rust) has never given a person tetanus. It's a micro-organism that is often found in the ground, Clostridium
Tetani, that causes tetanus poisoning.
Fresh horse and cow dung, mixed in with moist acidic soil, with the bare blade allowed to rust within it, is assured to carry many
nasty diseases within it. :)
I thin k this has been mentioned earlier, even if tetanus Clostridium Tetani was used it probably wouldn t in fect an immunized
person.
And unless you live in a 3rd world country most of the population would be immunized.

That's what beginners think...that 'immunization' confers perfect immunity.
It doesn't.
It provides a varying level of resistance to infection, depending on the state of health of the individual at the time of infection,
how long ago they were immunized, their immune response to the vaccination, the amount of infectious agent they are
exposed to, etc.
If you keep your blade in the shit box every day, taking it out when you go out to patrol the DMZ (or get milk in the ghetto!
:D), anyone you stab or cut with it is going to be in a world of shit if they mess with you, because it's not just tetanus (in
massive dosage), but gas gangrene, molds, fungus, anerobics, parasites, and every other nasty thing that lives in shit and
dirt, being embedded deep into the warm and wet environs of their flesh.
So even if they are immunized against tetanus, that's not going to stop any of a dozen other things from eating them from
within. :)

I did know that it didn t perfectly p rotect so mebody from the disease but was just going from what my doctor told me .
He said tha t if I had nt got my tetanus booste r yet, my resistance to contact would be only slightly de creased, from 95%
prote cted to 90%, I m a s s u m ing it would be the same with m ost if not all va ccinated viruses an d diseases.
Chris the great mentioned this before. It's a long shot thought but maybe if somebody grew the bacteria and extracted the
toxin from it that causes contraction and spasms of muscles it could be used to cause an instant effect.
Because the dose is so little it would be hard to detect.
Does anybody know the stability on the toxin?
BTW - If someone is infected with the Clostridium Tetani it only causes death 10% of the time. This mostly happens in elderly
people and children.

During the Southeastern Fun and Games, the VC would use punji stakes coated with animal and human feces. Enough of this
substance remained on the punji stakes even after being out in the weather for a month to cause very nasty infections.
Massive doses of antibiotics were needed to save life, if not limb.
Are we talking of a rapid acting substance that will give us an edge in winning a knife fight, or something that will insure that
our attacker will not attack anyone again, regardless of the immediate outcome? Each has own requirements that do not
always overlap.
Some glucocides, like that of Lilly-of-the-Valley, can cause what appears to be a heart attack, and do not require a lot of
material. Absorbed through a cut, with the adrenaline pumping in the individual cut with it, would likely be dead of a coronary
in under a minute.
If you want to make sure the attacker does not survive to attack again, and want a punishing death, use ricine. No antidote,
and the symptoms often confused for an illness.

The 10% death rate is likely from scratches or stepping on nails, not massively filthy blades shoved into organs, with
attendant weakening through multiple co-infections.
As for the stability of the toxin, it was (from memory, now) heat stable to a high degree, as well as chemically resistant. You
could even crystallize it into large crystals if you wanted. :) Or was that typhoid?
Syke September 14th, 2006, 08:38 PM

Even though the nicotene plan has pretty much been scrapped i would just like to tell any k3w15 who try concentrating it that it
is a skin absorbable toxin. I dont think I would ever want to carry it on me simply because a drop of the concentrate is strong
enough to kill you if it drips on your skin. My suggestion would be to coat a blade with a hallucinogen (LSD?) since you might
be able to explain why it was already in the assailants system and it might incapacitate an attacker whike solidifying your plea
of being victimized.

LSD wouldn't be feasible because it's destroyed by heat and it takes too long to start to take take effect (about an hour). You
cannot OD on it, just trip profusely.
It'd be too expensive to coat your knife daily with, too, and the average dosage back in the sixties was 250mcg. Coating an
entire knife blade would be very costly. Besides that, If I could get my hands on some good, clean acid I'll be damned if I'm
gonna waste it on an attacker!
(Don't make me come over to your house and lick all your knives, now, just on the chance...). ;)

Im talking baaad acid. The kind that you make from contaminated LSA. Also whats the time for actual injection. It should be
near instantaneous since it doesent have to go through the digestive tract. Also I was talking about any hallucinogen (maybe
a blood grove with mescaline evaporated into it). The LSD was just an example.
GibbsFreeEnergy September 15th, 2006, 02:16 AM

I think it's a bad idea. As someone already stated, LSD is a very fragile molecule and would likely be largely destroyed on
being in a knife sheath or on a knife exposed to light. LSD is so sensitive that light does indeed break it down. Not only this,
the synthesis of LSD is fairly complex and requires many chemicals that are extremely hard to obtain. You don't make LSD
from LSA, this synthesis has been tried many times and has failed. I have read some novel synthesis approaches using this
route that report having worked, but have not had enough peer confirmation to accept it. Not only all of that, but the time it
would take for LSD to actually affect the person would not be a matter of seconds but probably at least a minute or two or
longer. You have to remember that blood, and therefore LSD, are going to be pouring out of the wound therefore expelling a
lot of it from even entering the blood stream. Big difference between a stab wound and an injection.

(maybe a blood grove with mescaline evaporated into it)..
Mescaline dose is over a gram, no recreational drug is stronger than LSD.
The closest thing you could get to LSD would be ergotamine (http://www.erowid.org/plants/ergot/ergot.shtml). Ergot is a
fungus that infects cereal grains, replacing kernels of the fruit with small black masses of mycelium. It produces ergotamine, a
potent vasoconstrictor and precursor to LSD. Ergot poisoning (St Anthony's Fire) causes hallucinations, gangrenous loss of
limbs, and death. Outbreaks plagued medieval Europe and were associated with witchcraft and the Inquisition.
I read somewhere that the minimal lethal dose for ergotamine is between 15-20 mg.

DOM is a real MF'er of a hallucinogen, but takes too long to get off.
As for acid, taken IV it still takes around a half hour to feel much effect. Forget that bullshit you might have heard about
"instantaneous peak" and the like. It just flat isn't true.
It does give the user a queasy, uneasy feeling until the normal routine of getting off takes over. And, this with orange barrel
which was considered VG acid.
The deniability of shit borne infection seems to be best of the long term-type agents. Fast acting- that's a tough one...
5_seven September 15th, 2006, 03:53 PM

If we're talking drugs, why not an amphetamine? You could just say some unruley tweaker acosted you. Who're the cops going
to believe? The guy that defended himself, or the guy with meth in his system?

If we're talking drugs, why not an amphetamine? You could just say some unruley tweaker acosted you. Who're the cops going
to believe? The guy that defended himself, or the guy with meth in his system?
You dont want to put a stong stimulant into someone whos trying to kill you. An incapacitating dose of a strong sedative or
hallucinogen would be better than making the assailant pain esistant and stronger.

Now that's a good idea! :)
If the 'attacker' has a shitload of illegal drugs in his system, who'll believe that he was actually a victim of YOUR aggression?
After all, you're just a law-abiding citizen going about your business when this scummy poly-drug abuser (speedball, anyone?
:p) tried to rob you. You naturally defended yourself, and lost the knife during the struggle, after which you fled.
The scummy thug must have thrown the knife away to hide evidence, right? ;)
Arisaka September 25th, 2006, 07:25 PM

There's a flashlight like that called "Tigerlight".
They sell batons in germany with pepperspray in it.

But i don't know if it's really practical :rolleyes:
Bando January 1st, 2007, 01:13 PM

Just a suggestion, I didn't see it posted here, but many plants have poisonous properties. If one could figure out how to
extract the poison from a plant in their respective region, a defense could be that you were cutting up the plant with your knife
for whatever purpose, unintentionally poisoning the knife. I don't know how well this would fly, but heres a website with
poisonous plants by region: http://mic-ro.com/plants/

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > C reating a "sim ple " EMP
Log in
View Full Version : Creating a "simple" EMP
monkus March 23rd, 2006, 11:17 PM

Hey guys, I'm new to this foru m, but this post is pretty importan t, so I'd appreciate som e help if it's possib le.
I'm a pretty sm art 16 year old, taking four Advanced Placement courses am ong a dozen other things in preparation for
college. The subject I'm here to talk about is AP Physics B.
W e started the electricity unit a few weeks ago, and my friend Jeff and I convinced our teacher to agree to som ething: If we
could build an EMP, we would both get A+'s for the year. O bviously she m a k e s t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n , b u t s h e ' s a n h o n e s t p e r s o n ,
and I could use the A+ (I'm averaging about an A right now, but the m aterial is g etting pretty tough). I'm not necessarily
look ing for an easy way out of the course, but showing up the te acher wo uld be nice, and this would be a great way to do so.
So, now my request for all of you: I need help in m a k i n g an EMP. It need not be tremendously large, it need not be incredibly
effective, it just has to work. Is there any relatively easy way to m a k e o n e ? I ' m not a fantastic eng ineering student, but I am
willing to put in both tim e a n d r e s e a r c h , a n d J e f f a n d I a r e c a p a b l e o f g e t t i n g m o s t n e c e s s a r y m a t e r i a l s a s s u m i n g t h e y ' r e n o t
particularly outrageous.
If it's too complicated for people our age, that's fine too, I just need to know now before I get too involved. Thanks a ton fo r
your help in advance.
~m o n k u s
malzraa March 26th, 2006, 05:10 PM

This is a fairly easily implemented EMWAR solu tion- the HERF
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com /globalguerrillas/2004/05/journal_homem ad.htm l
Chris The Great March 26th, 2006, 08:39 PM

The most effective EMP from what I ha ve read uses a coil of wire surrounding an explosive charge. A fairly large cap acitor ba n k
is discharged into the coil to g enerate a very powerful m agnetic field. At the sam e tim e , t h e t u b e o f H E i s d e t o n a t e d a t o n e
end, and as the detonation travels down the tube it pushes the potential energy of the m agnetic field into a smaller area, as
the destroyed coil can no long er store energy. Then it breaks that and all of the energy in the capacitor bank is rele a s e d
instantly as a huge EMP pulse.
The main concerns with such a design is not construction, but ge tting the tim ing and everything down. The coil need s to be
destroyed when all of the energy is stored as current, not in the capcitor, and the whole system will be resonating since it is an
LC resonater. The detonator also needs to fire precisely enough for this, so you'll probably need a slapper detonater, and
s o m e way of making sure that everything is tim ed precisely.
This whole setup will require a very large amount of design work and calculations, I don't think it would be im possible but it
would certain ly be a challenge.
You could probably buy som e high voltage pulse capacitors off ebay, a few hundred joules should be enough for "proof of
concept". You'll also need a shield to protect th e capacitors from the explosion, so they can be reu sed, otherwise you'll go
through a lot of m oney really fast.
Lastly, you'll need to make sure your teacher will allow you to use explosives. You probably wouldn't need m uch for a sm all
scale setup, m a y b e 3 0 grams per shot, but still...
You can probably find a much more detailed explanation of the setup I'm talking about on the net, and m aybe eve n have
s o m e of the problems I've m entioned solved.
Kamisama March 26th, 2006, 11:23 PM

I wish m y college teachers were that le nient.
Don't tell her who told you the information.
Roguesci or 4HV.ORG
are about the only places I know people know about EMPs.
totse, ehh.. it's not as good as it use to be.
Alexires March 27th, 2006, 07:07 AM

Hm m m , I've seen the plans for that explosive EMP. I really doubt that they will le t a high school student use that, but....
W hy not just use a bank of ca pacitors to fire into a coil of wire? W ouldn't that gen erate an electrom agnetic field? W i t h e n o u g h
energy, surely that would be the equivilent of a n EMP? And by definition, it would be an EMP, a pulse of electrom agnetic
radiation.
Or, just after some brief searching have a look here.
http://www.eskim o.com /~bilb/freenrg/em pweap.htm l

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4845378.htm l
Or, here is a site with those plans on the explosive one...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/ebomb.html
H o p e i t h e l p s s o m ewhat...

Any of the plans for "coin shrinkers" should be more than enough to frag anything electrical inside the coil.
j_dmillar March 28th, 2006, 09:11 PM

This is just com ing off the top of m y h e a d , b u t h o w a b o u t m a k i n g a n e x t r e m ely powerful coilgun, usingJust throwing this off
the top of my he bare wire and no barrel through the co il. Well, not bare wire, but wire with the insulation filed off on the inside
of the coil. As it pulls the slug through the coil, the slug will progressivel short out m ore of the coil.
No idea if it would work, without further thought, this took less tim e to think of than to write down, but I figured I would get it
out there to see if anyone could take it and turn it into som ething that m a k e s s e n s e
NightStalker March 29th, 2006, 12:34 AM

http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/wiki/RFID-Zapper(EN)
M a d e f r o m a wire coil and a one-time use cam era. How simple is that? :)
FUTI March 29th, 2006, 08:28 AM

H a s a n y o n e a r o u g h e s t i m ate how fast should that shorting out of the coil be to produce good result? Could a "bullet" from air-
rifle passing through a coil with stripped wire insulation do the trick?

The faster th e better. Hence using explosives to destroy/switch the coils.
That article is very funny, especially the warnings at the end!
Chris The Great May 3rd, 2006, 07:52 PM

It's simply a magnetic field and won't generate any substantial em p at all. It m ight erase your tapes but it won't send out the
m assive electro-m agnetic field that a true EMP creates. A true EMP releases all of it's stored energy at once into the
electrom agnetic spectrum (ie, radio wa ves and the like) and doesn't just create a brief m agnetic field as the device you have
just described would.
A l s o , y o u h a v e W A Y t o m uch copper wire, the capacitor won't discharge quickly enough... I'd say 50-500 turns would do.
Surprised this got past NBK...
nbk2000 May 3rd, 2006, 11:52 PM

He snuck it in while I was asleep.
But I'm awake now. :)
* R A W R!!...crackcrunch...slish...ploot* ;)

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > PVC Plans for a sniper rifle???
Log in
View Full Version : PVC Plans for a sniper rifle???
Woday March 24th, 2006, 05:09 PM

ok this is a setup for plans i got for a pvc pipe sniper rifle i have not tried this and nor will I for the simple reason pvc explodes under pressure. i just wanted to know what you
all thought of it.
Here is the page

http://nerfhaven.com/homemade/boltsniper_far/
lemmie know your opinion

That looks pretty neat for a fun toy gun. I wouldn't say a "sniper rifle" though!
I wonder if it could be uprated to fire potatoes or something like it, with precut cores?
Chaosmark March 27th, 2006, 12:16 AM

Jacks Complete: I'm sure that one could use it to fire even whole potatoes, assuming said person upsized it to accomodate the potatoes. Then you simply "sabot" each round
in, say, a capped piece of PVC so that it fires correctly and at least semi-accurately.
Not sure that it would be worth the effort, but if you really wanted to...
The pre-cut core idea might have a bit more merit, though I'm sure a spring doesn't pack quite enough power to launch potato cores around. One might consider using some
other form of power (CO2 comes to mind). Interesting sport to play though: potato shooting. "How accurate can YOU shoot a potato?"
lowjack July 8th, 2006, 01:38 AM

what the hell is this thing supposed to be shooting? I see nothing coming out of the business end of the gun is either of those videos provided in the link.

lowjack, it fires the nerf darts out the center of the riders, which you see being ejected when the action is cranked back. You can't see the bullets on most guns, just a flash,
and you never see the pellet from an air gun unless you are using uncompressed video and a close-up. The Nerfs just go faster than the crappy compressed frame rate can
cope with.
Cobalt.45 July 8th, 2006, 01:40 PM

Removed due to being redundant

ok this is a setup for plans i got for a pvc pipe sniper rifle i have not tried this and nor will I for the simple reason pvc explodes under pressure.
I sincerely doubt that the spring mechanism used in this "weapon" would provide high enough pressure to rupture the PVC.
teshilo July 9th, 2006, 07:14 AM

Idea about complete plastic Sniper rifle very nice,as create this on practice?:cool: :cool: This crossed with idease about disposable telesniper.I read artycles about CIA so called
"Glass gun" Complete from ceramics with caseless ammo.Virtually for smooth barrel can used teflone, as bullet ceramic finned darts for accurate,This onl only virtually:cool:
billybobjoe July 9th, 2006, 07:51 PM

Well its not exactly a potato, but it is a potato cannon.
Linkie:
http://media.putfile.com/outside-shot
It was a 7 gram pellet of flour wrapped in tinfoil, approximately 8 square inches. It was fired from this http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=6/18015470566.jpg&s=f5 cannon at 50
psig, and my muzzle was 158 inches from the target.
This cannon cost me $23 cdn and about 10-15 min to assemble, including the valve modification. Im sure in a pinch this would do nicely to a "pig" with a large lead
fishing sinker and 180 psig.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > True Capabilty of commercial cattle
prods
Log in
View Full Version : True Capabilty of commercial cattle prods
Red Beret March 27th, 2006, 11:45 PM

I have been doing alot of searching regarding cattle prods being used against humans. The reports generally seem conflicting.
Some people claim that they merely feel like a 'mild tingle' or a bee sting, while others (including a discussion I had with a
stock agent) claim that the jolt can be incapacitating.
Now, I fully understand that these are not tasers. But I am not currently able to obtain tasers, and I have the opportunity to
purchase a variety of cattle prods, including the hand held type. I can also purchase the "power unit" for one of the full length
prods, which I could possibly make into a hand held unit. I would like to hear from anyone that has one of these, or had one
used against them, so I can see if its worth the money. I'm having a friend make a 200kv taser with plans I got from the net
so I'll see how that goes.
Thanks for any replies anyone can give.
nbk2000 March 30th, 2006, 05:53 AM

I had one back in the early 90's called a 'Tru-shot' (I believe). Red rubber hand with a silver metal cylinder sticking out of it
with two copper prods on the end. Took 3 C batteries.
Stuck it in my palm and hit the button.
BIG mistake.
Shot a shock through my arm and up/down my spine that threw me for a loop for a few minutes. :o
Never had opportunity to use it on anyone else, but I did hit a pit in the nose through a fence. You should have seen that
fucker whirl and run away yelping!
I'm sure it's just like with stun-guns. Some brands/types are junk and others ass-kickers. All you can do is go with some well-
known/establised brands and avoid anything no one in the trade has heard of.
Ask a rancher or cattleman what brand they use. If it works with 1,000 pound bulls, it'll do the trick with a human for sure. :)
Red Beret April 2nd, 2006, 01:11 AM

Thanks mate. Thats convinced me to get one. The one I'm looking at is called a thunderstick, I think its a 4000v one. It
takes four C size batteries.
I was looking at some small taser sized ones, but apparently the voltage is quite a bit lower. I can get the electric module for
the thunderstick, which is almost half the price. So I think I'll get it and put it in a narrow PVC pipe so I is more compact and
robust, I'll use two nails for probes. I think even the hand held types would have a nasty effect on humans, as you said, if
they are a quality brand and have a reputation for working well on 1000lb cattle, they're surely going to stop an average sized
man. Especially if you go for the neck, head, face etc.
Thanks again, I'll let you know how I go. ;)
simply RED April 4th, 2006, 01:49 PM

The optimum voltage for an electroshock is 10 kV. Remember - amperage kills - not voltage. 100 mA through a human is
considered the absolute lethal dose.
I have to wait the spring vacation anyway - to post some warm schematics on the question.
Red Beret April 4th, 2006, 10:07 PM

OK, thanks. So if 10kv is the optimum voltage for an electro shock does this mean it is better than say, 35kv or higher? Look
forward to those schematics. Cheers.
Chris The Great April 5th, 2006, 03:58 AM

A higher voltage allows it to jump through more clothing, etc, to get to hte target. However, voltages like "600kV!!!!1111one"
that a lot of tasers advertize are useless. Firstly, that would in theory arc about 4 feet through the air when the prongs are two
inches apart, and second, it won't do a thing to make the taser more effective than the cheaper "300kV" one. I highly doubt
they even come close to those voltages anyway.
As for 10kV vs 30kV, I'd personally go a little higher than 10kV but it really won't matter that much, it is going to fuckin hurt
whether it is 10 or 30kV.
100mA being lethal assumes a 60Hz current, 100mA of DC current is painful but probably not fatal.
However, 1A of 60Hz current, you might survive, since your heart will stop during current flow and then start beating normally
again (most of the time at least). The 100mA at 60Hz is fatal because it causes your heart to begin to beat irregularily.
The defibulater fixes this by blasting it with 10 amps or so to stop and then start it again, hopefully beating normally.
I've touch a fully charged 3kV capacitor (by accident) and despite feeling my heart cleanch up along with every muscle on my
body, I'm still alive and fine, although it did burn two holes at the entry and exit points. But those healed up and except for
the "OH SHIT" reaction and panic that occured knowing how I nearly killed myself, I was fine.
The point here is that 100mA and above is not always fatal, it depends on too many factors to just say "this is fatal, this is
not."
A little off topic but it is best to clear up when something you are handling might be fatal or just hurt like a screaming bitch on
fire.
I'd be interested in those schematics as well, I've always had a small desire to make a taser but I never looked for plans or
had the desire strong enough to decide to design my own.
a_bab April 5th, 2006, 08:02 AM

The voltage for any stun gun on the market is no more than maybe 30 kv. As stated before, there is a lot of crap about what
they can do. I got one myself, and I tried it on me. I pointed it to my arm, as I guessed the leg would have hurt much more,
and I was right. It's not a pain you can't stand, but it does hurt. It's also nice to see the muscles contracting. I guess that a
long exposure to these pulses would not be a good thing, because I got only a discharge at a time (maybe two).
About making such a device, well, I'm afraid you need some special equipment and materials. The coil needs to be filled with
some good electrical insulator resine, and under vacuum in order to avoid the air pockets.

Ok,thanks for all the advice. Just one final question, because of you experience a-bab (or anyone), what effect do you think a
hand held 4.5kv cattle prod would have on the average bloke, if discharged into the neck or upper body? Enough to make him
think twice about hassling you again?
Cheers.:)
Daeman April 9th, 2006, 06:22 AM

id say yes, like was said above, if it has any effect on a bull (which i can personally assure you, they do) it will have an effect
on a 150 lb man.
course, i suppose if youre feeling a little "insufficient" in the personal defense area you could always buy two or three and duct
tape em back to back ;)
a_bab April 9th, 2006, 03:55 PM

The cattle prod is designed not to "put down a cattle" but to create pain and induce movement. The stun gun is used to
incapacitate.
I'd say it would hurt alot, and you may gain some advantage over the victim from the initial shock of the cattle prod use, but it
wouldn't incapacitate the victim. Why don't you try it on yourself? :)
simply RED April 12th, 2006, 05:00 AM

"if it has any effect on a bull (which i can personally assure you, they do"
You finally tried something on yourself?
"course, i suppose if youre feeling a little "insufficient" in the personal defense area you could always buy two or three and
duct tape em back to back"
Like the fused swords in "Final Fantasy" movie? You could use the device to force somebody check your grammar :) .
------------------------------
You need no special materials to make ultra powerful electroshock. 2 transistors low frequency multivibrator - one transistor
amplifer class D and one powerful transistor for amperage adjustment. Followed by a high voltage coil used in cars (ingiting
the fuel in the engine) (there are fairly small models too). This followed by Grec scheme with 20 mA - 10 kV diodes. The whole
thing charges 20 n - 10kV (I used 7,5 kV) capacitor for 1/10 of the second. Final voltage 7,5-8 kV.
Consumation 9-10V ; 1,5A = 15W

Deadly...
Red Beret April 12th, 2006, 05:26 AM

Everyones advice has been very helpful, thanks. I have ordered a "Magic Shock stock prod" with 29cm shaft. Apparently it has
twice the input/output ratio of its competitors, with a built in buzzer for psycological effect. Takes four C size batteries.
If I do have the chance to purchase a proper stun gun, can anyone reccomend a brand and model that actualy puts people
down, as they say they do?
Also I have some plans from the net, for a 200kv one, if they dont work, can anyone give me some plans that are proven to
work and put people down?
Also, some people in the US are selling stun guns on ebay and claim to ship world wide, is it worth the risk trying to get one
sent to Australia? Possibly dismantled....
Thanks greatly.

Hmmm, I don't think it would be worth having one sent into Aus, when you can easily make your own. A little electronics
equiptment, a little research, and you wouldn't have to worry about the pork knocking.
I'm fairly certain that anything sent into Aus gets quarantined and checked, it just wouldn't be worth it.
If your in Aus, and worried about self defence, try learning a martial art? The problem with things like stun guns and knives
and such is that they are no use if you don't get them out in time. When a punch to the head can knock someone out, thats a
mightly lot faster than trying to get a stun gun out.
Just an idea. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a stun gun, even if I never used it.

A stun gun is a force multiplier. A mere touch should repel anyone, rather unlike hitting someone, which is rather hard to do
effectively if you aren't ready, trained, or in stance. Time is also important, if there are multiple attackers.
The likelihood of being killed by a shock is almost zero if the charge does not pass across the heart. Hundreds of people are
still given shock therapy every year for depression, milliamps across the head, which affect the brain and (probably) hurts
massively, but doesn't kill. Many people are tortured with electric, too, and it rarely kills them in skilled hands, not matter how
much they want it to.
Once the high resistance of the skin is breached, the body can be modelled as a bag of salty water. Current flows perfectly well
through it, and causes involtuntary activation of the muscle fibres, easily over-riding the millivolt signals from the nervous
system.
High frequency AC will cook you without a reaction, and you can let go of the wire, as long as you do it before you start to
smoke. Regular 50/60Hz AC will break you badly, but I'm not that up on the physical effects. However, few people are
admitted to hospital due to electrical shocks. They are either fine in a moment, or dead. DC is the one that kills best, since
you cannot release your hand or any other muscle, and the system is overridden.
The Taser type systems use very high frequency AC to break down the skin resistance, and clothing resistance, and then
switch down to a low powered DC signal once conduction occurs. This ensures that it is quite safe, while the subject is
commonly subjected to massive muscle contractions.
The newest systems use a pulsed DC system, which is safer, and has an effect like the TENS machines you can buy. Rather
unpleasant, as the high frequency DC pulses don't simply travel by the easiest route, and so muscle exhaustion occurs over a
wide area.
Air taser breaches the skin resistance by stabbing through it with two barbed arrows on two little wires, btw.
To kill someone, charge a regular capacitor and use the current in that to pump amps into the target once conduction is made
by a high voltage spark. Or use a cap charged to 4000 volts, like a laser supply. Get one hand on one contact, and one on the
other. You might be able to hit the head and conduct to the (common) ground, too.
Corrections expected.
Chris The Great April 12th, 2006, 10:12 PM

Regular 50/60Hz AC will break you badly, but I'm not that up on the physical effects. However, few people are admitted to
hospital due to electrical shocks. They are either fine in a moment, or dead. DC is the one that kills best, since you cannot
release your hand or any other muscle, and the system is overridden.
AC kills most efficiently as a 60/50Hz signal will mess up the regular heartbeat at very low currents, 50mA to 100mA across the
chest will kill, even if you let go. It also causes you to get "stuck" when your muscles contract, like DC. I am not that
knowledgable on DC effects, other than that it burns intensely at 10mA, but I do know that 60/50Hz is very very bad news for
the heart. It is rare for your heart to beat normally after a good shock of 50mA or more...
To kill someone, charge a regular capacitor and use the current in that to pump amps into the target once conduction is made
by a high voltage spark. Or use a cap charged to 4000 volts, like a laser supply. Get one hand on one contact, and one on the
other. You might be able to hit the head and conduct to the (common) ground, too.
Corrections expected.
As I have mentioned I touched a capacitor at 3000 volts and it did not kill me. The heart contracts and then beats normally
again afterwards. Same thing as a defibulator. It is horribly unpleasent, but not a 100% kill thing. Now, maybe if your capacitor
is really really big, but then it gets really bulky and heavy.
Thork April 12th, 2006, 11:14 PM

I have owned several stun guns and a few cattle prods. I had rather be touched with a stun gun. The cattle prods hurt more.
I've been to gun shows where they sell stun guns , promising that they will knock someone down, disabling them. When I ask
to see it and stick it to myself several times, they seem to get mad(especially if a crowd is around) :) .

Thanks All.
Alexeris- I dont want a stun gun as the be all and end all, I am quite experienced in martial arts, but want some back up,
incase the person simply wont go down, or if I need to put someone down quietly.
I'll just stick with the cattle prod for now and do some testing. I'll also see how my associate goes with the 200kv stun gun
plans I gave him.
Thanks again.
nbk2000 April 15th, 2006, 09:52 PM

As with any weapon, there's always a defense:
http://www.thorshield.com/
Protects against TASER and cattleprod.
Video demo:
http://www.thorshield.com/images/ThorShield.wmv

Hmm, thats rather interesting.
I got my prod!
Tried it, (on me)- OUCH! :rolleyes:
I dreamed I was still looking at getting a stun gun,

I had a plan to order one from US, so that worst case scenario I lost my money and thats all.
I dreamed I could get these brands, can anyone confirm the effectiveness, uselesness, ones to avoid etc?
Here they are (the ones I dreamed of):

Black Cobra
Talon
Stunmaster (seems good)
Panther
Z-Force
Raptor
Streetwise
Any advice or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Red Beret.
nbk2000 April 18th, 2006, 10:54 PM

The only one I'd use would be TASER, and not the 'air' taser, but the X26 or M18. Expect to pay over US$300, but you get what
you pay for.
If you know an animal doctor or rancher, get the animal control TASER. 4x more powerful than the human TASER (lethal), and
longer range too. :)
Expect to pay the $PRICE$ for that one!
Cattle prods are for torture and should be restricted to such use, as only TASER's are (IMO) worth using in a fight.

Thanks NBK I will look into those two tasers.
I got bored today so I fried a few cockroaches, using my new toy. I think the back of the head and also the face would be the
most painful places to use a shock prod, and the groin area of course:eek: .
I have been reading reports from amnesty international etc, and some people claim to have been shocked for so long (with a
prod) that they passed out. Cool....;) And when the batteries wear out, they put fresh ones in and keep cookin'.

I have to wonder why they don't buy a mains adapter for them...
I've viewed that Thor video. I suspect it's just a metallic weave undershirt, which simply offers a better conduction path than
the skin. Digging around the site shows a picture of what looks like a woven material, but it says it is plastic. Now, we can
determine that it isn't a simple insulator sheild, as the air taser prongs would go through that easily, and still shock, and it
also claims effective against microwave DEWs, so it must be conductive.
I figure, since the only colour that it comes in is black, it is a heavily carbon (graphite) doped plastic sheet.
If someone with a Taser/prod/whatever could run a simple test on an electrostatic computer part bag, I would be interested to
see if the effect of having that under (or over) regular clothing would be the same. If that doesn't work, try a layer of tin foil
with the conductive plastic behind it.
Let us know what happens - I can't legally get a stungun to try it!
sprocket April 29th, 2006, 11:32 AM

I tested the shielding properties of electrostatic bags with my 30kV ignition coil device. The test setup was simple. I put my
left hand in various antistatic bags, grounded it by attaching a crocodile clip to a torn edge and tried to touch the HV terminal
of the device using the (hopefully) shielded hand.
First up was a Richmond Drypack 3030. It's a typical semitransparent bag with a thin conductive layer between two plastic
layers. This bag did not work well at all, quite an unpleasant experience. I got shocked all over my hand.
Next up was the 3M 3370 "Moisture Barrier Bag", This is a fully reflective bag with an Aluminium conductive layer in between a
PE and PET layer. I thought this was a winner. However initial testing (before I put my hand in) showed that the bag just
melted when subjected to high voltage. The thick outer layer is isolating the aluminium too efficiently so that when dielectric
breakdown occurs the plasma arc gets so hot that all three layers melt and you're left with a hole in the bag. It might work
against low power high voltage devices like prods and tasers though.
Then there's the cheapest type of ESD protective bag. Unbranded wide conductive grid bag. I'm not even sure the "condustive"
[sic] layer is conductive. At least I didn't get it to conduct anything without turning it into coal.
The final test was a large (for motherboards and such) semitransparent bag, much like the first. There's no brand name
visible on this one. This test was successful. The bag completely shielded my hand from the HV and I didn't feel a thing.
Unfortunately the conductive layer took heavy damage and I doubt it would survive longer than a few seconds, but again, this
is probably an effect of my relatively high power device (30-50W plasma arc). The attached photo is from this test.
In conclusion I think it's viable to construct a taser/stun gun/cattle prod/whatever protective suit using electrostatic protective
bags. Even better protection could be obtained if the protective layer isn't in contact with your skin.
Chris The Great April 29th, 2006, 08:53 PM

This might sound stupid, but Al foil comes in 200 foot rolls at the local grocery store and I think it would take a lot more
current than an anti static bag.
The problem is that it is (very) noisy if you're trying to move around. Though I think the anti-static bag would also be noisy.
The commercial anti-taser device shown probably uses metal fibers woven into the fabric so that it is conductive to HV but still
very flexible and quiet (maybe it says this on the site but I didn't see anything on how they did it when I last glanced through
there).
Still, depending on the situation, a layer of Al foil might come in handy.
Red Beret June 10th, 2006, 03:52 AM

If I was to sharpen the probes to a fine point (on my cattle prod), so as they could penetrate human skin, would it increase
the effectiveness? I thought of this because thats how the TASER works, penetrating the skin to defeat the high resistance. Or
making a probe firing device to attach to the prod? Or would I be just wasting my time?
Its easy enough to sharpen/attach fine points to the prod though......
puffo July 8th, 2006, 05:24 PM

hi,
I have a sreetwise 900 (900000 volts)but I don't know if is the best choice for the non lethal self defence..for me the best
choice is the pepper spray with the shot up 4 meters,because it isn't good to have a contact with the aggressor,and the spray
are small light and very effective choice for a use to distance =air taser.
Red Beret July 22nd, 2006, 10:49 PM

Could you test it on yourself (or someone else) and tell us the effects? I think those street wise are a little on the cheap side,
but I may be wrong.
g-would October 4th, 2006, 10:40 AM

just pick up one of those calapsable batons 12'',there small enough to fit any pocket&with just a flick u got 12''s of hurt&i have
17%oc spray,i don't know how many times i've got sprayed by accedent but i know it sure works!! i had a squeggy kid come to
do the windows on my van,i asked him please don't i'm broke,he starts tring to pull me out of the van i give him a couple of
punches next i've got 20 punks at my window 1 spray&no more punks!!
atlas#11 October 4th, 2006, 06:44 PM

Has anyone on here ever been hit by a photo flash capacitor from a disposible camera? It hurts like a son of a bitch, and the
caps arn't that big, or expsensive. Just go out and buy (or pocket) a bunch of disposible cameras and take out the capacitor
and wire it up with a pusbutton and a couple C sized bateries to charge the caps. I reckon four or five of those capacitors would
put a serious jolt in anyone who took the hit. Mabye even use the origonal camera case for the circut, it would look like a
camera, and it could get passed airport security (mabye).
Hmmmm... Mabye you could use some of those crazy powerfull caps that hold like a farad each that are like the size of a
quarter. Get a bunch of voltage built up by having them in series and you might be able to incapacitate someone with them.
(or vaporize the flesh between the terminals). Home built tasers sound like fun.
the_twitchy1 October 13th, 2006, 06:37 PM

It's a little off topic, but when I was a kid I worked in an electronics repair shop. One day, this sweet little old lady came in with
a hunter-orange contraption that she wanted to get 'fixed'. Turns out she was a professional dominatrix and it was a cattleprod
that she was using in her dungeon on customers, and they kept passing out! She wanted us to step it down so that she'd be
able to use it on them without knocking them out, causing them to miss the fun.
We refused because we didn't want to be liable (plus it'd be more hassle than it was worth... I told her to go get a commercial
taser-type device instead), but it made me think. Anything capable of making a cow move will definately do something harsh
to humans.
Red Beret October 28th, 2006, 09:22 PM

I have been doing alot of research in cattle prods, as TASERs are hard for me to get. What I have found, and been told, is
that like anyhting, some are real ass kickers and some are shit. NBK recomended to just get the biggest one you can, which
makes sense. The one I have is mid range model, and really hurts. I have only tested it on the back of my hand, so use on a
larger muscle would, I think, be worse.
Ones worth looking at, are the highest voltage hot shot prod, I forget the colour. The product guide say to be specially
carefull, as the output is "serious stuff". I dare say that a good 4-5 second application of this would fuck you up. Cant say if
you would pass out, but its gonna hurt like a mother fucker, and may cause attackers to back off.
While I think of it, has anyone in australia noticed if tasers or stun guns are available at all? I dont mean legally of course. If
anyone could help I would be very gratefull. It occurred to me that if you can get a 9mm for $500 then surely there must be
more exotic weapons out there?
FUTI November 18th, 2006, 11:15 AM

Police in my area tested batons with extra taser-like ability. I remember that once I saw on TV they use it against rioting
demonstrants. They prefer to place it on the back of your neck just under the head before they triger it. By the look of it...that
temporary paralyses victim. So if you are planning to use this for self-defence even the poor one is the good one if used
properly.
Red Beret November 22nd, 2006, 07:11 AM

I have come to a number of conlusions regarding cattle prods as defensive devices, through the information generated in this
thread and through testing I have done. In point form;
1. Buy the most powerfull you can afford, there is no such thing as overkill with these (credit to Nbk).
2. Go for sensitive areas, such as the face/head, back of neck and the groin. Larger muscles will produce larger contractions
when hit, equalling more discomfort.
3. People who have never encountered these will be startled, wondering what it is and if it will kill them, especially in the dark.
Use this to your advantage. Follow up with more shocks and hand to hand attacks, be unrelenting in your attack.
4.If you can grapple, lock the attacker up or get in close and when you apply the prod, don't stop. While they are worrying
about the shocks, deliver kick and punches to vital areas. If you apply a headlock, jam it in thier face, around the eyes and
the temple. The throat area feels awful if shocked too.
That's about all I have to say at this point. But the bottom line is, they are useful if deployed well and quickly, but they won't
do the job of a TASER. Just make sure you get one that shocks continually, none of this three second burst shit.

Hit them in the thigh muscle and they will drop to the ground, as the leg kicks them off. Chest is the worst place, really, and if
they are wearing a vest it might have no effect at all, and they are still free to hit with arms. Also, you might stop the heart,
which would be bad, generally.

Don't forget to sharpen the prods so they penetrate through clothes and into the skin.
This greatly decrease resistance to the current, ensuring maximum shock. :)
electricdetonator November 25th, 2006, 12:47 PM

OK,
cause I got kicked out whilst trying to send my reply now the very short version:
[LIST=1]
There's no stungun/taser/cattleprod with 900,000 Volt !
Or the airgap between the electrodes must be around one yard !
The maximum current going through the heart is 50mA which means a voltage of 50 Volts will be deadly (see e.g.: 'http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Electrical_safety' )
Stunguns are usually build in two parts, an oscillator driving a neon/strobe transformator who'll drive the HV cascade, marx
generator or gap driven second transformator.
You can build such a thing very simple for your own:
First part:
[9V]+
| 1:38 neon transformer
+---------------+-----##---------o
| /\ ##
| --- ## ~ 345 Volt
| | ##
| +---+-##---------o
| |
+--------+ +-----+
| NE 555 |------|< NPN
+--------+ +
|
Multivibrator [GND]
(can be setup with potis to gain frequency, duty cycle or else control)
Second high voltage part:
o----||-+----+-||-+----+-||-+----+
| | | | | |
/\ --- /\ --- /\ ---
~345V --- \/ --- \/ --- \/
| | | | | |
o-------+-||-+----+-||-+----+-||-+
|
~2070V ! |
|
o----------------------------------+
When you want to gain more then the 2 kV I suggest you put a marx generator directly behind the cascade ;)
Have electrified fun and don't blame me when you had an "accident" with it !
Hope it'll work now,
electricdetonator
P.S.: Preview shows me that all spaces within my ASCII schematics are gone now :(
So just click on quote when u want to see them ...
Any hints how to put them correctly into the forum ?
+++++
Use the CODE tag to enclose ASCII drawings. No way to really preserve the formatting, though, as character spacing differs
from your font and the code font. NBK
mydnight December 6th, 2006, 06:17 AM

I have been doing alot of searching regarding cattle prods being used against humans. The reports generally seem conflicting.
Some people claim that they merely feel like a 'mild tingle' or a bee sting, while others (including a discussion I had with a
stock agent) claim that the jolt can be incapacitating.
Actually, both points of view about cattle prods are true -- some of them do just tingle, and some of them are painful enough
to put a full-grown farmer on the ground. It isn't necisarily due to some brands being better than others, either. Cattle prods,
like tazers, are rated at many different power levels, because some of them are meant to either punish the animal or deflect
a bad situation(I.E. cow starts charging you or some similar situation) and some of them are simply meant to "encourage" the
cow to move along at a slightly greater speed. The different colors that they come in are to reflect the power ratings to the
(sometimes barely-literate) farmers. The red ones are especially powerful, I have seen them used on sheep as well as cattle,
and wool is an extremely insulative substance.
The Frogge December 30th, 2006, 06:17 PM

Got looking at old bookmarks after first reading this thread and tracked down the following link www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/
index.htm. He describes how to make a taser and what resembles a cattle-prod is under the listing of dazer.
Anareon January 16th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Although AC is more dangerous than DC because the fluctuation polarity causes muscles to contrat and relax, meaning you
can let go every other cycle. DC is different and if strong enough it makes the muscles unable to relax (or contract). This not
only incapacitates a would-be assailant, but also tires the muscle tissue.
A cattle prod is not designed to cause severe contraction or tiring because:
1. A bull is damn hard enough to move at the best of times, let alone when tired.
2. If the mucscles are tired using electricity, it causes anareobic respiration, and so produces lactic acid within the muscle
tissue. Therefore, when used in a slaughterhouse (abbotoire) It would cause a buildup of lactic acid. Lactic acid causes tissue
to become tough, which is not what you want if you're making steaks. (most) Farmers try to stress the animal as little as
possiblebefore slaughter for the same reasons
AiKiCrow January 18th, 2007, 04:28 AM

I had one back in the early 90's called a 'Tru-shot' (I believe). Red rubber hand with a silver metal cylinder sticking out of it
with two copper prods on the end. Took 3 C batteries.
Stuck it in my palm and hit the button.
BIG mistake.
Shot a shock through my arm and up/down my spine that threw me for a loop for a few minutes. :o
I did the exact same thing with that same model! My mother is a dog trainer and she used her "Tru-shot" cattle prod (exactly
the same as above except the cylinder was made of white fiberglass) to break up fights between large aggressive dogs with
thick fur.(It is the ONLY tool for the job!)
One day I decided that I just had to find out what it felt like for myself, with much the same result as nbk2000, with the
addition of a forced heart contraction and my entire left arm remaining numb and tingly for two hours.:eek:
I remember thinking afterwards that the pain was distinctly different from the many other types of shocks I had experienced,
including tasers.
The pain was sufficiently sharp enough to induce a primal fear response the likes of which I have not felt before or since.
It was like every cell in my body was chemically screaming at me to do absolutely anything necessary to avoid being shocked
by one of those things again! (16 years later, so far so good!):)
A short time after this my roommates got a hold of it and stared chasing each other around with it. One of them chased me
into a bathroom where the only exit was a window not much bigger than my head, eight feet off the ground; He made a lunge
at me with it and I was out side on the lawn before he could close the three feet between us! To this day I have no idea how I
did this except that proper motivation was the key.:confused:
The lessons I learned was that a good cattle prod can be a very effective self-defence weapon, with a strong psychological
effect. Also you should make sure your attacker has an escape route or you will just end up dumping more adrenaline into him
than you are going to want to wrestle with.
Someone here mentioned grappling with your attacker, my roommate's fun and games ended when they realized that zapping
someone you are holding onto isn't much fun.
The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Automatic PIR Gas Sprayer (OTC)
Log in
View Full Version : Automatic PIR Gas Sprayer (OTC)
nbk2000 March 30th, 2006, 07:03 AM

I saw this device at a pet supply store ($40) and immediately had evil thoughts in mind.
http://www.ssscat.com/shk/scataction.mov
Hmmm...a device that automatically sprays a blast of chemical agent (citronella oil in this case) at anything that moves in its range.
Since the device fits on top of a standard aerosol can, I'm thinking of other things it could be attached to. Imagine a can of CS/OC gas that will automatically spray anyone
walking through a door. Modify it so that it locks in the spray position, add a simple remote off/on switch, and you have a chemical sentry to cover your ass from sneaky pork.
:p
Or, replace the filling with a lethal agent, and you have a disposable chemical assassin.
Place it outside their door at night (while they're out) and when they get close, it beeps, they look at it, and get zapped right in the kisser with HCN or some other nasty. Bye
bye. :)
Clip onto a can of starting fluid, hook up an igniter squib to the buzzer circuit, and you've got automatic flamethrower. Perfect for repelling those pesky zombies!
Chris The Great April 7th, 2006, 03:40 AM

Such a device would probably lend itself well to modification to be "set off" by other means other than motion, for example a cellphone or timer could be easily hooked up to
set it to release it's deadly cargo.
The can, sprayer and for example cellphone could be attached to a magnet from a microwave magnetron, and secured on the inside of a buildings ventilation intake at a time
when it is convienent, ie security is low and you have plenty of time.
Then, when the attack needs to be done, several days or weeks later, the number is dialed on a payphone and the agent is released immediately into the entire building
immediately, with no need for you to even be in the same country at the time of the attack.
Add some thermite to it if you want it to self destruct one finished.
I would think that a device such as this would be far more reliable than a home built system.
Using it with the motion senser also has many interesting uses. How many times do you find the damn neighbours cats running through your yard? I'm sure some mustard gas
would keep them from coming back for the rest of their (now shortened) existance. I'd pay for that thing just to do that.... damn cats...
Such a device could also be used to protect things such as planted bombs from curious people who look to closely, or get the bomb squad guys when they try to disarm it.
nbk2000 April 7th, 2006, 11:56 PM

Here's a cellphone triggering device.
http://ucables.com/ref/GSM-ALARM
Only $100. :)
It can also be used as an alarm actuator that will call you when activated. The combination seems like a good candidate for securing a storage locker against theives.
I know this is a something I could use, as I had a storage locker broken into last year and they stole only a couple of things before they dropped my pipesafe out of a suitcase
they dumped onto the floor.
*Klonk* PIPE BOMB! :eek:
It wasn't locked, and there was $3,000 in it, but they didn't touch it, rather, leaving the door open to flap in the wind. :p
Naturally, the only thing they ended up stealing was the only thing that could never be replaced...my fathers burial flag and the only picture I had left of him which was in it.
So the theft, in monetary terms, was a dismal failure for them, but a priceless loss for me. :(
Now, by combining a battery-powered motion-activated tear gas grenade activator with a cellular SMS alerter, you can not only drive off thieves, but be alerted to the attempt
so you can respond ASAP yourself. :)
Cost? Less than $200 for the hardware, plus cellular service fees.
I'd modify the grenades contents by adding Titanium Tetrachloride (if possible) so that, upon dispersal, it not only gases the fuckers with CS/OC, but also provides visual
obscuration and the psychological terror effect of a visible 'poison gas' cloud or fire. Or just in-line a pyrotechnic smoke charge with a squib.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > The Cake Launcher
Log in
View Full Version : The Cake Launcher

I originally posted this elsewhere:
----
We have these new cake fireworks that fire multiple rounds per lighting. They are pretty common now. Imagine one of these aimed down a street. Fairly useful for stopping
the approaching swarm, even the most foolhardy or brave would be put off, at least the first time.
Now, imagine taking one of these devices, and de-re-constructing it. Remove the sealed lid, to reveal one of an array of launchers. Remove the ball and store for later - it's a
hard coated (probably laquered) BP star. Replace it with a small projectile made of an air rifle pellet (or something larger if available and there is room) and replace the sealed
top, carefully replacing the glue so it looks like an innocent firework. Repeat semi-randomly until you are really bored. Now, you have a machine gun. Sure, it won't stop
armour, but against a massed rank of attackers you would certainly have a heck of an impact. Even against a skilled enemy, they would keep under cover for the duration,
and the noise and flash-bangs that were left would add a bit of drama to the proceedings, as well as cover any other weapons fire.
Taken to the logical conclusion, however, we can get a whole lot better.
Buy some good drill bits of a size to suit whatever projectiles you have handy. Get a large block of steel, and drill vertical holes in the block, in an array. Put them far enough
apart to ensure they aren't likely to breech into one another, and far enough from the edge to stop it bursting out. Now carefully drill a small hole from the side, aiming for the
bottom edges of the first line of "barrels". You should be able to get a few of the barrels to have linked touchholes. Switch to a longer drill bit of the same diameter. I'm sure
you can see where this is going. Once all the barrels are linked, you can start adding the propellant of your choice. I suggest small charges of fast burning powder. Ensure the
touchholes are filled first.
Now add a projectile to each barrel. You could use shot if you wanted, with a wad under it, but this is a multi-barreled weapon that will fire all barrels in a rank at the same
time. It *is* a shotgun. It just fires 10 by 10 (for example) .38 lead balls at the same time. Unlike a shotgun, or a Claymore, however, it will have a lot less divergence
(though this will depend on how you drilled the holes - hand drilling will be a lot more wobbly than a pillar drill, and a milling machine is likely to be perhaps too accurate!)
Fletchettes might be a good idea...
Test fire a pattern at two or three layers of paper at various ranges to get an idea of what your new toy will do. (Anchor it down well, have a good backstop, wear protection,
etc.) Then think about where you can deploy it, and at what range. The real joy of this is that at 100m, where a grenade or pretty much anything else will be totally un-
noticed, this thing will still frag. In fact, it should be about the same as a short smoothbore firearm round at that range, if you could get 100 people to fire at the same target at
the same time.
An improvement might be to leave one chamber empty, and drilled right through, for use as an aiming device. Look through it, or pop a laser pointer or some cheap optics in
there. And make sure to fire remotely.
A further improvement would be to stack the charges and have each barrel chain fire - an extra round per barrel every fraction of a second. Just like a roman candle. So you
might be able to stack 4 rounds in your stack of barrels, though accurately drilling the touch holes might be difficult. Add a few bits of quick match to connect the touchholes,
and suddenly there are 4 volleys of 100 rounds coming down the range in well under a second - no time to take cover, and even the best body armour isn't likely to save you
from that density of lead, as it doesn't cover everywhere. Even an armoured bank car would have to stop, as the "bullet-proof" window would be mostly white and cracked, if
not totally chewed through.
I figure that with 2 grains of Bullseye per ball the effective range should be 200 yards. YMMV.
----
Using metal tubes might work well, actually. Certainly be a simple thing to wire the fuses into the small holes you made for the touchholes, though the welding might be tricky
to avoid trashing the strength. Sorting some steel plugs that would slide in would be an easy answer to that, though, as you then weld round the bottom edge, and the heat
only affects there.
If you go for the shotgun in some chambers/barrels, it would probably be a bonus for when targets get closer, as you will get more spread. The idea behind this is to let you
have your cake and eat it. Remember that using something as big as an oxygen cylinder for a single shotshotgun is going to be quite noticable, but then it is dead. With this
cake launcher, you can selectively fire all or just one. Using electric ignition would allow you to fire ranks of whatever you wanted, at whatever rate you wanted. And the
barrels could be different sizes, too, of course. A big giant fragging shotgun cylinder could be surrounded by perhaps 20 smaller barrels, 6 directly attached, and then 2 attached
to each of those in a smaller size again.
Mixed charges could include a smoke generator or two, chemical weaponry, noise makers/flash bangs, sudden flame bursts, shot, flechetes, even small grenades. One that
might be fun would be a series of wads with caltrops loaded on top. Lethal, yes, but onto a hard surface like tarmac they would destroy tyres and feet.
You might even make some barrels point off more than slightly, in a known direction, such that a few shots can go towards another alley, or whatever.
The Cake Launcher - your flexible yet remote friend.
Third_Rail May 4th, 2006, 06:52 PM

And if you live here in the USA and make it muzzleloading like described, it's perfectly legal by the 1934NFA, too.
Volly guns sure do make an interesting weapon.
Hedgie May 5th, 2006, 03:13 PM

An alternate barrel might use a CO2 capsule with the nozzle end chopped off, and a fuse/igniter hole drilled in the end (which I've seen done elsewhere). These could be stuck
together to make a multi-shot.
By adding electronic firing, using a camera flash circuit or model rocket igniters, the firing could be computer controlled, making a mini 'Metal Storm' style weapon.
S510 May 6th, 2006, 04:53 PM

So, how long do you think you could store these? I mean, don't they lose effectiveness after a certain time period?
Hedgie May 7th, 2006, 04:46 AM

Most fireworks have a use by date, but I've never noticed any deterioration in there effect, all depends on how they are stored.
Black powder will last f or years if stored correctly, keep it in an airtight container in a cool dry place and itll be fine.
TheAdversary911 May 18th, 2006, 03:33 AM

I have NEVER seen a use by date on any firework. Cake fireworks are pretty common now? "New"? Repeating fireworks have been around for hundreds if not thousands of
years.
This article comes across as vague to me. Replace it with an air rifle pellet? What? The ID of the tubes could be up to 2". I have never seen an air rifle pellet that will seal a
hole that big.
And besides, it's just cardboard, you are never going to be able to launch something that powerful/heavy.
I guess what I'm saying is why not just by a bunch of muzzleloaders, saw them off, rig them together, and fire them in succesion either by hand or mechanism?

TheAdversary911, I'm not sure how it could be vague at all. You replace the projectile that normally flies out at speed and explodes with something else - either one projectile
or many.
Beyond that, you simply re-make the barrels from something tougher than cardboard and get on with it.
If you wish to buy $5000 worth of muzzle loaders (should you be somewhere that would even be feasible) and then destroy them, feel free. Far easier, cheaper and less
regulated is a drill bit and a block of steel.
If you visit the UK at the right time of year (a time when fireworks sales are not illegal) you will find that the vast majority of fireworks now sold are multi-shot cake types.
Whilst here, you can try buying even one BP firearm. I'm not saying you'll be arrested for asking, but you might go on a special list.

I suppose that in the UK, that's not feasible. Here in the USA, buying a 40" .50 caliber rifled muzzleloader barrel for $200, sawing it into 20 2" lengths and plugging one end of
the barrel by threading it for a 4140 steel plug is actually feasible. Would be much more of a fearsome weapon, too.
nbk2000 May 18th, 2006, 10:40 PM

A 1" barrel wouldn't be worth a shit.
You'd be far better off buying DOM steel tubing at a $1/foot, and using that as your barrel.

I see how the cake launcher could possibly be an attractive item seeing as how you live in the U.K. but here I could buy plenty of muzzleloaders for around $150 on gunbroker
and have them shipped straight to me, they are not regulated here in the U.S. whatsoever.

I think you underestimate a 1-2" barrel, but you are correct, DOM tubing would be much cheaper.
S510 May 19th, 2006, 01:14 PM

There are singular tubes which can fire up to about 8 shots (I think that's their name as well "8 Shots") You could use it as a weapon as it is, or if you could find a non metallic
projectile you could sneak it through a metal detector. Easy to hide as well, you could hide a few of them on your person.:)

I believe you are referring to a firework known as a roman candle, it would be impossible to replace the projectiles without disassembling the entire thing, again, I simply fail to
see the practicality of said devices. (cake launchers or otherwise)
nbk2000 May 20th, 2006, 04:03 AM

Well, I can attest to the usefulness of Roman Candles as a barrier.
Since I was living somewhere you could buy REAL fireworks, I bought a bunch of cheap roman candles, the kind that fire balls the explode with a loud report and flash, and
chain-fused a dozen of them together to fire all at the same time.
Pointed it down a road where I was waiting (downrange) to see what possible pursuing piggies would be facing if I used it as a barrier...not one of my better ideas (to test it
on myself!)...having mini-flashbangs going off around me fast as a machinegun was NOT fun.
Imagine ten M-80's a second exploding around you, while being shot at you. ;)
Anyways...it'd definately be a detterent to possible persuers. :)

This idea sounds quite a bit like the old "deck" or "case" guns used aboard ships in pirate days. Quite handy against a boarding party even back then!
billybobjoe November 14th, 2006, 12:30 AM

How bout a stacked Arial salute. Relatively inexpensive and simple to construct, salute, lift charge, delay charge, repeat. If you needed a higher R.O.F. you could completely
disregard the delay charge and have the thing fire off nearly simultaneously. The one major downside I can see in the design would be the inherent metal (Al powder) in the
salute.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > the CO2 cannon
Log in
View Full Version : the CO2 cannon
nadeem May 30th, 2006, 02:38 PM

User was banned for posting videos sh owing his face.
That's a no-no from the start. :mad:
NBK
ShadowMyGeekSpace May 31st, 20 06, 11:2 1 PM

That's actually pretty neat. Try getting a slightly longer pipe, and grease/oil the inside, you can probably get pretty good
accu racy.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Spetsnaz ballistic knives
Log in
View Full Version : Spetsnaz ballistic knives
Czech Guy June 25th, 2006, 10:25 PM

Hello All
I was wondering if any own has any information regarding the so called Spetsnaz ballistic knive. For people who don't know this is a spring powered knife that can be
effectivaly fired at around 30 yards. This knife is not all that usefull but it is fun to fire.
If any one has any info on how to make one or were you can buy them please post. This is rather hard to find since they are illegal all most every were.
If is also worth rembering that even tho is is called a Spetsnaz ballistic knives
neither the Spetsnaz or the KGB Alfa devision of spectsnaz were not actualy issued these things the standared issued knife was a bayonet for the AK-47 then later on a suervial
knife was issued varring from divsion to divison.
Defendu June 26th, 2006, 01:13 AM

Here are the only photos of the 'Pilum Ballistic Knife' you'll be able to find online at this time:
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2300/2375.htm
As you can see, the firing mechanism is basically a switch that holds the hilt of the knife against the spring loaded handle.
Storm on the Horizon June 26th, 2006, 02:08 AM

I remember seeing these years.... years ago. As you stated - it was more of a toy. Once they came under the watchful eye of ZOG they were sold without the spring
(available separately) for a short time and dried up pretty quickly after that. Like anything fun, effective, or just scary looking - its only a matter of time before Big
Brother comes in to save the day. Good luck finding one.
Czech Guy June 26th, 2006, 06:26 AM

I know that these things are down right near impossiable to find so i was thinking of making one. Does any one have any plans or ideas to make one?
It wouldn't be that hard all you need is is a caped tube, a spring, a trigger system of some sort and the blade its self. I did try making one but instead of a blade it was a
shaped bolt. It was strong enough to get stuck about 2 inches in a tree but the range was much.... much less 10 yards give or take.
drfish June 27th, 2006, 06:12 PM

Here's a blast from the past via the 'way way back machine':
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207013602/http://www.vampiregerbil.com/ballistic/index.html

vampiregerbil! Wish I'd saved that page out with the pictures. The site is owned by a domain squatter now. :-(
nbk2000 June 27th, 2006, 10:38 PM

I remember when they were first for sale.
The ad showed the knife shot through a 1" plywood panel, saying it do this from 10 meters away. Definately NOT a toy.
Reloading was done by compressing the spring in a press or vise, as it was almost impossible to do so manually.
The baton cap was supposed to be used when aiming at the head for a bloodless kill through brain trauma. Body hits were disabling.
Then they had to sell them as kits, with no spring, which was something like a valve spring for a truck, because of sheeple bleating.
bipolar June 28th, 2006, 02:27 AM

I have a PDF with pictures of this device. I just uploaded it to rapidshare.
http://rapidshare.de/files/24334882/post-64-19494-Spetsnaz_Line_Thrower_Knife.pdf.html
I had no idea what it was until I read this thread.
teshilo June 28th, 2006, 04:48 AM

Construction B.K very simple:tube with attached dead latch for fixation of blade (as handle), spring may be used from air gun and finned blade like stiletto shape for best
penetration (fins plastic ,tiny steel).On this link described B.K with spring replaced on ammo with compressed air ..http://www.supergun.ru/razrabot/index.php?razrabot=nozh
Blade non ballistic shape This knife designed for civilian use..:rolleyes:
Czech Guy June 29th, 2006, 04:38 AM

Thanks you for the linke teshilo but i cant get anything out of it its all in Russian.
Can any one understand it maybee they could post an English version of the key parts.
Defendu July 10th, 2006, 04:02 AM

A PDF archive of the ballistic knife images from vampiregerbil.com (found on ED2K network):
http://rapidshare.de/files/25426911/Ballistic_Knife.pdf.html
mrtnira July 11th, 2006, 12:23 AM

NBK2000 is correct. The real Spetsnaz ballistic knives were not toys. I have some information on Soviet-era "cold" weapons from a policeman I once knew. He was a cop in
Vladevostok.
The Spetsnaz ballistic knive was only one of several tools used up close. The similar effect can be accomplished by training with other "at hand" tools, such as a screw driver.
Agents in Western Europe couldn't afford to get caught with signature weapons, so the expedient weapons (weapons at hand) are what agents were trained in. Most of it
comes down to consistent training, which few people will put in.
One of the obstacle courses used by uniformed Spetsnaz troops stationed in East Germany actually had wood cut-outs of people in the obstacle course. The troops would be
negotiating the obstacles, and have to throw knives at the stationary targets at that point in their run. Several years ago, I saw some black and white photos of that course
taken in 1965. The website was run by some old ex-special troops looking back on their youth with pleasure.
For those who were sent to academies of physical training, they developed close-combat to a high art. The gymnasiums that produced their olympic-quality athletes also
produced many of their the KGB hit squads and special department reconnaissance personnel.
Asriel November 25th, 2007, 04:04 PM

While it obviously was not made as toy it seems to be something more of a novelty item that looked scary on the drawing bored but wasn't all that useful in practice, I have
never heard of any particularly widespread use of it, I mean it could probably be useful occasionally in a last ditch situation, but in general it seems to be more of a novelty,
and something that looks scary.
WWII November 26th, 2007, 03:44 AM

I believe during the Vietnam war, there was a bayonet that could fire .22 cal. bullets. I think the U.S. Army had a M6 bayonet that could do that. I saw it on youtube.com,
somewhere can't find it now.
ann January 4th, 2008, 02:19 PM

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=805381
glocktalk has a very rare early issue version for sale.....
Man Down Under January 4th, 2008, 03:57 PM

WWII, I've a video of that knife gun in my FTP folder. /UPLOAD/Man Down Under/Knife Gun.flv
Have a picture of the internals somewhere.
ann January 7th, 2008, 02:01 AM

I have pics of many versions of the spring powered knives...even have the real russian issue version...YES their is one.:D
The one for sale on glocktalk is a super rare version...it was the original design that the ones sold in sof were made off of.
The common alloy version were really made very poorly the glocktalk version is all steel and works great.I have fired all 4 version in my life time.The real russian one is hands
down the winner.
The russian one is a way better design and made in a totally different way.
Charles Owlen Picket January 7th, 2008, 09:56 AM

It's a cute little bugger certainly but wouldn't a knife that stays a knife but fires a bullet or two be a more pragmatic idea?
Asriel May 6th, 2008, 12:11 AM

It's a cute little bugger certainly but wouldn't a knife that stays a knife but fires a bullet or two be a more pragmatic idea?
spetsnaz beat you to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3ZBLlPz_c
it's called the NRS shooting knife and has a single round of piston silenced pistol ammo in the handle.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Q u e s t i o n a b o u t i m provised firearm s/
guns (btw ive searched)
Log in
View Full Version : Question about improvised firearms/guns (btw ive searched)
Clinton June 26th, 2006, 05:14 PM

OK lets say if you wanted to get som ething like the following:
- s o m ething which you hold in your hand sim ila r to the way you hold a gun
- s o m ething you fire by pulling a trigger sim ilar to a gun
- s o m ething which expels force causing perm a n e n t d a m age and destruction in its path sim ilar to a gun
And let's say you could NO T for certain reasons buy am m unition/bullets for this weapon in a shop or even black market!
So how would you build a weapon like this i.e. a gun?
I have not found any inform ation of th is and the only informatio n i f o u n d w a s t h i s b o o k " h o m e m a d e g u n s a n d h o m e m a d e
a m mo", which would suit perfectly as a shotgun type weapon would be prefered. However i have read percentages and things
like that are wrong in this book and it could be dangerous.
So how would one lea rn how to make a gun? Any gun which shoots and is capable of killing an anim al with a shot to t h e h e a d
area or possibly two.
nbk2000 June 26th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Saying that 'ive searched' autom atically means you didn't, otherwise you'd know why that was an autom atic fail.
Consistant lack of capitalizing I when referring to yourself is an automatic fail.
A n00b m aking his first post a new top ic to m a k e a r e q u e s t i s a n a u t o m atic fail.
3 strikes = you're banned. :p
Left the post here because it is an interesting question.
Red Beret June 26th, 2006, 11:57 PM

It depends if you want a repeating arm or not. A single shot (or double barrel) sh otgun is fairly easy as you dont need to worry
about rifling.
You could m ake a 'four winds' type design, but you said you wanted som ething which could be held in a sim ilar fashion to a
gun, so, m ake yourself a stock/pistol grip, m ake the barrel from heavy plum bing pipe, and then work on the firing
m echanism. For a sin gle shot 12g the simplest would probably be a tensioned spring to push the firing pin (nail or sim ilar),
with sim p l e r e l e a s e m e c a h n i s m .
But, looking back, you said you wanted a desig n a s s u m ing you could not obtain amm unition. So, you will need to m a k e y o u r
own. This is not a sim ple matter, unless you want to go with a m u z z l e l o a d i n g s e t u p ?
I h a v e o f t e n t h o u g h t o f h a v i n g a m uzzle loading revolving rifle, the machining tolerances would ha ve to be very tight though,
the only thing you would have to buy on a regu lar basis would be the percussion caps. You could m a k e y o u r own, or reload
t h e m a l s o . A m ulti barrelled m uzzle loader wou l d b e n i c e , 1 2 g p e r h a p s ?
A Z D esertRat June 27th, 2006, 05:14 PM

I h a v e o f t e n t h o u g h t o f h a v i n g a m uzzle loading revolving rifle, the machining tolerances would ha ve to be very tight though,
the only thing you would have to buy on a regu lar basis would be the percussion caps.
At the John Browning museum in O gden Utah, there is a reproduction of his workshop. An interesting item there is a black
powder rifle that has a bar in the breech holding six rounds, each with its own percussion cap. the rifle would be fired and then
the bar would be advanced to the next shot. Sorry I don't have pics, but I moved from t h e r e a b o u t a m o n t h a g o

There is a UK legal pistol that uses a sim ilar system , a c r o s s b a r m a g a z i n e , a n d i t s h o o t s . 3 2 l e a d b a l l s .
I'm not sure the OP was actually asking this qu estion, though. W asn't he asking how to m a k e a " N o t a g u n in law" gun? i.e.
not a firearm /airgun/m issile launcher, etc. that you could have without a ticket or fear of arrest. An d if that isn't wha t he was
asking, it should have been!
nbk2000 June 27th, 2006, 11:16 PM

Spring propelled dart or pellet? Like the spetsnaz knife, only not shooting a knife .

A big bore air rifle would be a good solution to the requirem ents laid out in the original po st.
D e p e n d i n g o n j u s t h o w m uch work you want to put into the project an air powered launchin g d e v i c e c a n b e m a d e i n v a r i o u s
s h a p e s , s i z e s a n d l e v e l s o f r e f i n e m ent. But they can de finatley be shaped like a gun, have a trigger like a gun - and they'll
throw lead downrange.
As for the am unition side of things - airs free a n d j u s t n e e d s t o b e p u m p e d i n . L e a d i s e a s y t o m e lt and ca st.
For a couple of sim p l e r e x a m ples google "marble shooting air rifle"
If you had the building skills here is som ething to draw inspiration from.
http://www.beem ans.net/im ages/RA5--Austrian -Partisan-Airg.jpg
http://www.beem ans.net/im ages/RA-6--Austrian-Partisa n-Det.jpg
M a d e i n t h e 1 9 4 0 s d u r i n g W W 2 , t h i s g u n d o e s n ' t l o o k l i k e a G i r a n d o n i , b u t e x a m ination shows that it clearly was built by

s o m eone familiar with the Girandoni repeating airgun system . The story is that th is gun was built in Austria by a partisan
bicycle make r during the Nazi occupation in WW 2 . T h e r e p e a t i n g m a g a z i n e i s s p r i n g f e d a n d o n t h e l e f t s i d e o f t h e b a r r e l , f o r
the convenient use of a right handed shooter. The gun was charged with the accom p a n y i n g b i c y c l e t y p e p u m p . S m o o t h b o r e , a s
would be expected, but firing a 11 3/4 mm lead ball (.4 63" calib er) (the very sam e caliber as the original Girandoni Austrian
m ilitary repeating air rifles!), this would have been a fearsom e weapon against sentries, d rivers, m ilitary leaders, etc. at ranges
up to perhap s 100 ya rds. To a freedom fighter, the lower discharge sound and the lack of flash or sm o k e w o u l d h a v e b e e n
huge values. And it did not need powder, prim ers, or bullets - only easily cast lead or soft-m etal balls! The builder surely drew
his inspiration from an Austria n m useum which displayed a Girandoni system airgun.
Note that this gun has a spring fed m agazine, rather than the gravity fed m agazine of the original Girandoni m ilitary air rifle.
W hile a gravity feed m e c h a n i s m m i g h t b e s i m pler, and even m o r e d e p e n d a b l e , t h e s p r i n g f e d m a g a z i n e h a s g r e a t a d v a n t a g e s
for the purposes of this gun. It is more suited for opera tion from a vehicle or firin g slot where it wo uld be impractical to tip up
the rifle for loading and it allows firing with m inimal m otion at the firing point - ve ry im portant to a sniper.
Basic specs: A husky 12.2 lbs., 45" overall, glare-free, w/ almost cam o anodized type finish.
Snip ped from a huge article here:http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm

The whole site is worth a look if your interested in the history of air guns.
I f a n y o n e e l s e h a d e x a m ple sim ilar to those above I fo r one would like to see them .
W h i l e t h e a b o v e e x a m p l e m i g h t n o t b e a " l e g a l - non firearm" in some countries, it is still an example of something one could
m ake if you couldnt get or m ake powd e r b a s e d f i r e a m s .
The spring powered d art idea rem i n d e d m e o f a n o l d t h r e a d .

http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/im provised-weapons/584-ultra-power-spring-pistol-sac-1-3-tons.htm l
But I dont really like the idea of com pressing a three to n spring every time I want to reload. A spring loade d tube would
p r o b a b l y b e m ore easily hidden than say a crossbow pistol; but it would be a lot harder to build and reload.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Autom atic BB gun
Log in
View Full Version : Automatic BB gun
Mr. BIG July 1st, 2006, 08:23 AM

hi i read the other posts on fu ll-auto bb guns, but they didn't he lp that m uch. i just wanted to mak e t h i s p o s t s o p e o p l e c a n
post any kind of "air gun" they know of that can be converted to full-auto. no airsoft guns or anyth ing. and also if you could
post any link s to conversion pages for the gun you listed that would be g reat! i have been trying to find a Daisy 2003 CO 2
pistol, but they are really hard to find. i am just trying to find inform ation on ANY air rifle or pistol that can be converted.
thanks.
tomu July 1st, 2006, 09:22 AM

Do you know what Google is?
A sim p l e s e a rch with " full auto bb gun" brought up this:
http://www.airgundepot.com /e aa-drozd.htm l
http://www.geocities.com/bbm achinegun/review10.htm
http://www.fullautobbgun.com/
http://www.pyramydair.com / b l o g / 2 0 0 6 / 0 5 / c r o s m a n - 6 0 0 - s e m i a u t o - p i s t o l . h t m l
as well other 1,140,000 hits.
billybobjoe July 2nd, 2006, 01:01 AM

W ell I don't know if this fits what exactly your looking for but how about a cloud-straffer. Basicaly it is a home built bb gun that
is ra pid rapid fire, and has, depending on construction techniques, extreem e a m ounts of power. W ell for a bb gun that cost all
of 20 dollars cdn.
Basicaly ther is a cham ber which is reduced to a barrel. opposite the barrel there is a cleanout plug where you put bb's into the
c h a m b e r . O n the bottom of th e c h a m b er there is a blowbun attatched with a 1/8" closed nipple ( hehe i said nipple). When air
is blown in the blow gun it agitates the bb's and the pressure difference between the end of the ba rrel and the cham ber will
s u c k a b b o u t of the chamber into the barrel, then the pressure will rise in the chamber eject the bb and then the chamber
pressure drops sucking another bb and rebuilds.
Cloud-straffers are capable of atleast (in my own personal experience) 5000 rounds in about 20 seconds at 115 feed from an
air com pressor. If you have the volume im sure you could increase barrel length and shoot faster or increase cham b e r s i z e a n d
s h o o t m ore. I have put bb's through a steel ga rbage ca n with ease. My thoughts on this a re that is not the single bb but the
sheer volum e being directed at a target that makes it so powerfull for is m ode of opperation. (i forgot my latin)
Sausagemit July 2nd, 2006, 09:14 PM

Basicaly ther is a cham ber which is reduced to a barrel. opposite the barrel there is a cleanout plug where you put bb's into the
c h a m b e r . O n the bottom of th e c h a m b er there is a blowbun attatched with a 1/8" closed nipple ( hehe i said nipple).
hehe, you also said blowbun.
Or if your looking for som ething a little m ore com pact a nd carria b l e . G e t a c o u p l e o f p n e u m atic servo valves, som e acrylic
tubing, som ething to control the valves, a regulator, and a C O2 supply.
A n d d e p e n d i n g o n h o w m any barrels you have depends on the fire rate. I figure with one barrel you can fire a BB every .1
seconds or faster with a spring fed magazine and a m a x i m u m of .5 seconds per BB with a gravity fed m a g a z i n e .
6 barrels with a gravity fed m agazine will net you a m inimum fire rate of 720 BBs per minute whereas 4 barrels with spring fed
m agazines will net yo u a minim um fire rate of 2400 BBs per minute.
A n d i t a l s o d e p e n d s o n t h e r e action tim e o f t h e v a l v e s y o u b o u g h t . T h e o n e s y o u s h o u l d b u y should h a v e a m a x i m u m o f . 0 8

seconds per cycle otherwise you will just be wasting CO2 .
Here is a good site to start looking for the valves.
http://www.globalspec.com /
Jacks Complete July 3rd, 200 6, 08:25 PM

billybobjoe, you m igh t want to check over your posts for both cla rity and spelling in future. Som e p e o p l e h e re don't like "im "
i n s t e a d o f " I ' m " , a n d I ' m o n e o f t h e m . T i g h t e n it up.
As regards the com pressor BB m achinegun, I'm sure that the O P read the threads on this already. He is asking for a shop-
bought BB gun that can be m o d i f i e d . H o w e v e r , I h a v e n o i d e a a b o u t t h o s e , a s I h a v e n e v e r s e e n o r h e a r d o f o n e t h a t w a s
c o m m ercially available, in spite of using them a few tim es at fairs.
T h e m a i n d o w n s i d e w o u l d b e t h e n e e d f o r a c o m pressor attached in those, which are shap ed like tom m y g u n s a n d a r e u s e d t o

try to shoot out the red star to win 20 - a near impossible task. A portable one could be powered from either a built-in air
t a n k o r p e r h a p s a C O 2 powerlet or two.
sibear August 2nd, 2006, 12:23 AM

D a i s y 2 0 0 3 s e m i - a u t o a v a i l a b l e f r o m J S R R a m s b o t t o m s in the U K. Google will give you the address.
ak556x45 August 13th, 2006, 09:16 PM

I h a v e a R u s s i a n - m a d e D r o z d which I ordered from Pyram yd Air 3 years ago. The m a g a z i n e h o l d s a b o u t 3 0 B B s a n d a C O 2
cartridge will last about 90 shots. The BBs will h ole a Danish cookie tin 15 feet away so I would estimate the muzzle velocity to
be approximately 300 fps.
It isn't accurate enough for se rious m arksm anship practice, nor powerful enough for anyth ing larger than a sparrow but it is a
fun toy that I wish I had when I was a kid.
sibear August 18th, 2006, 03:57 AM

H a v e a l o o k a t t h e R e a l A c t i o n P a i n t b a ll website. They have realistic full-auto paintball gun that can be converted to fire bb's.
Note that the bb's are put inside a 'case' so as to feed them through the m ag and receive r. The cases eject and you get a
blowback recoil 'effect'.
hot04wrx June 16th, 2007, 11:25 PM

Here is one that com es from the factory Full Au to. It is very fun to use also. A local gun shop owne r let m e run it through its
m odes.
http://www.eaacorp.com/airguns-drozd-description.htm l
Try looking on Gunbroker.com or search it in Yahoo or Google and Im sure you can find like 10 to 20 sites that sell it.
Hobbit Porn June 17th, 2007, 07:59 AM

http://rap4.com /paintball/os/rap4-bbp ellet-airgun-c-323.htm l Is the one that sibear is referring to I think.
There is also the caselm an air-rifle that has been m entioned in it's own thread. I don't really know, but I'm guessing if you
have the skills to build that, you'd probably have the ability to enable it to shoot BB's instead of air rifle pellets.
rangegal August 23rd, 2007, 05:53 PM

I ' v e w a n t e d o n e o f t h o s e d r o z d ' s f o r a l o n g t i m e . I ' m a m e m ber of a forum a b o u t t h e m a n d s o m e o f t h e p e o p l e t h e r e h a v e
done some amazing things with them .
I ' v e s e e n a f e w t h a t p e o p l e h a v e u p p e d the RP M to 1,200, and the FPS to 900! I think that could definitely do som e d a m a g e
to som ebody. If only somebody would come out with a hi-cap magazine for them they would be awesome, since at 1,200 RPM
they em pty a 30 round clip in about a second.
http://www.pyramydair.com /im ages/BlackDrozdBulkFill.jpg
But what doe s e v e r y b o d y t h i n k a b o u t t h o s e n u m bers? C ould 30 .177 caliber bb's going at 900 FPS hitting som e b o d y a l l i n a
s e c o n d d o a n y r e a l d a m a g e ? I ' m thinking of getting one to keep in the trunk of m y car :).
nbk2000 August 24th, 2007, 01:51 AM

A sh otgun typically fires its projectiles at 1,200-1,500 FPS (@ m u z z l e ) , s o t h e s e m odified airguns are pretty close to that, an d
that's nothing to sneeze at.
festergrump August 24th, 2007, 03:42 PM

W hile I don't disagree with you, NBK, that would be nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it'd be a very effective weapon.
There's just not enough weigh t behind a .177 caliber BB to do m uch at all unless you got lucky and put their eye out. Even a
good layer of clothing could protect against it or 30 of it's ilk.
W hile it might break the skin if it hit a bare spot, it would lose inertia far too quickly to even penetrate m u c h b e y o n d t h e s k i n ,
if at all, whereas som ething heavier travelling at the sam e s p e e d w o u l d p e n e t r a t e m u c h d e e p e r .
A .45 caliber lead ball shot fro m a n o l d B P s i x g u n t r a v e l s a b o u t t h e s a m e s p e e d a s w h a t R a n g e g a l i s t a l k i n g about. THAT will

kill you, as h a s b e e n p r o v e n t i m e a n d a g a i n .
Another thing to worry about, though, is BBs are made of steel, so a m iss or hit o n an hard armored portion would ricochet
m uch too easily. That can be just as dangerous to the user as the target. That's not an acceptable risk for m e to use that
weapon.
Sure would be fun to kill paper and popcans with, though. :)
rangegal August 24th, 2007, 08:04 PM

Sure would be fun to kill paper and popcans with, though. :)
T h a t s m ostly what everybody on that forum I m e n t i o n e d u s e s t h e m f o r , a n d i t s o u n d s l i k e a h e l l o f a blast.
Do lead bb's ricochet as m u c h a s s t e e l o n e s d o ? They say lead bb's are better suited for the drozd 's rifled barrel anyway,
providing better accuracy and a higher velocity.
O n e t h i n g a b o u t d r o z d ' s t h o u g h , e v e n t h e p r e - m o d i f i e d b u l k C O 2 ones don't have REAL full-auto. It com es in select fire with
single, triple, and six round bursts. They are easily m odified to 1,200 RP M with the addition of a little circuit board (sold on
m any websites) soldered onto a few leads on the guns m a i n b o a r d t h o u g h .
By the way, Baikal is supposed to be com ing out with a hi-capacity magazine m o d e l s o o n . W hen this one com es out I think it
will undeniab ly be the best full auto bb-gun out there. Just thought you should know :cool:.
http://www.baikalinc.ru/res_en /0_image_1112_1.jpg
Heres the link : http://www.baikalinc.ru/en/info/12867.htm l
Heres a picture of another mo dified drozd.

http://i81.ph otobucket.com/albums/j218/shado2/Picture444.jpg
Now ain't that pretty?
chemdude1999 August 24th, 2007, 09:08 PM
Do lead bb's ricochet as m u c h a s s t e e l o n e s d o ?
No, they don't. I use to shoot steel ones when I was real young and learning basic marksm anship. I would shoot them in a
barn sheathed in corrugated tin. A m i s s e d s h o t m eant a wildly bouncing BB. It was kind of scary hearing one finally stop beh ind
m e. That course of le arning didn't last long.
I m oved to lead rounds. They never did ricochet. They would hit and deform, leaving little pancakes.
Jacks Complete September 2 nd, 2007, 04:26 PM

But you can't re-use your lead BBs, unlike your steel ones. And if you are eating 1200 a m inute, you will be out of amm o
pretty fast, if they are all defo rm ed.
Y o u c a n a l s o u s e a m agnet to pick the steel ones back up without any of the other crap on the floor, for a quick wash and re-
use.
Related links:
http://inventgeek.com/Projects/Airsoft_Turret_v2/overview.aspx
http://www.in structables.com/id/EF1A4AC9E0EZ7BGU23/?ALLSTEPS
rangegal July 9th, 200 8, 07:59 PM

It's not out yet, but when it is out I'm sure all of you gu ys will want one. They brag it will h ave .17 or .22 caliber, fully automatic
or single sho t select fire, at least 600 fps with stock barrel and p arts, bulk CO2, rifled 8" b arrel, it shoots pellets OR bbs,
acce ssory rails, five dollar 30 round m a g a z i n e s , a n d e v e n t u a l l y a h i - c a p m agazines. They are apparently debating weather to
set the price at $250 or $350. I don't think its worth $350 without a hi-cap m ag.
Just like the drozd, when mod ified this could be a very useful im provised weapon. I bet with a longer barrel and other mods it
will be more powerful than a d rozd, especially the .22 cal. Althou gh the rate of fire isn't ad justable and wont be as h igh, from
the videos it seems pretty high. And who can argue with t h o s e l o o k s : D .
http://fullyautom aticairgun.com /im ages/fullautoairgunh e a d 5 . j p g
http://fullyautom aticairgun.com

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > H o m e M a d e F l a m ethrower
Log in
View Full Version : Home Made Flamethrower
Ur darkAngel July 11th, 20 06, 06:2 0 PM

W ell I was looking ba ck and g etting rid of som e o l d w e b l i n k s a n d f o u n d t h i s o n e a n d i t s e e m ed perfect for anyone who was
crazy enough to want to build there own Flam ethrower, hope the links of great use for you guys:
http://carpetm onster.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fj.htm
H a v e f u n a n d s e n d m e pics if you end up m a k i n g o n e
Lewis July 11th, 20 06, 07:1 7 PM

I suppose it's mildly entertaining, but not exactly the m ost technical endevour out there.
I'm sure anyone with half a brain can create a flam ethrower. Now, a com pletley backfire safe one would be an accom p l i s h m e nt.
Red Beret July 11th, 20 06, 10:2 8 PM

There is a co m m ercia l flamethrower available in Australia called the dragons breath flamethrower. It is a "wand" that attache s
to m o s t b a c k p a c k p r e s s u r e s p ray units (the ones for weed spraying). All you do is unscrew the handle and trigger unit from
your sprayer and put the dragons brea th on. It uses 50/50 Deisel and kerosene. Apparently it fires a flam e 5-6 metres, but I
dont know if that is horizontal, or if the stream hits the ground at that point. It is flash back proof and costs around $200 au.
I a m t h i n k i n g o f g e t t i n g o n e , b u t , I t h i n k a h o m e m ade job could be just as good, if not better. Using a we ed sprayer is quite
easy and effective, the only tricky part is the nozzle and flash back arrestor.
O n e t h i n g I h a v e b e e n looking at is the pressurised trig ger spray bottles you get from coles. About $10 I think, holds a couple
of litres, and should spray ten plus feet. I will try one with the 50/50 kerosene and deisel, with a bit of sponge stuffed in the
t u b e s o m ewhere to prevent flashback.
Sausagemit July 11th, 20 06, 11:3 5 PM

Flasback is n ot possible in an entirely liquid filled hose. But if yo u ran too low on liquid and some air got sucked into the hose,
say goodbye to your skin.
So i'm pretty shure all you would need is a HD float valve and an indicator (just incase so you could check to see if the float
valve is working properly) so it would shut off when the fuel got below a certain level. And a proper purge system so you can
check it for leaks and air in the system .
nbk2000 July 14th, 20 06, 09:5 9 AM

T h e s i t e i s g o n e . T r y a g a i n s o m e other tim e. :rolleyes:
Dank$taVegas July 14th, 20 06, 07:4 1 PM

Y o u d i d n ' t m i s s m uch NBK2000, just a glorified water gu n, with a ignition source to light the fuel.
I don't know how safe I'd feel with that thing th at was on that page strapped to m y back.
c.Tech July 15th, 20 06, 01:2 9 AM

I backed it up to a word document when I saw it.
Before I zip it and upload it I would like to know if there is any personal information lurking in the files (zip or word) and how
to remove it.
C o u l d i t h a v e s a v e d m y I P s o m ewhere when I copied it from the site?
C o u l d m y user account nam e b e h i d d e n anywhere on th e file?
nbk2000 July 16th, 20 06, 04:1 8 AM

C o u l d i t h a v e s a v e d m y I P s o m ewhere when I copied it from the site?
No.
C o u l d m y user account nam e b e h i d d e n anywhere on th e file?
If by 'user nam e ' , y o u m e a n t h e n a m e of the windows log-in, then yes. If you m ean the user name of your ISP account, the n
no.
Either way, you sim ply renam e the file extension from .DO C to .TXT, ope n it in notepad or word, and look for anything like
your nam e a n d m anually remove it. Save it and renam e it to .DOC again, and it's sterile. :)
c.Tech July 16th, 20 06, 08:2 5 AM

T h a n k s NBK, that info will help m e a l o t i n t h e f u t u r e . : )
Luckily I couldn t f i n d a n y t h i n g . T h e p i g s c a n t f e e d n o w .
H e r e s t h e f ile as I prom is ed.

shady mutha July 17th, 20 06, 03:2 9 AM
I m ade a very low tech one from a old fire extinguisher once. The refillable type that has a car valve for adding the
compressed air. Just fill with fuel go down to the servo and put the air in . The old styrofoam / fuel m ix works well also. Works
g o o d a n d d e a d e a s y t o m a k e . S p r a y s o u t a l l t h e f u e l i n a b o u t 1 0 s e c o n d s. My prefered method is to spray all fuel over the
target then throw a m olly to ignite.
nbk2000 July 17th, 20 06, 03:4 6 AM

Now that I see what the file was, I see that's it a copy of a post I m a d e l a s t m onth:
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/76464-post163.htm l
End topic, en d user.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Im provise d gun making ..article from
net
Log in
View Full Version : Improvised gun making ..article from net
teshilo July 31st, 2006, 06:22 AM

This article described: as man m aking gun use as source old car parts.From http://yarchive.net/m e t a l / g u n _ m a k e . h t m l
"Nothing to it, Jake. Why, you know that 1955 Chevy Pickup that Chris
[my girlfriend at the tim e] just gave up on? I could build a rifle
from pieces of it with just a file, a hacksaw, and som e visegrips.
Probably take about two hours."
"Could not!"
"Wanna bet?"
"Yer on! $100 says you can't."
W e g a t h e r e d the Req uisite To ols, and adjourned to the shady tree under
which the clapped-out pickup lay.
I rem o v e d t h e s t e e r i n g w h e e l s h a f t h o u s i n g a n d t h e e n g i n e h e a d u s i n g
the vise grips on the nuts holding them on, and used the hacksaw to
r e m o v e a c h u n k o f t h e head with an in take valve port.
The steering wheel shaft housing was the barre l - I filed a slot
around the circum ference and flattened the sides to create an
interrupted thread (with only one threa d), then fitted the breechblock
(the valve port, opened to fit over the threaded end of the barrel) so
that a quarter twist of the valve port would lock it tightly against
the end of the housing.
A few more minutes with the file on a small bolt resulted in a firing
pin, which, with a scavenged spring (from t h e g a s p e d a l ) , a n d a c o u p l e
o f o t h e r s m a ll parts (sear, trigger, trigger housing created from bent
f e n d e r m e t a l , a c o u p l e m ore small springs), all held together by slots
and clever cutting and bending (no pin s, bolts, or through holes!),
gave us a firing m e c h a n i s m . The firing p i n p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h e h o l e
for the valveshaft in the breechblock.
T o t a l e l a p s e d t i m e , a bout an hour and fifty minutes.
Back to the house and copped twenty of dad's .45-70 cartridges, and off
to the gravel pit.
Baling-wired the gun to m y truck's rear bum per, and took the first two or
three shots from behind the truck, using som e string to pull the
trigger, after cocking the gun by pulling the bolt head.
Ater determ ining that it wasn't going to blow, we set up a target 100
yard s downrange, and "walked" the gun onto the target, which is how we
determ ined that it could put three shots into a 10" circle at that
distance.
The cartridge cases were grossly distorted, and most of the prim ers
were partly backed out, both symptoms of the very loose "chamber".
Jake happily paid up, and we discarded the bre echblock in a dumpster,
and tossed the barrel into the bed of the junk truck.
Nice story :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Two hours and you had o wn cannon.True this or no , i dont know..
Red Beret July 31st, 2006, 08:46 PM

I don't know.....but I sure as shit wouldn't be firing a dodgy 45-70 in any position but rem otely. I don't really know the
dim ensions of the parts spoken of so can't really com m ent.
Give m e a fo ur winds any day, proven and safe .
Dank$taVegas A ugus t 5t h, 2006, 11: 12 PM

Nice story Two hours and you had own cannon.True this or no, i dont know..
I don't know how true this story is either but, when you take a file to certain part of hardened steel that you will encounter on a
automobile, the file will just slide off, rem oving nothing, since th e m etal is so hard. It wou ld require softening before hand.
Cutting parts like the steering shaft with a hack saw will be a ted ious job to say the least, that will take m ore than a few
m inuets to accomplish with a hand hacksaw. I have found this out when removing one from m y jeep when the torx bolts were
strip ped. I tried a hacksaw and got no where, then moved on to a grinder and went through 2 disc's before getting the dam
thing off!
Cutting an Engine head with a hack saw by hand, would also be one hell of a job and I'm sure would require the part to be
s o f t e n e d b e f o r e h a n d . N o t t o m ention rem oving the part wth only a pair of vice grips... I'd like to see that. :rolleyes:
I don't know.....but I sure as shit wouldn't be firing a dodgy 45-70 in any position but rem otely.
Agreed. If this is actu ally feasible, but from the sound of it, it doesn't seem like it is. A pair of vice grips, hack saw & File will
n o t b e o f m uch help when rem oving th e h e a d f r o m the engine o r the steering shaft for that m atter. Many tools are required,
since not all the part are accessabe by a bulky pair of vice grips.
Just my 2 cents.
But....
Automobile's contain lots of useful parts that can be fabricated into parts for guns as most know already, such as Axles which
can be used for bolts, gas cylinders & Barrels & any other round parts needed. Leaf Spring s are a good source for flat stock
(Triggers, etc). Car & truck fram es, are a good source for certain receivers, Shocks & Hydraulic cylinders are useful for round
stock & Tubing. Engin e valves are a good source for firing pins.
O n e p r o b l e m that one will face will be the som e of the stock will be too hard to machine & will require softening. To soften
s o m e of the larger co mponents of a automobile one will need a very large furnace which the average perso n will not have
acce ss to such a item , so other m eans will have to be sought ou t.
west August 6th, 2006, 10:53 AM

Don't quote whole posts. BAD!
A chop saw, grinder and plasm a torch will get those parts down to a m a n a g e a b l e s i z e . I ' v e f o u n d e v e n a c h e a p p l a s m a torch
a n d a n o f f s e t t e m plate will will give an amazing am ount of accuracy, even in the hardest of m etals.
s4r1n S e p t e m b e r 2 9th, 2006, 06:51 AM

In Bill Holme s Vol II, he described an expedient annealing process requiring a "good sized wood fire". It's in Chapter 7 where
h e d e s c r i b e s u s i n g a u t o m obile parts as a source of m etal.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Phillipino homemade guns, paltiks, ect.
Log in
View Full Version : Phillipino homemade guns, paltiks, ect.
professor k August 6th, 2006, 01:24 AM

Hey, anyone know about the phillipino homemade guns.
Here's some articles about them:

http://ww w.dausa.org/article.php?story=20020705162212692
http://ww w.pcij.org/imag/Dispatches/danao.html
http://illegaleconomy.com/firearms/faithful_replicas_of_guns_and_rifles_produced.php
Revolvers run like 20-30 bucks a pop. Armscor is also a phillipino company. Has anyone ever seen one of their AK-22s or M1600 .22 m16 copy? They also make 1911s. Well,
those guns sell for much cheaper there. The .22 m16 copy is only around 30 dollars.
Anyway, does anyone have anymore info on these guns than what those articles tell us. There's a few more articles, but they don't go into much on how the construction is
done, ect. I'm really wanting to know how they make the barrel. In one of the articles, he said the gun he bought in the early 80s couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, then he
said the new ones are just as accurate as the real thing, implying that they used to not be rifled but now are.
Also, there's gotta be an easy way to rifle we in US don't know about. How could the pioneer people in the 1700s rifle a barrel?
cutefix August 6th, 2006, 08:46 AM

Revolvers run like 20-30 bucks a pop. Armscor is also a phillipino company. Has anyone ever seen one of their AK-22s or M1600 .22 m16 copy? They also make 1911s. Well,
those guns sell for much cheaper there. The .22 m16 copy is only around 30 dollars.
Filipino made guns are a joke.

There is a place there in central Philippines in the island of Cebu called Danao where gun making is considered a cottage industry and its already considered a legal gun
manufacturing facility by the government. The guns are labeled Paltik or fakes so its cheaperYou can even buy a 45 caliber pistol for tw o dollars if you buy it direct from the
manufacturer.
An M-16 lookalike can be bought for 10 bucks!
Back in the early days when I was traveling to the Philippines these guns are worse than they w ere today w here at least their craftsmanship has improved.It can injure the
users more than the target.
I have seen these guns drop the bullet in front of the firer .. In some cases the barrel just exploded injuring the user and those around him.
Its "deterrent" part in having those things is the fear factoranybody carrying a firearm there is considered dangerous although its not yet known if that person carrying it
really knows how to use it..
Besides ammo is expensive there so its difficult to get improve your shooting skills.
Carrying guns is considered macho in that culturebut is a magnet for trouble. The cops can even arrest or kill you if you are known to carry a gun.
Some years back the Japanese Yakuza were the big customer for those guns.
I have seen a specimen of a special revolver that fires 0.223 ammunition( or ammo for M-16). As it can carry 6 bullets. They moment you fired all you can't hold the guns as
metal part of the revolver is so hot..
They use primitive machineries before and don't even have any quality standards...If tje finished gun can fire one shot then it pass their standards...
They can copy any firearm but the performance is remains questionable mostly unreliable.
Yes they are cheap but I doubt if you really w ant to have it in your home to protect yourself as it has a sinister reputation of injuring the ow ner.
If you really like quality ,,better stick with the originals..its better to spend more money yet safe to use than risk with cheaper guns where there is a likelihood of injuring your
self .
BTW the one made by Armscor is satisfactory but regarding robustness it cannot compare with the US made version.
These Filipino made guns in particular the local M -16 are known to spit the ammo after just two to three magazines.and their accuracy at 300 yards is still not as good as the
originals...
Dank$taVegas August 6th, 2006, 03:22 PM

Also, there's gotta be an easy way to rifle we in US don't know about. How could the pioneer people in the 1700s rifle a barrel?
Well back in the day, most muskets were smooth-bore w eapons using ball-shaped ammunition fired at relatively low velocity. Musket balls were loose fitting in the barrel, and
upon firing, the ball bounced off the sides of the barrel; so the final direction on leaving the muzzle w as unpredictable. In the late 1800's the term rifled musket was used to
distinguish the difference between smoothbore & rifled long arms.
Assuming you have the required tools & Machinery to be making firearms & Barrels, w hich require the use of a machine shop in most cases; then making a barrel & rifling it
should be feasible with proper knowledge. Some good books on the topic are the series by Hoffman, which are located on the FTP & in the Links section of the site's Forums.
Still it is much easier to buy a pre-made barrel, from a barrel maker. Most of these companies specialize in making barrels only. These barrels can be purchased at a relatively
low cost for the amount of work needed to make your own.
There are various ways to rifle a barrel. The old w ay was to cut rifling one groove at a time on a rifling machine. A more modern way is to pull a gang of broaches through the
barrel, which cuts all the grooves into the bore simultaneously. Another way is to insert a very hard mandrel, which bears the reverse of the intended rifling pattern, into the
bore, then the outside of the barrel is hammer forged (beaten) to impress the rifling into the bore. A fourth method is to pull a very hot rifling "Button" through the bore, turning
it as it progresses, which iron melts the rifling into the barrel. All of these methods are satisfactory if done properly.
Here is a link that describes the methods used in barrel rifling. Also most of the books mentioned in this article are located on our FTP & or in the Forums links page.
REAMING THE HOLE.
"When tw o or three barrel makers gather together, the conversation turns to the difficulties and problems of reaming a good hole." Observations of a barrel maker.
Every barrel maker I can think of who cut rifles or button rifles their barrels w ill ream prior to rifling. Makers of hammer forged barrels require a very fine surface finish in the
bore and they invariably hone their barrels to get the required finish.
The reamer is mounted on the end of a long tube through which the coolant oil is pumped, but at far low er pressures than are used in the Gun Drill. Now it is the reamer that is
rotated, at about 200 rpm and the barrel is pulled over the reamer at about one inch a minute.
Harold Hoffman's books on barrel making give descriptions and drawings of bore reamers which w ill be very familiar to readers of "Gunsmithing" by Roy Dunlap published in
1950, and even more familiar to readers of "Advanced Gunsmithing" by W.F.Vickery published in 1939! Would-be barrel makers who read these hallow ed texts can be forgiven
for thinking that reaming technology has not advanced much in sixty years and has reached level of perfection where improvement is difficult. Nothing can be further from the
truth. Over the past few years there has been a quiet revolution in reamer technology and these days most bore reamers are made of Tungsten Carbide instead of High Speed
Steel.
Reamers made from Carbide last at least ten times longer than HSS ones and generally leave a superior surface finish. They can also be run at much higher feeds and speeds -
500 R.P.M and 10 inches a minute is not uncommon! Reamer shape has also changed. Reamers have become shorter and shorter over the past ten years and do not have
pilots on them as reamers of old.
Reaming a good hole is still something of an art though. Several barrel makers I know refuse to buy bore reamers claiming that you cannot buy a good bore reamer and I have
to say there is something to that. Barrel makers who do buy their bore reamers get them from the reamer makers w ho advertise in this magazine, (Precision Shooting), but
generally the reamer needs some hand honing to get it to "run right" and leave a good finish. In my experience, the only reamer maker whose reamers do not require attention
before using them is Dan Green of Forgreens. Dan is a really great reamer maker and his chamber reamers are also quite outstanding - I only wish he would make reamers in
Carbide!
After reaming, the resultant hole has a good finish and has good dimensional uniformity along its length. The barrel is now ready for rifling.
CUT RIFLING.
"Cut rifling is a real hard way to go. I can't think why anyone should go that route." I forget the name of the Australian reloading tool maker who made this observation, but
there have been times when I have hartily agreed with him!
There are currently three main methods by w hich rifling is put into the barrel. By far the oldest method, invented in Nuremberg in around 1492, is the cut rifling technique. Cut
rifling creates spiral grooves in the barrel by removing steel using some form of cutter.
In its traditional form, cut rifling may be described as a single point broaching system using a "hook" cutter. The cutter rests in the cutter box, a hardened steel cylinder made so
it will just fit the reamed barrel blank and which also contains the cutter raising mechanism.
The cutter box is mounted on a long steel tube, through w hich coolant oil is pumped, and which pulls the cutter box through the barrel to cut the groove. As it is pulled through it
is also rotated at a predetermined rate to give the necessary rifling tw ist. A passing cut is made down each groove sequentially and each cut removes only about one ten
thousandth of an inch from the groove depth.
After each passing cut the barrel is indexed around so that the next groove is presented for its passing cut. After each index cycle the cutter is raised incrementally to cut a ten
thousandth deeper on the next cycle, this process being continued until the desired groove diameter is reached. It takes upwards of an hour to finish rifling a barrel by this
method.
The rifling machines found in custom barrel shops are invariably Pratt & Whitney machines. For the first w orld war some thousands of "Sine Bar" riflers, so called because a sine
bar is used to determine the rate of twist, were built to satisfy the demand for barrels at that time. These belt driven single spindle machines w eighed about a ton and were
suitable for the wooden floored workshops of that era. After WW1 many of these machines became available quite cheaply on the surplus market and so in the inter-w ar years
these were the standard rifling machine in barrel shops across the World.
At the start of World War Two, Pratt & Whitney developed a new , "B" series of hydraulically powered rifling machines, w hich were in fact two machines on the same bed. They
weighed in at three tons and required the concrete floors now generally seen in workshops by this time. About tw o thousand were built to satisfy the new demand for rifle
barrels, but many were broken up after the w ar or sold to emerging third world countries building up their ow n arms industry.
Very few of these hydraulic machines subsequently became available on the surplus market and now it is these machines w hich are sought after and used by barrel makers like
John Krieger and "Boots" Obermeyer. In fact, there are probably less of be "B" series hydraulic riflers around today than of the older "Sine Bar" universal riflers.
During World War Two several other methods of rifling barrels were developed which greatly speeded up and simplified the process. So the Pratt & Whitney "B" series of
Hydraulic riflers remain the last w ord in cut rifling machine technology.
Due to the very limited availability of these machines there are several barrel makers who have made their own machines. But, as w ill be appreciated from the description of
the process above, these machines are complex and expensive to build.
The techniques of cut rifling has not stood still since the end of the war though. Largely due to the efforts of Boots Obermeyer the design, manufacture and maintenance of the
hook cutter and the cutter box has been refined and developed so that barrels of superb accuracy have come from his shop. Cut rifled barrel makers like John Krieger (Krieger
Barrels), Mark Chanlyn (Rocky Mountain Rifle Works) and Cliff Labounty (Labounty Precision Reboring) w ho are fast growing in prominence for the quality and accuracy of their
barrels, learned much of their art from Boots Obermeyer, as did I.
In Europe, Shultz & Larson in Denmark were the outstanding protagonists of the cut rifling method and were making 8000 barrels a year. But adherence to workshop methods
more suited to the beginning of this century, rather than its end, allowed competitors with newer technology to take their markets. They closed their doors just a few years ago.
(However, I am happy to report that the business is now under new ownership and under the guiding hand of Jurgen Neilsen, Shultz & Larson are once again making fine rifle
barrels.)
Grunig & Elminger in Switzerland cut rifle their barrels, and Furlac in Austria still make their larger calibre hunting barrels by cut rifling. Tikka, the Finnish hunting rifle makers used
to cut rifle some of their barrels, but now that Sako have taken them over, their barrels are made by Sako w hose barrels are hammered.
BUTTON RIFLING.
"Any fool can pull a button through a barrel!" Boots Obermeyer.
Up until WW2 rifling was the most time consuming operation in making a rifle barrel and so a lot of effort was put into finding a way to speed up this process. Button rifling is a
process that has been flirted w ith on and off by various large ordinance factories since the end of the 19th century. Today, button rifling is a cold forming process in which a
Tungsten Carbide former, which is ground to have the rifling form in high relief upon it, is pulled through the drilled and reamed barrel blank. The lands on the button engrave
grooves in the barrel as it is pulled through.
The machinery is quite simple. The button is mounted on a long rod of high tensile steel w hich is passed through the barrel blank and attached to a large hydraulic ram. The
button is mounted in a "rifling head" that rotates the button at the desired pitch or twist as the button is pulled through the barrel. The process takes about a minute to
complete.
Breaking the pull-rod or pulling the button off the pull rod is a constant danger in "pull" button rifling, so there are several manufacturers like Hart, for example, who prefer to
push the button through the barrel. In this version of the method the button is not attached to the rod, w hich simply pushes the button up the barrel under the influence of a
large hydraulic ram. The trick here is to support the push-rod as it enters the barrel to stop it buckling from the huge forces involved.
There is much opinion that "pull" button rifling is best because the button is kept straight and true as it is pulled through, whereas w hen pushing the button though the barrel
there is an inevitable tendency for the button to tip and yaw so leading to variable bore dimensions. Push-buttoning protagonists deny that this is a problem how ever - as of
course, they would!
Whilst the process is simple, the technology required to get good results is quite advanced which is w hy it was not until the middle of this century that it became a generally
used technique. It was perfected in the late 1940's at the Remington factory at Ilion largely due to the efforts of Mike Walker, who used the workshop of Clyde Hart in nearby
Lafayette for some of the experimental w ork. The button must be very hard and also tough enough not the break up under the stresses involved as it is pulled through the
barrel. The lubricants used to keep the button from getting stuck in the barrel must not break dow n under the very high pressures involved - it takes around 10,000 pounds of
force to pull a button down a barrel. The sort of lubricants used in the press moulding business are what button barrel makers pick through to see what suits, though most
makers of button rifled barrels are very secretive about lubricant they use!
Button rifling in its common form is an American development and the overw helming majority of barrels made in the US are rifled this way. Custom shops such as Hart, Lilja,
Shilen and the large high production barrel makers like Douglas and Wilson Arms use the buttoning method to rifle their barrels. The technology has spread and there are a few
other small custom barrel makers around the world who do button rifling. Neville Madden (Maddco) and Dennis Tobler in Australia. Anshutz in Germany, better known for their
.22 target rifles but also a large producer of hunting rifles also button their barrels.
In Europe, where larger more centralised armament factories predominate, the cold forging method of making "hammered" barrels is generally preferred.
HAMMER RIFLING.
The technique of hammer forging rifle barrels was developed by Germany before WW2 because the MG42 machine gun, with 1200 rounds per minute rate of fire, positively ate
barrels. The first hammer rifling machine was built in Erfurt in 1939. At the end of the war it w as shipped down to Austria ahead of the advancing Russian army, where American
technicians were able to get a good look at it.
In this process the barrel blank is usually somewhat shorter than the finished barrel. It is drilled and honed to a diameter large enough to allow a Tungsten Carbide mandrel,
which has the rifling in high relief on it, to pass down the blank. The blank is then progressively hammered around the mandrel by opposing hammers using a process called
rotary forging. The hammered blank is squeezed off the mandrel like tooth paste and finishes up 30% or so longer than it started.
Today, barrel hammering machines are built by Gesellschaft Fur Fertigungstechnik und Maschinenbau (GFM) in Steyr, Austria. They cost about a half a million dollars and can
spit out a barrel every three minutes. These machines have reached a very high degree of development and are so sophisticated that they will not only hammer the rifling into
the barrel, but it is also possible to chamber it and profile the outside of the barrel all in the one operation. Only large scale arms manufacturers and ordinance factories have
pockets deep enough and barrel requirements insatiable enough that they can afford to buy and run such a machine.
Hammered barrels have never achieved much favour in target shooting. Whilst their proponents laud the virtues of the mirror finish of the bore and its w ork hardened surface,
which gives long life, the barrels tend to be very variable in the uniformity of their dimensions down their length. Also, because the metal is worked completely throughout the
barrel there are considerable radial stresses induced which are difficult to remove completely by the usual stress relieving methods. Stainless steels tend to w ork harden to a
much higher degree than Chrome Molybdenum steels and so do not remain malleable enough to hammer forge. Because of this, it is difficult to make stainless barrels this way.
Stainless barrels are being hammer forged, but using type 410 steel which has a lower chrome content than the regular 416 steel usually used for making barrels by other
methods.
Most of the big hunting rifle makers in Europe hammer forge their barrels. Sako and Tikka in Finland, Heckler & Koch, Steyr and Sauer in Austria. Now, Ruger in the US has
started making barrels using this method.
http://ww w.border-barrels.com/articles/bmart.htm
A mathematician from Emanuel College named George Greenhill developed the formual for calculating twist rates for a given bullet.
Tw ist = C * D2 / L
(The D2 shoud be D Squared but I am unsure how to accomplish this on the computer.) :rolleyes:
The original value of C was 150, w hich yields a twist rate in turns per inch, when given the diameter D & the length L of the bullet in inches. The Previous value of C only w orks
to velocities of 1800 F/s above these velocities the value of C should be 180.
Common Rifle Barrel Twist Rates but are not limited to these.
.22 Short = 1 in 24"
.22 Long Rifle = 1 in 16"
.223 Remington = 1 in 12"
.22-250 Remington = 1 in 14"
.243 Winchester = 1 in 10"
6mm Remington = 1 in 9"
.25-06 Remington = 1 in 10"
.257 Wby. Mag. = 1 in 10"
6.5x55 Swedish Mauser = 1 in 7.5"
.270 WSM = 1 in 10"
7mm-08 Remington = 1 in 9.25"
7mm Rem. SAUM = 1 in 9.25"
7mm Rem. Mag. = 1 in 9.25"
.30 Carbine = 1 in 16"
.30-30 Winchester = 1 in 12"
.30-06 Springfield = 1 in 10"
.300 WSM = 1 in 10"
.300 Win. Mag. = 1 in 10"
.300 Wby. Mag. = 1 in 10"
.303 British = 1 in 10"
.32 Win. Spec. = 1 in 16"
.338-57 O'Connor = 1 in 10"
.338 Win. Mag. = 1 in 10"
.350 Rem. Mag. = 1 in 16"
.375 H&H Mag. = 1 in 12"
.416 Rem. Mag. = 1 in 14"
.444 Marlin = 1 in 38"
.45-70 Govt. (Marlin and Ruger rifles) = 1 in 20"
.450 Marlin = 1 in 20"
.458 Win. Mag. = 1 in 14"
rapdogg21 August 20th, 2006, 12:20 AM

good day! actually, i am a chemist from armscor and yes, we make cheap .22 rifles. you can visit our website at ww w.armscor.com.ph - unfortunately some southerners from
our country are pirating our products, thud making our reputation scratched. any questions from you will be accomodated immediately.
++ ++++ ++
Maybe true, but your english grammar is terrible. :( NBK
BeerWolf August 23rd, 2006, 09:56 PM

In addition to the methods pointed out above, some shops are now using electrical discharge machining (EDM) to rifle barrels.
I think that this shows some promise in the making of improvised barrels. Simply attach the working electrode in place of the cutting head of a hand pull rifling bench. Fit with a
slow advance feed, and a tank for the working fluid.
It is slow, but can be done quietly in a comparatively small shop, attracting little notice.
I already have a (crude) homemade EDM sinker machine, and I intend to experiment with such a rifling machine. I w ill post my results here.
-BW
amsci99 September 1st, 2006, 02:26 PM

There was an article in the January 1989 issue of now defunct magazine, 'Firepower' on a Filipino gunsmith and his range of experimental rimfire submachine guns.
PhilAnarchist February 9th, 2007, 05:28 AM

These Filipino made guns in particular the local M -16 are known to spit the ammo after just two to three magazines .and their accuracy at 300 yards is still not as good as the
originals...[/QUOTE]
If you are referring to the ELISCO variant which is a licensed copy of the COLT M-16 then this is untrue. On my personal gun I have personally fired off in one session five
magazines non stop, with nary a hint of it spitting bullets and I was hitting the rifle plate i was shooting at 100 meters. Of course, because I was trying to hit it w ith bursts of two
and three some of the rounds didn't connect.
This is one of the most common misconceptions surrounding this M16 variant in the Philippines, That these rifles when fired through with a lot of rounds and the barrel heats
up,it tends to dribble bullets. The ELISCO made M-16 being the most prolific long arm here. Being the ow ner of a Bushmaster M-4, a Colt M-16, A GM Hydra-matic M-16 and the
above mentioned ELISCO M655, I find that the latter three has the same performance all around.
But to be honest, I have not fired any of the four at ranges past 200 meters...
But If you are mentioning one of those illegally manufactured M-16's that
are coming out of Danao, Cebu then I would say it could be the case.
Because of the M-16/M-4 craze among gun owners here in the Philippines they are starting to make lower receivers (reinforced, M-4 type no less ) and uppers...with sometimes
bad outcomes.
InfernoMDM February 14th, 2007, 02:45 PM

On a side note not everything from the Philippines is terrible. Rock Island Armory makes some excellent reproductions of the 1911.
As for the threading of a barrel. I know a engineer who threaded his own barrels for homemade muskets, at his house. He said it w as a homemade system, but he got rid of it
after it broke.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > nbk's hybrid gyrojet [Archive-ish]
Log in
View Full Version : nbk's hybrid gyrojet [Archive-ish]
Chaosmark August 19th, 2006, 11:16 PM

Nbk's gyrojet specific
August 7th, 2002, 08:30 AM

nbk2000
The anti-kakistocrat Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shrine of the Elder Gods E4M3
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 10
[Removed unrelated information]
I also have an idea for a 20mm+ man portable direct fire cannon that uses gyrojet type rockets with a rifled barrel and
retaining pins similiar to the MLRS system. Rapid fire, recoilless, lightweight (under 25 pounds is light for a "heavy" infantry
weapon), explosive effect, able to engage infantry in the open, behind cover, light armored vehicles, helicopters, and bunkers,
all within line of sight out to more than a kilometer. Minimal firing signature, quick reloading from preloaded revolver-type
drums, alloy and plastic construction (no complicated machining), etc.
Only thing stopping me is a million for R&D. Damn it! Where's the letter M when you need it?!
[ August 07, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]

__________________
To follow the path, look to the master. Follow the master, walk with the master. See through the master, become the master.
Read The Rules and live.
My PGP Key Fingerprint: 78A9 DF4F B5F4 649D 1BED 77D8 569F 0860 F82F D9A1
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 03:29 AM

nbk2000
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
I saw a patent for a hypervelocity rocket design that seems so fucking simple, you wonder why no one ever thought of it
before. 5,000-12,000FPS using common smokeless powder, no moving parts, and made from common steels using simple
machining processes.
(I've described this before, so I feel rather tiresome of repeating myself, but the idea is stuck in my brain so bear with me.)
Skip the bullshit of existing firearm designs and use "Leap Ahead" technology. The gyrojet was decades ahead of its time, but
modern technology makes it even more lethal, and practical today then ever before.
Simplify the HVR (HyperVelocity Rocket) design to something you could turn out with a drill press and steel bar stock, create a
wax model of a simple (multi-shot) launcher for the HVR, and sell a kit that includes plans/wax model/and some bar stock.
There's NO restrictions on selling either plans, nor inert steel stock, or even a wax model of a "hypothetical" design for a "flare
launcher" no one has ever seen before (or remembers).
Great thing about laws are that they can't ban things that no one yet knows exists. It's only AFTER something bad happens
with it that someone creates a law banning it.
If someone should happen to follow the plans, and make a casting from the wax model, then they'd have a large caliber/
hand-held/recoilless HVR "flare" launcher that'd throw (after burnout) 220 grain (1/2oz) shells with a KE of 31,200 foot-pounds
(assuming 8,000FPS).
I mean, Christ, a .50BMG has less than 10,000 foot-pounds, so how many .50s worth of impact would your completely legal
and unregulated "flare" launcher have, when directed against cars/body armor/concrete walls/LAV's? All in something light
enough, and small enough, to carry in your pocket.
Eventually, someone would bring it to Feinsteins attention, though hopefully not until tens of thousands of the "flare" launcher
castings have been sold, as well as the plans and CAD files distributed over the 'net, and piggy torsos are getting exploded
(literally) by nearly silent HVR's fired at them by 13 year old ghetto dwelling 'hoodies, the rockets zipping through cop body
armor like a hypersonic knife through hot pig lard.
By the time they get around to banning it, you've already established a reputation for yourself as an innovator (or menace to
society), created a new industry (legal or underground), given the politicians a case of the shits, and made the pigs realize
their vests are useless as protection...and so are their cars...and reinforced concrete walls...and buildings...
Ahh...a sweet dream.

__________________
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:52 AM
A-BOMB
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: wouldn't you like to know
Posts: 593
Rep Power: 0
NBK I like how you think! It gives me somelike of feeling of some sort like one where your laughing you head off in a movie
theater as you see the burning pig stagger out of his burning car onfire And on the subjuect of gyrojets I just saw something
at the hardware store that would make a outer casing for a gryojet round it a zinc or brass end fixture for some thing or
another I'll pick some up next time I'm there, If these casing are strong anothe to hold the gasses from the cartridge they
would make the prefect gyrojet round. The only part that would be a problem is the base you wouuld have to make a jig to
hold the base at the right angle while you drilled the vent hole but that too would be semi-easy.
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:17 PM

nbk2000
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
Brass or zinc would be too soft to be useable as a gyrojet shell. Internal pressures can be over 30,000PSI, which is why strong
steels are needed.
Also, the problem with the old gyro's, was the canted ports. Unless they're EXACTLY symetrical, the variance of one port causes
an oscillation in the rocket, which is the reason the originals weren't very (or even semi) accurate.
The MLRS method of studs 'n rails would be more suitable. No ports to drill, no loss in velocity from the diversion of propellant
gases to induce rotation, and simplified launcher design.
Also, one of the reason for bothering with spin stabilization in the first place, was because the original g-rockets didn't burn all
their propellant till they were well downrange. This allowed for wind cocking, which was magnified by the continued acceleration.
The HVR, on the other hand, burns it's entire propellant load in under 10 milliseconds. And this was with rockets using pounds
of propellant! I'd imagine less than an ounce would only take 1 or 2 milliseconds to burn. As long as the propellant is
completely burned by the time the HVR exits the barrel, then spin stabilization isn't needed. Which is good, because the
design isn't intended as a precision sniping weapon, but as a simple weapon of major power.
And, because the things are so fast, leading of moving targets is very simple...you don't.
If a pocket HVR was assumed to have an 8,000 FPS velocity, and an effective range of 100 meters, than a car moving across
your LOS at 100 meters at 100MPH would only move 5 feet in the time it'd take the HVR to cross the gap. Aim at the
passenger compartment and you're going to hit it.
__________________
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Anthony
CGI Bin Laden Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 4,443
Rep Power: 101
VERY interesting!
To achieve such an incredibly short burn time, is the propellent a loosely packed powder ratehr than a solid grain?
I'm thinking of something (easily improvisable to start with) using empty CO2 capsules. Formed steel nozzle, with the nose
filled with lead. It wouldn't hold 30kpsi, but even a fraction of 8kfps would be a mean toy to start out with
__________________
"The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the friendship I share with my collection of singing
potatoes"
------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2003, 11:45 PM

nbk2000
Posts: 5,677
Rep Power: 10
The patent is 5,440,993
It uses loose SP. The flakes "float" on the gases created by its combustion, allowing for extremely rapid burning, but the
rocket only works if it's moving. Reason is that the propellant grains inertia keeps it inside of the rocket, against the
outflowing combustion gases, otherwise they're blown out unburned. So no static firing is possible.
Also, the large rockets mentioned in the patent (155mm anti-tank) burned their propellant charges in less than 2 feet of
travel. This created:
Quote:
a large rearward flame was observed thus requiring that the rear of the launch tube be kept clear of personnel. In the case of
firing from a gun tube, blast shields may be required for personnel protection.
A couple dozen pounds of SP burning in a few milliseconds? I bet THAT was a huge ass fucking fireball! Though the smaller
HVR's would only have a fraction of an ounce, it'd still likely create a nasty fireball like that from a .50BMG, only larger. I'd
think some way of venting the blast to the side would be a good idea, unless you build it as a bazooka type weapon that sits
over the shoulder.
I don't think a CO2 powerlet would work, because the HVR design creates over 30,000 PSI of internal pressure, while CO2
tanks are burst rated to only 3,000PSI, below which they'll deform. I don't think a powerlet is even close to that.
Also, the design requires a nozzle that protrudes almost to the very front of the rockets internal chamber, to seperate the gas
while retaining the propellant grains.
__________________
------------------------------------------------
March 7th, 2004, 02:49 AM

nbk2000
Posts: 5,679
Rep Power: 10
During a recent google search on gyrojets, I found a site I've never seen before, www.deathwind.com .
Seems someone is trying to recreate the gyrojet.
'Course, they're going all about it all wrong. They're still trying to use gyroscopic stabilization through canted vents.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Obviously inferior to my hybrid gun/gyrojet concept, the Gy2.
Interesting how they're using .50BMG full metal jackets as rocket casings. Might be usuable for improvisation.
__________________
------------------------------------------------
Related rocketry infromation
November 26th, 2003, 04:35 PM

Arkangel
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pangea
Posts: 753
Rep Power: 0
You want a high speed fuel for horizontally fired, flat trajectory projectile right?
Then forget Estes, forget any model rocketry you see on the Nakka site and elsewhere, they are ALL too slow burning. As
Tuatara said, making things go faster involves burning more fuel in a shorter space of time. I've fire 66mm LAW's and
RPG7's, and in both cases, the fuel is all burnt before the rocket leaves the launcher. There's just a big WHUMP and it's gone.
I used to have a LAW motor kicking about, and it's a very strong aluminium body, with venturi something like half the size of
the overall bore. The fuel is in the form of a load of thin rods. You could do that sort of thing with home made rockets, but
you're going to have to forget everything you read about models - pvc/cardboard/rolled metal tubing and the rest. Your rocket
will have to be made from a piece of solid metal, and in any case, I wouldn't dare fire something like that home-made from
over your shoulder - you'll die sooner rather than later.
------------------------------------------------
December 1st, 2003, 09:52 PM

AsylumSeaker
Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia.
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 0
Arkangel- Basicly what I mean is a rocket which will be launched horizontally from a tube. Research I have been doing includes
looking into ww2 rocket launchers, particularly the german panzershrek. I think I have the design of the rocket down how I
want it, except what fuel to use. The question I was asking was what fuel would give me the highest acceleration which I could
obtain or make without to much hassel, ie- without breaking into any sort of military facility. Thanks for your help. No need to
ban me, I will leave now.
------------------------------------------------
December 2nd, 2003, 09:01 AM

Jacks Complete
Moderator Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Disunited Kingdom
Posts: 819
Rep Power: 22
If I might make a suggestion.
Build a large crossbow. Fire your rocket from it, with a clever 1 second delay fuse on it.
I will leave you to figure out the rest. Then you can explain it to us.
__________________
...when it comes to mass murder the worst individual monster in the world is a gnat compared with even a relatively benign
state.
I was Jack's Complete lack of surprise
------------------------------------------------
December 3rd, 2003, 03:42 PM

Arkangel
Sr. Researcher Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pangea
Posts: 753
Rep Power: 0
In that case Asylumseaker (and I'm not a mod, so I couldn't ban you anyway), it's pretty easy to work out some parameters:
As Wild Catmage explains, fired horizontally your rocket will start accelerating DOWN at 9.8m/s/s, just the same as a bullet
does.
In this respect, you should be able to make a simple table of how fast the rocket will have to be going to get certain distances
from your launcher.
For example, if you want the projectile to travel 100m and drop only an 10cm,
The formula you need is s=ut+1/2atsquared
where
s=0.1m
u = starting velocity(0m/s)
a = 9.8m/s/s
t = the time you have to get the projectile the 100m.
I can't be arsed to work it out for you, but you should be getting the idea.
So, once you've worked out how much time you have, then you can work out the average speed for that distance, or the
acceleration you'll need to give the projectile. With a bullet it's a bit easier, as it's easier to get the average speed - muzzle
velocity is maximum, and it will only decellerate after the barrel.
However, once you've roughly worked out the acceleration you need, you can work out the thrust needed from the rocket and
all the rest of it.
But I can save you all the trouble.
Forget it unless you can burn all your propellant in a fraction of a second. Motor design is going to be critical and pretty much
beyond anything model rocketeers can achieve. Fuel type is less relevant than giving it the largest surface area you can.
Watch a LAW being fired, close up. Have a look at the design and you'll understand what I mean.
------------------------------------------------
Begin post
I encountered nbk's pocket-HVR concept a week or two ago, and it's been bugging me ever since as perhaps the most
powerful portable weapon the common person could get. A handgun sized weapon firing off rockets? I love the concept and
the visuals! Truly nbk is years ahead of his time in inventiveness.
So, having scoured the Forums for information relating to the Gy2 (as Nbk named it in one post), I think it's worthy of fleshing
out. I also included some basic rocket information for fleshing out the rounds that would be used, since that's probably the
biggest issue with the design.
Nbk, correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're looking for is:
1) A small, hand-held HVR launcher design/modification
2) A HVR design that would fit (hopefully) inside the launcher
3) A warhead for the HVR (perhaps more appropriately moved to the HE/OE section?)
#1 seems rather easy to think up and create, since all it has to do is ignite the propellant of the HVR and remain intact for
multiple firings. I'm of the mindset that our biggest issue will be the "remain intact for multiple firings", since small amounts
of propellant burning at microsecond speeds tend to act just like an explosive, which when inside a barrel is bad. Very bad.
Nbk already said that we need high quality steels to withstand the massive pressures that using smokeless powder as a
propellant would cause, as copper and other metals just tend to be weaker than required. However, as I think about it, I
believe that the micro-explosions shattering barrels isn't as much of an issue as long as we make sure that we're using the
proper amount of propellant. A little bit of research into smokeless powder should reveal what numbers we need to keep in
mind for our rounds.
Flare guns might be what we look into here, as that's the picture I'm getting for it.
#2 is something that's not as easy to define, at least not for me. I've been envisioning the rounds as smaller versions of the
round mortar shells that you can buy as part of mortar firework sets.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/78/artilleryshelliu3.jpg
However, I'm not sure that such a design would be either workable nor the best that we could get. Nbk, what were you thinking
the rockets would be shaped as? Normal rockets, round "ball" shells, or something else entirely? We can learn something, and
establish a good max-min-optimum range for the weapon, as Arkangel posted. Testing different types of propellants/shell
designs would be best, that way we have a wide variety of ammo to use if/when these things are made.
#3 is the one that I think would be the biggest hazard of the development process. What explosive were you envisioning that
could be fired (mostly) safely from a handgun-sized weapon, Nbk? Definitely not AP, too unstable. And it couldn't be ANFO or
something like that that needs a detonator. I'm at a loss for what explosive would cut it, especially with the intended effects
(taking out piggies, vehicles, etc.). Perhaps just a crapload of BP or something similar?
U.S. Patent 5,000,094 might prove to be of some use in this area, since it is the patent for an exploding shotgun shell.
Nbk's comments would be especially useful in this matter, since it was his idea originally, but any input would help.
nbk2000 August 20th, 2006, 03:04 AM

The idea behind using an HVR is that you don't need explosives as your kill mechansim, because the rocket is going so fast
that it's kinetic energy alone is adequate to ensure a catastrophic kill. :)
You know how a .223 bullet, pushed from a long barrel at its intended speed, explodes into a lead snowstorm inside a target,
creating massive damage?
Now imagine a .800 projectile, with over 20x the mass, going at 3x (or more) the velocity of that .223 bullet.
Having a penetrator tip made of tungsten or DU, pushed at over a mile a second, you do NOT need explosives. :)
.50 caliber bullets going at only 2400 FPS cause human bodies to blow apart from hydrostatic shock.
I could only imagine the effect of an HVR on soft targets.
Concrete walls of less than Seigfried Line dimensions, and trees smaller than old growth redwoods, might as well be made of
wet cardboard for all the protection they'd provide.
On anything more solid, like a car engine block, the penetrator will disintegrate during penetrating of the barrier, emerging on
the other side in a cloud of incandescent shards of heavy metal death. either to act as a point-blank shotgun blast, or as a
flamethrower as the particles burn in a fireball known as a "vaporific" effect.
Pretty much any modern DB propellant should do the trick. The main thing is designing the rocket to contain the pressure long
enough to ensure the fuel is fully ignited, without holding it in so long as to cause the case to explode.
A rupture disc made of foil or sheetmetal across the nozzle holds it in long enough to ignite.
I had the idea of using the pinfire system for ignition.
A disc of thin sheetmetal covers the nozzle to keep out debris. A cone-shaped plug, of same dimensions as the rocket nozzle,
is spring propelled through the disc, where the firing pin on the tip impacts an ignition primer held inside the rockets head.
Upon impact, the primer fires and ignites the fuel. It burns until it builds up enough pressure to move a lever inside the barrel
that's at the tip of the rocket (what would have been the hammer in the original design). This releases the tension on the
firing plug, allowing the rocket exhaust to push it back (recocking it) and off it goes.
The Gy2 round would have a normal driving band to engage a rifled barrel, and the breech is closed upon firing, so the
chamber is completely closed. Only after ignition does the gun go recoilless. Though there's actually going to be some recoil,
though far less than a gun of the same caliber.
The firing pin is a consumable item that'll require replacement due to erosion from rocket exhaust gases.
Chris The Great August 20th, 2006, 06:45 AM

Hmm, same kinda idea I had kicking around in my head, but completely different approach. Mine was a slow burning fuel in a
simple metal tube. A large countermass is blasted out the back, a small saboted bullet is shot out the front. The fuel is slow
burning to keep pressure down, so the barrel can be somewhat thinner and therefore possible to carry. But that is not a rocket,
although the end result of superior firepower in a lightweight package is realized.
Anyway, thoughts on the Gy2 idea.
To initially launch the shot, the end of the nozzle can be closed off with a bit of sand countermass and some loose NC, which
blasts the sand out the back. This causes the rocket to be moving forward when the main fuel begins to burn and accelerate
the slug.
Making the round a sabot would allow greater range, since imperfections in the rocket motor are no longer significant, and
drag is greatly reduced. The rounds are large enough that our high density penetrators can have fins to keep them going very
straight. This will even out any slight unevenness when the sabot seperates, but will also do away with the need of trying to
rifle the barrel.
I feel electronic ignition would prove to be easier than mechanical for reliability reasons, I doubt a mechnical trigger as you
describe would last very long. Electronic would last as long as the batteries do, which will be a long, long time. I wouldn't go
piezo since then there is a risk of the rounds being set off by static.
As for the launcher, I am envisioning a revolver style reloading system, with the barrel extending out the back so it rests on
the shoulder. This gives a recoilless, multi-shot weapon, with no complex mechanical components beyond the ammunition,
which IMO will be the hardest part to actually make.
The main disadvantages I see with the idea:

-Expensive ammunition, that is also bulky and HEAVY
-Backblast prevents use indoors (so you need to be in a fairly open area)
megalomania August 21st, 2006, 08:42 PM

Jeez, nbk, ever thought about getting into advertising for defense contractors? If I was a general, and I heard the vivid and oh
so accurate description you just gave for HVRs, I would order a few $billion worth.
There are caseless ammunitions under development that use a polymer binder to dilute explosive materials enough such that
they burn at the appropriate rate. The projectiles can both be conventionally propelled by an initial propellant charge, and
subsequently propelled by the burning polymer matrix. This is a safe(r) way of handling a potentially explosive rocket like
propellant. Once ignited there is nothing that can stop the process, but at least it will not explode in the barrel.
The polymer acts as an inert (or energetic if you get something like GAP) diluent to slow down the rate of combustion just
enough to keep it from exploding. A suitable high explosive could be used in this manner to create extremely powerful thrust
in a short amount of time. Think of this as being just short of a detonation.
It would also be possible to gradiate the content of propellant. A low amount of explosive with a high amount of binder could
withstand the initial shock of being fired, followed by an increasing ratio of propellant to binder the high up it burns.
nbk2000 August 22nd, 2006, 08:44 AM

I've thought about the possibilty of using existing ammunition cases as rocket shells.
Take a straight-sided rimmed cartridge case, enlarge the primer hole, notch the rim so it'd engage an exaggerated rifling, and
insert the nozzle/fuel/HM tip to finish the round.
Use existing ammunition components as much as possible to simplify change over to the new weapons and preserve the
capital already invested in legacy systems. ;)
RTPB: Imitate, then innovate.
Ignition could be through high-voltage current passed through the casing and a contact against the HM warhead, which is
insulated from the case by a thin insulator.
I really need to sketch this out...
As for pitching it, I've read a lot of military sales pitches over the last 25 years, so I'm conversant in the phrase-ology to use,
and have had some discussions in the past with Oerlikon Contraves on other matters. That was enough to sour me on
expecting any integrity from those thieving fucks. :mad:
Tungsten powder loading in an ABM as a less-lethal weapon? MINE!
Chris The Great August 22nd, 2006, 08:52 PM

I doubt the casings would stand up to the pressure present in this situation however. Normally, they have the receiver of the
weapon to take the pressure, in this case they need to travel down the barrel without expanding. Since the casings expand
when fired I doubt they would be functional in this situation of 30,000psi.
Obviously, they would for normal rockets, but not the nearly instant burning ones we are thinking about here. Although, one
could use the casing as an outer case to ensure that all rounds are the same outer diameter, and reiforce the inside to take
the pressure with some steel. Might be me trouble than it is worth though... I'll have to think about it a bit. But I'm a little
skeptical that one could imitate much when using a completely new weapon system.
Since we innovating somewhat, it makes more sense to me to make the innovation as good as possible, so that it's
maximum possibilities are reached. Although it would be more expensive to produce than a design based on existing weapon
systems, it will outperform such a "watered down" design by hopefully a large margin.
nbk2000 August 23rd, 2006, 02:38 AM

Oh, I know brass won't take the pressure of an HVR type projectile, but what about just normal gyrojet-type velocities? Those
didn't move much faster than a pistol bullet, and had lower internal pressures than a firearm, so case expansion shouldn't be
an issue.
Also, making it somewhat more similar to existing weapons would be an assest in selling it to the military, which is a highly
conservative institution when it comes to anything new and unknown.
megalomania August 23rd, 2006, 05:38 AM

Thanks to the new hydrogen economy, considerable research is being done on high pressure storage containers made of
lightweight composites capable of withstanding tremendous pressures. There are already 10,000 psi containers available, and
these have been hydrostatically tested to burst over 23,000 psi. These containers are intended to be as light as possible for
automotive use. I am sure with a bit of additional material a much stronger container can be built, albeit heavier
Given 10 years there will likely be mass manufactured composite materials and containers capable of even greater pressures.
At such a time, off the shelf technology could enable the custom manufacture of devices suitable for our needs rather
inexpensively.
Quantum Technologies has a low cost tank now under development that has a burst pressure of 27,510 psi. Thats just a
small hop from 30k psi, and their primary focus is making it cheap cheap cheap.
Chris The Great August 23rd, 2006, 06:08 AM

Ah, ok, my bad there NBK. I thought that you where talking about HVR type projectiles, since you had just called gyrojets a
thing of a past a few posts ago.
Personally, I think they are too hard to make perfect to be of use without a very large investment in a lot of high precision
tools.
Mega: lightweight is good! The rockets will outperform steel ones, even if a "heavier" material is used. It's still going to be a
lot less weight than with steel, which translates into a greater kinetic energy imparted to the projectile.
I think it might be possible to make something similar these days, with a bit of ingenuity and a very thorough literature and
patent search. I imagine most difficulty would come in the actual processing procedure.
Chaosmark August 24th, 2006, 10:56 PM

Since we innovating somewhat, it makes more sense to me to make the innovation as good as possible, so that it's
maximum possibilities are reached. Although it would be more expensive to produce than a design based on existing weapon
systems, it will outperform such a "watered down" design by hopefully a large margin.
Right now, I think the purpose of re-arming existing rounds is to work out some of the rougher kinks in the process, as well as
to allow for a better secrecy in the process, since lots of gun-fanatics (not a bad thing) reload their own ammo, but not many
people make their own from scratch, even within said fanatic sects.
For that matter, comparatively, it'd be cheaper to reload existing ammo to test the principles involved than to design, test,
and make an entirely new type of ammo. Plus, reloaded ammo is completely legal. New types of ammo are a grey area as far
as I know. Besides, why get rid of the old designs? Bullets are the way they are because there have been enough tests to
dictate that their design is the best for it's purpose. Plus, the old casings can be found everywhere. Go down to the local
shooters club or something.
Back to the Gy2, I was looking up hydrostatic shock (no pictures of course), and I came across a statement that made my
brain twitch: at 8000fps (5454mph), the rocket is going to be going Mach 7 (assuming a 758mph sound barrier), which means
even though there's no real muzzle flash or recoil, there WILL be a loud crack as the round goes hypersonic, which might give
things away to those that survive such an attack. All three of them. :D
Also, is there any way to increase the burn speed of double-base/triple-base powders (thereby increasing projectile velocity)
aside from the 'floating powder' method contained within the patent that Nbk gave (5,440,993)? A quick Google search gave
me these ways, but there's a major issue with them.
The burning rate of smokeless powders is varied and controlled in various ways. One is by the physical size of the grains,
flakes, or spheres of powder. The larger these are the slower the powder burns. Naturally, the exact chemical composition of
the powder also affects its burning rate.
A third method is to increase the surface area of the powder grains. The individual grains of many cylindrical powders, for
example, are hollow rather than solid cylinders.
Another way is by the use of deterrent coatings to slow the burn rate. These coatings retard the initial ignition of the individual
powder grains. They may also decrease the burn temperature, which reduces throat erosion in firearms.
Obviously, the only way we can control these is to make our own smokeless powder, which isn't worth the effort involved in this
case. Unless we intend to open up a small factory to make the stuff in large quantities for public sale, it's not worth the effort.
This leaves us with one option at this point: shop around and see which smokeless powder burns fastest. Preferrably, it would
be the smallest flake size we could get, with a very small amount (if at all) of deterrent coating, compressed to a very high
density.
Considering the apparent difficulty in finding such a specialized powder, it should be obvious why I asked about any other
techniques for increasing burn rates. I've been reading like a maniac thanks to some PDFs on the FTP that talk about
propellents, so hopefully I'll come across something if you guys don't have something to help in this case.
Isotoxin August 28th, 2006, 05:51 PM

I see this as almost enevitable unless the sale of reloading DBNC is restricted. In the HVR patent they use larger grain stuff as
you would in a normal 3 inch gun so it follows that some grade of powder you get at the gunshop would work for a smaller
version.
Megla's idea about the new composite materials is great. Really all the mass should be in the DU or W rod out in the front. It
seems wear and tear on the "rails" system would be horrible so perhaps little teflon feet on the pegs could be used.
I am talking out of my ass here but it seems with a simple "ball and cup" type of sabot the seperation issues would
disappear. The Rod is inside a thin steel tube lubed up with some sort of telfon grease and held on by a very minor crimping
at the tip. The steel holder tube is what is attached to the rocket part. It fired and then as it comes out of the barrel the air
resistance slows down the tube and rocket part and the KE rod just sort of slips out - thus no 3 part sabot that could kick the
rod to some strange direction.
I may have a chance to work with a small metal lathe in the coming year and I might be able to make a very crude mock up
following the HVR patent out of aluminium metal.
The one thing I don't get is how can we get it to fire without it moving? It was my understanding that the grains have to get all
shaken up like grain dust in an elevator before it can be fired.
Great thread!
nbk2000 August 28th, 2006, 08:57 PM

Could use the same idea used in missiles, of a booster-motor, to get the projectile moving in the barrel.
A booster propellant pellet attached to the base of the HVR is ignited by a primer. The booster and a portion of the HVR sit in
a 'cup' that holds the firing pin that'll ignite the primer that fires the booster.
When the primer is fired, the booster pellet ignites the HVR propellant, while also pushing the whole HVR rocket out of the
'cup', giving it the needed initial velocity for the HVR propellant to burn, with minimal recoil.
Or, as shown in the attached drawing (MS paint, sorry), a Gy2 projecticle has a pressure disc (blue) sealing the open end, with
a side-mounted primer (red) and a booster pellet (orange) inside of it.
When the primer is fired, the booster pellet burns inside the sealed rocket, igniting the main propellant charge and
pressurizing the casing to the rupture point of the sealing disc.
At this point, the rocket is pushed on its way down the barrel by the venting booster gases, the propellant in the rocket is
burning, and now has the needed momentum to 'float'. :)
As for the rails, they don't have to run the whole length of the barrel, where they'd be subjected to the friction of a 10KFPS
projectile pushing against them.
The rails only need to be long enough to impart the needed spin for stability, which is the first few inches, which would be
subject to a much lower velocity (though still gun-speed).
Jacks Complete August 29th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Well, I can tell you the fastest propellant I know of is Red Dot, which is about 80 to 90% nitrogylcerin. It burns plenty fast for
most uses, and far too fast for most. Any powder manufacturers site will have a list of tables.
As regards using a case, that might be a bad way to go. Instead, get a bullet head, standard copper jacket and lead core,
military type with no exposed lead tip. The jacket is 90% copper, so very tough, and, importantly, it is also the right shape!
Get a fireproof mat and a blowtorch, and heat it up until the lead core drops out. Allow to cool. Your copper shell will be much
better shaped for firing things than the case.
Note that it might screw with the hardness/softness of the copper, so try either quenching one or letting one cool slowly, then
comparing them. Use whichever you feel is better.
grendel23 August 30th, 2006, 05:55 AM

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but I thought Bullseye had the highest nitrogylcerin content at 40%.
wolfy9005 August 30th, 2006, 09:59 AM

Dont forget that the barrel/launcher tube is going to have to withstand a few hundred (maybe thousands) of degrees. Perhaps
have a standard barrel with a replaceable internal sheath (made of some special alloy?).
Might help, but it depends on if you are going to use rifling, etc., as to the practicality of this.
Chaosmark August 31st, 2006, 06:46 PM

Most modern barrels have to regularly handle such temperatures, thanks to smokeless powder's wide usage. Nothing new,
obviously not that hard to handle. What we really need is a barrel that can withstand the pressures that we'll be subjecting it to
in the space of about a microsecond.
wolfy9005 August 31st, 2006, 09:43 PM

Like nbk said somewhere up the top how we could use revolving drums.....perhaps if we made them strong enough to handle
the pressures than we wouldnt have to worry so much about the barrel, otherwise we would have to have a "chamber" at the
start of the barrel which has been reinforced.
Just a thought.
nbk2000 September 1st, 2006, 08:54 AM

The magazine only holds the round, not acting as a pressure-bearing chamber for the round, which is self-containing in that
aspect, unlike conventional firearms. :)
megalomania September 1st, 2006, 09:03 AM

Indeed, wolfy, you should re-read the thread. The round is a hyper velocity rocket that generates most of the thrust by
continuing to burn propellant AFTER it is fired from the gun.
Chaosmark September 2nd, 2006, 12:34 AM

Wait a second Mega, I thought the concept was to generate the massive thrust needed to attain supervelocity by burning the
entire load of fuel within the space of about a microsecond. That's the entire premise of not needing fins or anything else, just
a basic cartridge. If the rocket round is still burning fuel after leaving the barrel, then we're back to the old problems with fins
and stabilization, all the crap we thought we'd get rid of.
Chris The Great September 2nd, 2006, 01:07 AM

Either way the barrel is not subjected to large pressures. Both ideas are being discussed here, although it is causing some
confusion so perhaps the thread should be split since both concepts are different enough to warrant it IMHO.
nbk2000 September 2nd, 2006, 03:39 AM

Whether or not the fuel is consumed while the HVR is still in the barrel depends on the size of the propellant charge and the
length of the barrel it is fired from.
A small charge with a long barrel will completely burn within, while a large charge in a short barrel will burn after exiting.
The ideal would be to have as much propellant charge as possible within the HVR as will burn within the barrel length the round
is being fired from, to provide maximum velocity with minimal drift.
This means pistols would have lower velocity than assault cannons, because of both smaller caliber and correspondingly lesser
propellant charges.
Now, nothings to stop someone from firing a large caliber projectile with a large propellant load from a pistol, except for the
fact that the resulting jet of flame from the HVR, as it continues to burn after exiting the barrel, will incinerate the hand that
fires it. :p
itslenders September 10th, 2006, 08:51 AM
This weapon seems to be becoming more complex as it is discussed and not very DIY achievable but as a millitary application
and as it is a future weapon why not use a futuristic propellant?
I was reading about a new range of explosives proposed as a rocket fuel using the all nitrogen dipentazole (N10). I do not
know about the burn rate of this compound but you can probably safely say it is very high.
I am also a bit confused as to wheather the rear end of this weapon will be capped. If it isnt I dont see why the barrel needs
to withstand such high pressures but you would also lose a lot of the potential thrust? as well as having to deal with a large
blowback. However if the end is capped then the recoil would be just as high as any standard firearm with the same kinetic
energy round which would be very high for a weapon with this suggested muzzle velocity.
sparkchaser September 12th, 2006, 09:42 AM

Why not go with a "soft launch" system, a la Javelin anti armor missile? An initial charge of powder in a divergent section of
laval nozzle, small delay charge in the pressure section, and main charge in the chamber. Keep the breech closed, but place
large vents midway down the barrel. Effect could be tailored to be similar to a shotgun's recoil initially, with HVR effect coming
on 3/4 distance down the barrel. Small vanes in the exhaust (immobile versions of guided missile directional vanes) would
impart spin. Cap it all with a primered cup at the end of the laval nozzle that separates on firing. Not exactly caseless, but
close, with very small cases similar to what an M-1 tank spits out.
Come to think of it, shotshells minus the plastic could probably be used quite easily as the base!
Chaosmark September 23rd, 2006, 07:57 PM

This weapon seems to be becoming more complex as it is discussed and not very DIY achievable but as a millitary application
and as it is a future weapon why not use a futuristic propellant?
I was reading about a new range of explosives proposed as a rocket fuel using the all nitrogen dipentazole (N10). I do not
know about the burn rate of this compound but you can probably safely say it is very high.
I am also a bit confused as to wheather the rear end of this weapon will be capped. If it isnt I dont see why the barrel needs
to withstand such high pressures but you would also lose a lot of the potential thrust? as well as having to deal with a large
blowback. However if the end is capped then the recoil would be just as high as any standard firearm with the same kinetic
energy round which would be very high for a weapon with this suggested muzzle velocity.
1) The weapon was always complex, as is the design of any form of new weapon. Essentially what we're doing is the same as
what design teams did when they started designing handguns. The only difference is, they weren't designing a weapon of this
level of nasty. The DIY application was based around distributing a mold and a wax model of what the final product would look
like. No-one ever said it'd be easy to do, but just like making a firearm of any kind, you can do it at home if you know what
you're doing.
As a sidenote, what about using rapid prototyping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_prototyping) for the production? Then all
we'd need to distribute would be the CAD design or such through the site, and then members could have their machine make
it at home in just a few hours. Of course, the machinery involved will be out of reach for most people currently, but since
they're working on making ones that can make copies of themselves, soon enough they could be everywhere.
2) dipentazole and other related compounds are still theoretical at this point. They have yet to actually produce them. All
they've got are quantium-physics models and such. But yes, if we were to pursue such a high-power fuel in the future, that
would be a good candidate.
3) Yes the barrel will be capped on the end. The very simple reason is that the user doesn't want to be engulfed in a nasty jet
of fire exiting from the weapon's backside. The Gy2 is meant to be a portable, handheld weapon. However, the method of
propellant would produce almost no recoil, which if you had paid attention was mentioned in the archival posts repeatedly.
Returning to the Gy2 (which is hard, because Rapid Prototyping is so blasted interesting), I'm slightly confused now, probably
because of my serious lack of firearms physics knowhow. In most firearms, the barrel of the firearm is easily able to contain
the gradually increasing pressure placed on it by a fired round. Sometimes if there isn't enough SP in a bullet, it burn fast
enough that the pressure increase is like a micro-explosion inside the barrel, which causes issues and damages the barrel.
This seems like it would be the exact problem with microsecond burn times, in that it'd be a microexplosion inside the barrel,
hence why I've been touting a high-pressure resistant barrel or something to prevent the barrel from exploding on you once
it's been used once. While placing the pressure bearing problem on the casing itself, I still think this would be a problem.
What am I missing in this equation Nbk? You don't seem to be bothered by it at all.
Chances are, my inexperience is forcing me to overlook something really really basic.
5_seven September 23rd, 2006, 10:57 PM

Well, like all things, there's a compensation for all that power that the Gyrojet has. Yeah, it has more thrust than a bullet, and
can penetrate all body armor, steel plate, concrete etc. But at close range it's useless. To generate the thrust, it needs to build
up speed. A weapons author on a History channel documentary (I believe it was Ian Hogg) stated that you could stop it at the
barrel with your finger, or just step out of its way. It's not the perfect weapon by any means, but if you're speaking strictly long
range, then yeah, go for it, because it is a badass weapon.

The original Gyrojet had that problem because the propellant was still burning long after the projectile left the barrel.
The Gy2 does not have that problem, because all the propellant is burnt while the rocket is in barrel, and the rocket is
restrained from moving until it reaches full thrust.
5_seven September 25th, 2006, 01:10 AM

Then the frame better be made of some tough stuff, like titanium or some other material that has a high tolerance for the
temperatures a gy2 is going to generate. Even though, I still like the idea.

Why not approach the problem a step at a time? For instance, what if one were to modify a conventional bullet to be a rocket
propelled round just to experiment with the particulars. Such a round would have a higher velocity exiting the barrel, but would
still be a far cry from the desired object. Subsequently, building upon this design, modifications can be made to scale up the
device.
I prefer to solve an experimental challenge one variable at a time, initially ignoring the lack of desired results to get one
component operational. I usually end up with what I want if all the parts work like they should.
I am not particularly mechanically inclined, so I will put the question to the more knowledgeable on The Forum. What initial
first step would you make? Would it be figuring out how to make a rocket thrust cone out of a bullet? To determine how best
to initiate the propellant? Where to begin?
Charlie Workman September 28th, 2006, 03:36 AM

The original Gyrojet pistol was made from Zamak, a cheap zinc alloy. I've seen one taken apart and it reminds me of my old
Mattel six shooter. It only served to ignite the rocket and send it in the proper direction. No structural strength was needed. I
was lucky enough to meet the orginal designer some years ago. He told me that the hammer spring was adjusted to provide a
slight brake which allowed the rocket to build up pressure before it took off. Also kept it from sliding out the barrel, which
frequently happened with the old hammer set up which hit the primer from the rear as with a conventional firearm. Used a
modified DB propellant and were spin stabilized. The angle vent holes provided this spin. Somewhere I have a list of the
applicable patents. I'll see if I can dig them out if you wish. In the mean time, check out- http://www.deathwind.com/
project.htm . It has some additional info, even though judging from his photos. I don't think the guy is legit. BTW, Bob
Mainhardt, the guiding force behind the project died last month.

-Gidget
Cobalt.45 September 29th, 2006, 11:04 AM

I remember the original magazine article (Guns magazine, maybe?).
The major complaints at the time were : Expensive ammo, low power, and less than spectacular accuracy, contributed mainly
to a long "lock time" due to the rocket being slow to develop thrust as compared to smokeless ammo.
These same issues are still stumbling blocks. Seems there's little the 'Jet can do better than conventional firearms.
Except- launch a 75-plus caliber projectile from a hand-held weapon. If a gyro type gun is to be successful, it needs to do
something that other guns can't.
With the inherent "soft launch", recoil isn't a big concern. So, go BIG!
Chaosmark September 29th, 2006, 06:26 PM

The major complaints at the time were : Expensive ammo, low power, and less than spectacular accuracy, contributed mainly
to a long "lock time" due to the rocket being slow to develop thrust as compared to smokeless ammo.
These same issues are still stumbling blocks. Seems there's little the 'Jet can do better than conventional firearms.
Those might still be problems with the original gyrojet and things of roughly the same size, but the Gy2 is quite a bit different
than the original or anything similar.
Problems:
1) Expensive Ammo - Depending on what we finally use for it, this very well might be a non-issue.
2) Low power - The only thing that'll out-muscle this is either artillery or emplacement weapons, and that's iffy. Definitely non-
issue.
3) Bad accuracy - A non-issue, as all propellant is burned within the barrel. The only real drift there will be is by wind, and even
then not really. No more than a normal bullet, or perhaps even less due to it's speed.
Mega - While I'm no expert, my first suggestion would be figuring out how to get the thrust up to speed, since that's the most
important part of the weapon. After all, KE is the sole cause of death. After that, ignition is probably next most important.
Of course, we also need to figure out what we're going to use as a barrel for these testings before we do anything else. Don't
know about you, but I sure as hades don't want to be firing a HVR round in a normal handgun. Do you?

I was talking to a physicist today about artillery weapons, and he mentioned the largest caliber weapons really only have a
practical range of 18 Km at a velocity of about 500-600 m/s. Beyond that velocity the drag becomes excessive to the point
scaling up the guns is wasted effort. And here I thought all physics problems neglected air resistance (physics students will
understand that joke).
This makes me wonder how big you would have to scale a small caliber weapon. I know there are missiles that travel at
extre me ve locities, bu t they are scaled up appropriately. Anyone feel up to calculating some back of the envelop e drag
equations?

There's no need to do them by hand. Go to the ammoguide ballistics calculator, or download a ballistics calculator from
somewhere. They will tell you how fast a projectile slows down, so you can then work out the drag, as it is the only retarding
force.
We only care about the drag in the first moments after launch of a regular bullet, as this will be the end of the burn phase of
the round. Work out a target max velocity, then plug that in. Set the calculator to tell you the speed at 0, 10, 20 30m, then do
a little maths.
Of course, the main thing this will tell you is that you want a heavy projectile going fast with a good ballistic coefficient, which
isn't what you will have from a gyrojet type round. You want the minimum of retained mass after burn-out, since the propellant
should send it a good 300 yards before burnout anyway, and it should do that in a fraction of a second, just the same as a
regular bullet would.
I'd model it on the CheyTac .408 round. You want a good knock-down and long range, and the bullet is plenty pointy. I've just
run some figures, and it turns out that the BC is the hardest thing to work out. Plus, our BC would change during flight. Some
numbers that really don't mean much:
(All in feet per second at muzzle, 100 and 200 yards)

Velocity for pointy 419gr (BC 0.903) -the actual CheyTac round
0 . . . 2890
100 . 2784.5
200 . 2681.5
Velocity for flatnose 15gr (real flatnose lead bullet at .430 cal.)
0 . . . 2890
100 . 2445.2
200 . 2042.3
Velocity for fictional 0.05 BC hypervelocity round

0 . . . 4500
100 . 2334.5
200 . 1086.4
From this we can see that light things that aren't pointy don't retain velocity very well. But that's about it.
sparkchaser October 31st, 2006, 09:03 AM

If the propellant was to be burned entirely inside the barrel of the gun, you may just as well have a huge powder charge
behind a normal bullet, the recoil would be the same. The reason that the Gyrojet had vey little recoil is because most of the
propellant was burned outside the barrel, while the round was in flight. What I was suggesting is a hybrid. Fire the rocket out of
the barrel with a standard rifle/shotgun charge, and (with a delay charge) when then rocket has cleared the barrel, it fires the
booster to get up to operational speed. What you wind up with is acceptable velocity at close range with phenominal velocity
farther out, and acceptable recoil.
nbk2000 October 31st, 2006, 04:01 PM

A rocket and a recoilless gun are not the same thing.
A R.G. requires a much larger amount of propellant than a rocket, as the mass of the propellant gases in an RG acts as the
countermass for the RG projectile.
The Gy2 would have a rifled barrel, but that's not a true rifling, like with a conventional firearm, where the barrel bites into a
metal driving band.
Instead, it's a stud in groove, like an MLRS or Armstrong projectile, with the studs either being integral with the projectile, or
part of a discarding sabot.
Since the studs are loose when riding in the groove, there's not much friction to cause recoil or torque. :)
sparkchaser November 1st, 2006, 05:56 AM

O.K. I get what you're saying. I was still thinking of how to use a standard looking firarm (shotgun) with a modified yet
somewhat standard looking (shotgun) round using an HV rocket instead of a slug. I didn't realize you were talking about an
open breech.
wolfy9005 November 2nd, 2006, 08:59 PM

just a thought, if possible you could coat it in teflon or something similar to further decrease the resistance the barrel has with
it. I know teflons hard to work with, so maybe we could find something similar to use.
amachinist March 12th, 2007, 10:22 PM

I have a similar idea based upon the rocket assisted 120mm howitzer round except it will act more like a standard 40 mm
grenade.
The launcher would be similar to the assault shotgun, which was found via Shareza, modified to handle the length of the
round. 12 gage, 5 roun d detachable ma gazine, 30-34 barrel with lig ht rifling, flash hider, and a s cope.
The round is 12ga ro ck et assist round b ased upon the howitzer s 120mm rocket as sist round. Prima ry difference is the 12
gage round utilizes the same primary propulsion system that the 40mm grenade launcher utilizes and secondary mechanical
ignition of the propellant in the carbide tipped rocket.
Performance intent is 350-400 fps mv, with a delay long enough for the rocket to be roughly 5-10 m from the muzzle.
I still need to work out all the characteristics regarding propellant, rocket length, dynamics, and stability

Not sure Teflon would help. Teflon coated bullets are actually slower, because the build-up of pressure is lower behind said
bullet when a round is fired.
amachinist April 3rd, 2007, 09:16 PM

Appreciate the info.
My first scale rocket launch was a disaster, flew like a drunk dog on ice. I need to go back to the drawing board on balance.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Use for a small Petard
Log in
View Full Version : Use for a small Petard
Marmaloon August 21st, 2006, 03:04 PM

This one would blurr the line between legit self defence, excessive force, and a weapon of mass destruction possibly in my country if used.
Imagine making a small petard from a block of common spruce 2 by 2 lumber with a shallow vee formed in it, a hole is drilled at right angles to the vee to accept the steel insert for the actual petard, which would
have a .040" flash hole and a larger hole to accept a propellant charge and a bb(like for bb guns) The petard would be of a diameter that would allow it to press in the hole in the wood block. The rest of the hole would
be taken up by a plug , cannon fuse, and top priming. The block would be of a length that would allow 2 wraps of duct tape to secure it to 1, 2, or 3 even, canisters of bear spray. If the enemy attacks your defensive
position, just light the fuse, throw when you feel it's time, and put on your respirator. The idea is graduated response, it would give you a bit of time to prime your rifle or shotgun for doing something more
permanent.
I'm thinking of testing the premise out in a remote area. If it worked, it would be very economical on powder, although I'll admit I don't know if the concept would work very well. It would indeed seem that further
research is in order.
Also what would your opinion be regarding a proposed mixture of pepper spray and extract of poison ivy. I'm thinking it would be not quite, but damn near, as nasty as mustard gas.
megalomania August 21st, 2006, 07:33 PM

I was under the impression that poison ivy does not affect you the first time you are exposed, but every subsequent time you are hyper-sensitive to it.
Getting a face full would not be the end of the world. I have a touch right now on my chest, but all I did was take a stroll through the woods. Nothing came near my chest since I had a shirt on.
Obviously you have not seen pictures of the effects of mustard gas on humans, or you would not be comparing the two. Since your court trial will go easier if you use an irritant like poison ivy rather than some
toxic substance that will permanently disfigure a person, you be the judge. If pain and disfigurement is your bag, go with a strong acid.
Remember, the dead feel no pain, and are victims to be avenged. The horribly disfigured will suffer for the rest of their lives, its their fault they got disfigured, and everyone will shun their diseased look. It is a
natural instinct to flea from all that is abhorrent, we may intellectually know they are not diseased, but our instincts tell us to RUN AWAY! FREAK! PLAGUE!
nbk2000 August 22nd, 2006, 09:37 AM

Tell me if you've ever seen a poison ivy rash that could do this:
http://library.wustl.edu/units/westcampus/govdocs/onlinedisplay/1910s-gasburn.jpg
Marmaloon August 22nd, 2006, 11:19 AM

yes, I realize they are not the same, If you would allow me to backpedal a bit, I was referring to the short term effects. Poison Ivy is not the same as Lewisite or Mustard gas that much is sure, as it was designed
to be corrosive to human flesh. Probably best to stick with something less lethal. I would definitely put on my respirator before throwing something like that.
" There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,

Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet."
Cindor August 22nd, 2006, 12:17 PM

What about a device that throw needles coated with pepper spry ?
It won't be lethal... it wont even seriously wound the victim... but it would burn like hell.
Or just a shotting device throwing salt, just like that. It's going to injure (and burn) but not kill.
Marmaloon August 23rd, 2006, 04:00 PM

I was probably talking out of (you know) about the mixture of Urushiol / Pepper spray, but it's not a new idea, wasn't there something that was a mix of pepper spray and CS that was sold in the states anyway as a
self defence spray? I think it would probably be best to keep it as simple as possible, probably someone came up with the idea of puncturing a canister of bear spray through similar means before, I just wanted to
raise it here, might actually save someone's life and property someday. It would not be needed in most situations in either Canada or the US, have you heard of what happened in Argentina after 9/11, I have never
been there, and Argentina is usually off the radar screen in North America, but I have heard from some bloggers about how bad it got socially, and that's about as bad as you'd want things to get.
In case you're wondering that quote came from Shakespheare's "Hamlet". Just about says it all, don't it?:)
PS, I thought about it some more, .172 diameter ball might be too big, you might have to play around with the bore of the petard to get the 'best' efficiency, you might have to go smaller. Also, I was thinking about
gently heating the unit before using, if you had one of those electric back therapy units, you might be able to put it on a 'safe' setting, the idea would be to get more of a CS gas grenade effect. But I admit, the
circumstances in which you would be able to pre-heat the unit before throwing in anger would be very limited.
Marmaloon August 25th, 2006, 03:07 PM

Why would you need something like this?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060802/manaan_mtg_060802/20060802/
If the special constables who took it upon themselves to make the arrests had access to something as simple as a drill of about 1/2 inch, some pipe fittings, tubing, and some basic tools and maybe about 6 bear
spray canisters, their citizen's arrest could have gone a lot smoother; but the people were under a lot of pressure to do something, I hope the jury and magistrate go real easy on them. People in Maine might have
heard something about this because Grand Manan is not far from the border.
Funny how the police and media label this as 'vigilantism' when in my book, they were taking their lawful right to make an arrest as special constables, due to the fact the police system failed them absolutely. The
police in HRM have this strange attitude as well, when someone successfully defends themselves in the Halifax/Dartmouth area, and it gets publicized on the news media, the police are damned quick to denounce
it as 'vigilantism', and warn everyone they can against it, yet when young offenders swarm and half beat someone to death, they have the 'victim' dead to rights. Thanks Pere Trudeau.
nbk2000 August 25th, 2006, 10:38 PM

Jackson said police have begun to receive a deluge of tips to help solve criminal activity on the island.
He said earlier this week, police made a large seizure of firearms.
"We seized upwards of 50 firearms from one residence that were insecure, and a number were restricted."
That's the reason why the police are there now, and not because of the drugs. Now that the citizens have used their guns in defense of the community, the pigs can seize them, and make yet more criminals out of
decent people.
Marmaloon August 26th, 2006, 11:38 AM

Thanks, I had not taken that part of the article into consideration. On reflection, I hope the magistrate and jury don't 'go easy on them', but I am hoping that the jury will rub the magistrate's and the lawyers and
the legal system's nose in it, and also hoping they rub the police system's nose in it and find them not guilty on all charges. They'd better not have an activist magistrate or activist jurists parachuted in from
Toronto(probably not likely); if so, things are going to stink pretty bad up here for a while.
Jacks Complete August 28th, 2006, 04:42 PM

Hopefully, the jury will find them not guilty in the face of the evidence, using the ancient principle of Jury Annulment. This will force the police to release the guys, and the politicians to revisit the law.
nbk2000 August 28th, 2006, 09:03 PM

Jury nullification only works if the jury knows that they have the power to judge not only the defendant, but also the law by which he is charged.
A lot of judges instruct the jury to decide only if the defendant is guilty under the law, not the law itself. Under those instuctions, sheeple go "Well, I feel bad for the guy because the law is too harsh, but he IS guilty
of breaking it.". :rolleyes:
DeathBlade August 29th, 2006, 04:02 PM

While not quite related to a petard, could Urushiol be used a poor mans blistering agent?
After reading the article on wikipedia on poison-ivy is seems that when poison-ivy is burnt it somehow releases the Urushiol as a type of aerosol. So then couldn't the Urushiol be extracted then vaporized in
somEthing like a fog machine or maybe a oil based haze machine?
If poison ivy is burned and the smoke then inhaled, this rash will appear on the lining of the lungs, causing extreme pain and possibly fatal respiratory difficulty. If poison ivy is eaten, the digestive tract and airways
will be affected, in some cases causing death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urushiol
Marmaloon September 2nd, 2006, 01:17 PM

To try and get back on topic, it seems that a similar substance has been used in Japan for lacquer, which would seem to indicate stability. However, it remains to be seen if the stuff from Poison Ivy is relatively
stable. It might be more of an interesting curiousity than anything else. I don't even know if it would be safe to handle in large amounts. I would not want to mess with it, on second thought. About the pepper
spray 'satchel charge', you could test it relatively harmlessly by getting several of the inert training canisters.
nbk2000 September 2nd, 2006, 02:11 PM

...couldn't the Urushiol be extracted then vaporized in somEthing like a fog machine or maybe a oil based haze machine?
You could.
But, for the effort, why not just synth an ounce or so of Mustard gas? In such small quantites, you can make it in test tubes with virutally no investment.
That one ounce would be more than adequate, once dissolved in oil and vaporized as a fog, to lay waste to the eyes of anyone in a large building.
Synthesized chemicals have the great advantage of repeatability, compared to extracts from natural sources, especially considering how you very likely don't have any means of quantifying the potency of an
Urishol extract.
Marmaloon September 2nd, 2006, 04:30 PM

I'm not comfortable with making up something like that, even though I have it on disc somewhere. Flash powder is okay, as far as I am concerned, but mustard/binary nerve gas, no thanks, I don't want Kofi's
boys paying me a visit.:)
Although as they say, 'there's a time and place for everything'.

What comes to mind for a relatively nonleathal, fast acting, skin irritant would be dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) mixed with formic acid. The pain would be intense, and the onset would be a matter of a few seconds. A
single droplet would be like a bee sting.
nbk, I've seen worse images of mustard. What has been found is that due to it taking hours to cause blisters, they do not know they have it on their hands. They go to relieve themselves, and guess what gets
mustard on it. From what I've read, over 90% of mustard victims are burnt there.
Hirudinea September 14th, 2006, 04:57 PM

What about building a cardboard "pipe bomb" coated in rock salt? Rock salt has been use in shot gun loads as a non-lethal deterant for varmants of the four and two legged kind for centuries
If you had a cardboard tube filled with gunpowder, capped on both ends, fused and covered in glued on rock salt (or encrust it in salt before the "bomb" is made.)
You could light the fuse, toss the "bomb" and when it exploded (hopefully) a small area would be showered with hot salt sharpnel, this combined with the flash and blast of the explosion could be a very good
diversion.
Of course this is an amatuer suggetion, I'm sure people here will come up with a much better application, but you get the general idea.
Marmaloon September 16th, 2006, 08:38 PM

I was thinking about acrolein or chloracetone, PMJB has a short segment about making acrolein, I think it would have to be done in an isolated area in small batches, (they mentioned 1 oz at a time) as the stink
from the byproducts apparently has an intense unpleasant odour. From what I heard about chloracetone manufacture, just bubble gas through acetone until it reaches a specific gravity. I have heard that acrolein is
not on the chemical weapons convention list, but I don't know about chloracetone. Mustard gas has been known to be not fatal unless you really get hit with it over 50 Percent of your body area, but it's on the
chemical weapons convention. If you got your hands on some pure capsaicin or a OC solution with a high concentration of capsaicin(much preferred, as pure capsaicin is a biohazardous substance), that could be
the way to go. Does anyone know where to get the stuff, and is there a good repeatable way to extract the stuff from hot peppers?

I extracted it with fresh freon for an electronic circuit degreaser. I could get it for free at the time, and it wasn't restricted at that time.
I have heard others have used an old coffee percolator with the 'nest' filled with red pepper, and the pot with ethanol, and brewing. I would be extremely careful of that, boiling alcohol on a hot stove would seem to
be ill advised.
My thought would be a mixture of alcohol and red pepper in a flask with a reflux condenser, which should be safer. A hot water bath would be used for heating, reducing the rate of heating. After cooling to room
temperature, the pepper huls would be filltered from the solution, and the alcohol evaporated off. The residue would be raw capsaicin mixed with other substances. I do not know how to purify it, but it should be
usable as is.

That's basically the method in PMJB, but it does not mention equivalence in capsaicinoids(Scoville Units). Probably much higher than the dog/bear repellent we have in Canada. Maybe 3 plastic bottles filled with
chloracetone with a burster charge in the middle would be better as a riot gas.

Back in the mid-70's, I ran a gas house for testing protective masks and giving people confidence in their equipment. The only way to know if the concentration of CS was high enough was to remove my mask. By
the end of the day, I was able to function w/o a protective mask, even though the CS still burned. You can become acustomed to it. (I remember returning to the barracks, and turning it into a 'gas house' from just
the residue on my fatigues.)
CS is supposed to be nastier than capsaicin. Just a thought.

It's possible to habituate to the presence of CS after repeated exposures.
However, it's not a good thing, as CS is known to be a carcinogen and other 'gens, which might explain your current health status.
CN is a sensitizer. One-time exposure can cause much more severe effects upon second exposure, with such prettiness as ulceration and blindness.
Oh, reminds me, I saw a mention on converting CN into a vesicating oxime by oxidation. Sounds fun. :)
Chris The Great September 18th, 2006, 08:38 PM

Poison ivy sounds nasty, if made synthetically. See "Synthesis of Compounds Structually Related to Poison Ivy Urushiol, J. Med. Chem. 14 (1971) pg 729". PDF scan coming friday when I can get to my scanner.
1-alkyl-2,3-dimethoxybenzene compounds.
Basically, an 11 carbon side chain caused redness 50% of the time at 0.0018micromole application... 0.5 micrograms! Obviously, that will only give a bit of redness... but what happens at 0.5mg? Quite
unpleasant I imagine!
And if investigated, it's not illegal, I mean it's basically just poison ivy (albiet with a longer alkyl chain). Bit exotic and hard to synthesize, but why not? I imagine they'd make great tear gases as well, it would be
like pulping poison ivy and inhaling it.

nbk, thanks, I didn't know that. Wish I knew you 30 years ago. They just told us not to use it in high concentrations in hot weather, as it could blister the skin. No cancers - yet - just massive nerve damage and
diabetes from Agent Orange - sprayed with it almost daily for two months - plus aromatic and ketone solvents - again, told it was not harmful if well ventilated. Swine Flu vaccine also didn't help, another
substance that caused nerve damage.
Moral: If those in charge say it is harmful, run. If they say it is harmless, run faster.

On extracting Capsaicin - I used acetone. I sat some store powdered chili in hot acetone for 2 hours. Then I filtered with a coffee filter and boiled the acetone off.
A red solid was left at the bottom of the container which had a low melting point (about 50*C IMO).
I placed a tiny amount on my finger (it looked like a stain) and licked it. Damn, it was hot.
It would take a lot of chili to get a decent amount, perhaps more could be gained from fresh chili.

That pow der youre getting at the supermar ket is absolute shit. But in general Australia doesnt have very hot chillies easily found, (absence of Mexicans)?
I make an extract from that powder shit with ethanol a while back, put some in my friends cigar ette and got him to smoke it.
Just a couple of coughs and he was better. He told me later that it warmed and numbed his throat.

Yeah, I had a guess it was shit, but any port in a storm.
I have a feeling that burning capsaicin will decompose it (tried it a few times with no better result than a bit of coughing and numbness).
Somebody told me (with a bachelor degree in general science) that ethanol wouldn't be a good solvent for capsaicin, it would be better to use acetone (which I did).
Maybe someone else could post their results trying acetone and ethanol and talking about the yeild? From 33.3g of chili powder, I didn't get alot of red waxy goo (I'm assuming capsaicin with some chili powder
impurities). Not enough to weigh, although I'll try tomorrow.
I'd say if anyone was serious about making a decent amount of capsaicin it would be off to the plant store to get some chili plants.

was thinking more along the lines of just getting the pure stuff as follows:
http://www.hotternell.com/pure_capsaicin_powder.htm
But the price makes it impractical.
Possible source(s)?
http://www.ashianherbex.com/nicotine_sulphate.htm
http://www.exim-pharm.com/index.html
http://www.uhe.com/cosmeticslist
+++++++++++
You have to begin a URL with a [url] tag in order to make it linkable. NBK

I have to wonder, what would happen if you cut someones dope with pure capsaican powder, and they snorted it? :eek:
I think they'd either die from lung inflammation, or wish they were dead. :D

nbk, sounds like a very good way to pick off the worthless crack heads and ice freaks around an area.
Just leave the drug lying around in little bags just waiting for a drug starved criminal to take a line.
Put a small amount of a hard to detect toxin in with the capsaicin powder to make sure the person died, he would have inflamed lungs either way so forensics wouldnt bother looking for anything else.
Dimethyl mercury would also be a good candidate, not only would it have a delayed death but the residue lying around but would poison anybody who is around, even better if the bags are reused to sell more.
It would make the world a better place :).

nbk, someone already beat you to that one by about 30 years.
In '76, I was stationed in Germany, and was the Chemical-Biological-Radiological defense NCO for an ordnance company (550+ people). The supply officer called me in as one of his people had broken open a 20 kilo
bag of CS-2 (micropowdered CS lacrymator) and he wanted me to clean it up as I had more experience with the stuff than his people.
After the cleanup, I went into his office for a break. He had a paper cup with a small quantity of CS-2 in the bottom sitting on his desk. This E-7 came in and started BS-ing. He noticed the paper cup with the white
powder, and asked what it was - the E-7 was suspected of drug use. The supply officer calmly stated they had busted a troop for cocaine possesion, and that was the evidence. This goof-ball picked up the cup and
took a deep snort.
It was over half an hour before he could breathe halfway normally, let alone speak. The tearing, nose-running and drooling were a sight to behold as he weathed on the floor. We did bring him in to the medics, I was
worried about that much CS in someone's system. The supply officer let him suffer for a while. I doubt he snorted any more "cocaine" of dubious origins.
CS is a lot nastier than capsaicin. Pepper spray is for sheeple to use, CS based Mace is resereved for police.

The pepperspray you can buy is 2 million SHU. The powder linked to by Marmaloon is 15 million SHU's, more than 7x more concentrated. :)
Also, OC is an inflammatory, whereas CS is an irritant. CS doesn't work on people who can't feel pain (like coke heads), but OC will inflame any tissue it contacts, regardless of the victims neurological state.

Yes, I was not sure of the hotlinking policy for some reason I don't remember right now(?) getting old. Diabolique, thanks for that great anecdote! I definitely fear CS as I spent some time in Her Majesty's
Canadian Army and we all had to go to the dreaded "Gas Hut" every 6 months or even more frequently*depended on how pissed off management was:) It would be interesting to know what would be the maximum
possible Scoville Equivalency you could get with a sprayable mixture involving capsaicin. I guess it would have to be cut with alcohol/maybe acetone and mineral oil?

Does anyone know if Chloracetone is producable easily? The only information I have on it is from 'Assorted Nasties' by David Harber. It has a short enough description of how it's generally made, but reading
between the lines, it seems to indicate the stuff has some degree of volatility. Also is it a carcinogen?

All I can say is UTFSE. ;)
teshilo October 24th, 2006, 11:23 AM

Does anyone know if Chloracetone is producable easily? The only information I have on it is from 'Assorted Nasties' by David Harber. It has a short enough description of how it's generally made, volatility.
Chloracetone yes easy produced ..Process described in A.N. had small error in acetone more like add calcium carbonate for best results More good proces described in Sartori "War Gases".
I read memories former SWAT member. He wrote that they create improvised gas grenade from three wrapped together CS sprays with placed in centre grenade fuze..

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > "The Box O ' Truth"
Log in
View Full Version : "The Box O' Truth"

(I searched but couldn't find any reference to this website.)
"The Box O' Truth (http://www.theboxotruth.com/)" is a great we bsite to find information on. The owner of the website spends
his retirem ent testing guns and their various am munitions. He p osts all of the results on his site. :)
Sausagemit S e p t e m b e r 1 st, 2006, 05:55 AM

I wonder if he is an U pright Citizens Brigade fan and there "Bucket O' Truth". :rolleyes:
Great site though. I was especially enthralled by the "Helm ets O' Truth" and could apply that knowledge if I needed too.
And this is also an interesting site about how the FBI tests am munition.
http://greent.com /40Page/general/fbitest.htm
EDIT: I spelt a wurd wrong so I done corrected it.
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 1 st, 2006, 07:32 AM

I like how the cheap CZ-52 punched a hole through the PASGT helm et, while the hotloaded .357's could not. :)
Does the same thing with pork wrapping too. ;)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Burning Anti-Freeze (and other nom inal
fuels)
Log in
View Full Version : Burning Anti-Freeze (and other nominal fuels)
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 3 rd, 2006, 02:47 PM

I ran fire fighting training at Keck headquarters and com parison tests at
t h e s u m mit where the telescope is located. Kerosene flash point equates to
about a -10 degree F lowering from the norm a l s e a - l e v e l f l a s h p o i n t o f a r o u n d
105 F. At sea level the pan of kerosene took 25-30 seconds to ignite with a
road flare in an am bient tem perature of 78 F. However at the su m m it, with an
a m bient tem perature of 38 F, the kerosene ignited in less than 5 seconds!!
This prompted further testing and research of several volatiles. In every
case the m aterials ignited significantly sooner.
In discussions with NSF, FAA, and NIST fire research groups, it was
determ i n e d t h a t t h e d o m inant feature is probably the loss of the nitrogen
heat sink and change in vaporization pressure. This is a very serios problem
for those of us working at high altitude, particularly since we use various
solvents, glycols, etc. Yes, antifreeze burns very well at high altitude and
can be lit with only a m atch.
Currently, we are preparing to run som e m ore controlled tests on volatility

c h a n g e s , b u t I c o u l d s e n d y o u i n f o r m a tion on what resu lts I do have.
Moreover, I would be very interested in any information others m ay have on
t h e s a m e subject.
Be careful.
Larry Olsen
Safety Officer
W .M. Keck Observatory
Mauna Kea, HI
Now that is very interesting.
Normally, you can't get anti-freeze to burn, except in an already hot fire.
But, but reducing the pressure, you increase it's volatility (assum ably) to a high e nough point to where it becomes ignitable by
only a match .
I'm thinking a container is half-filled with the fluid (any norm ally difficult to ignite fuel), and pum ped down with a va cuum
p u m p to an equivalent of high-altitude.
Then, by means of a squib or such, the fuel is ignited inside the container, and the top rem o v e d i n a n e x p e d i e n t m anner,
allowing the now lit fu e l t o b e d i s p e r s e d .
Hirudinea S e p t e m b e r 3 rd, 2006, 09:34 PM

Now that is very interesting.
Normally, you can't get anti-freeze to burn, except in an already hot fire.
But, but reducing the pressure, you increase it's volatility (assum ably) to a high e nough point to where it becomes ignitable by
only a match .
I'm thinking a container is half-filled with the fluid (any norm ally difficult to ignite fuel), and pum ped down with a va cuum
p u m p to an equivalent of high-altitude.
This could also have applications to terrorist attacks on airplanes, the presure being low in the passanger cabin and ever lower
in the cargo hold. Anti-Freeze in a presurized water/pop bottle in a suit case with a radio h olding an igniter trigered by liquid
and when it reached the height the bottle explodes and the trigger sets off the fluid and boom! (O r at least a fire.)
ShadowMyGeekSpace S e p t e m b e r 4 th, 2006, 01:39 AM

If you honestly believe "terrorists" are to blam e for things... do us a favor and don't repro duce.
c.Tech S e p t e m b e r 4 th, 2006, 03:22 AM

Anti-Freeze in a presurized wa ter/pop bottle in a suit case with a radio holding an igniter trigered by liquid and when it reached
the height th e b o t t l e e x p l o d e s a n d t h e t r i g g e r s e t s o f f t h e f l u i d a n d b o o m ! ( O r at least a fire.)
It would cause a small fire, nothing drastic and it would just be put out in near no tim e.
If it could be used as an explosive device then cars would be blowing up left right and center when they turn the ignition
b e c a u s e p e t r o c h e m icals are m ore volatile at standard pressure than anti-freeze is at lower pressure.
T o c a u s e a f uel to ex plode yo u n e e d s o m e form of oxygen (air is n t e n o u g h ) f o r it to co m b u s t a t a g r e a t s p e e d .
T h o s e e x p l o s i o n s y o u s e e i n t h e m ovies are co mpletive bullshit. A car roles over and BOO M. W O W sounds like a car crash to
m e :rolleyes:.
For a cars pe trol tank to explode it first needs to catch of fire (from l e a k a g e a n d i g n i t i o n ) t h e n c a u se a BLEVE (http://
www.roguesci.org/theforum /other-explosives/391-gas-explosions-archive-file.html?highlight=BLEVE).
Hirudinea S e p t e m b e r 4 th, 2006, 08:46 PM

O h I ' m sorry, I should have said the Tri-laterial Com m ission, the Illum anati and the Greys, tim e to up your throazine. :)
w22shadow S e p t e m b e r 4 th, 2006, 09:31 PM

If you honestly believe "terrorists" are to blam e for things... do us a favor and don't repro duce. It would be nice if p e o p l e
whom use fallacious reasoning would not either. :p

Anti-Freeze in a presurized wa ter/pop bottle in a suit case with a radio holding an igniter trigered by liquid and when it reached
the height th e b o t t l e e x p l o d e s a n d t h e t r i g g e r s e t s o f f t h e f l u i d a n d b o o m ! ( O r at least a fire.)
It would cause a small fire, nothing drastic and it would just be put out in near no tim e.
If it could be used as an explosive device then cars would be blowing up left right and center when they turn the ignition
b e c a u s e p e t r o c h e m icals are m ore volatile at standard pressure than anti-freeze is at lower pressure.
Oh, well in that case it seems my career as a terrorist is off to a poor start. Anyway the interesting thing about this is the way
pressure effects the properties of chem ical reactions, have you heard they're usin g liquid CO 2 under pressure for enviromently
dry cleaning? Now tha t would be an interesting explosion, flying, frozen u nderware! :eek:

have you heard they're using liquid CO 2 under pressure for envirom ently dry cleaning? Now that would be a n interesting
explosion, flying, frozen underware! :e e k :
Your not serious are you?
TreverSlyFox S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2006, 10:01 AM

I spent quite a few years on a Volunteer Fire Departm ent and probably answered a hundred or more "Car Fire" calls. Not once
have I ever observed a car's gas tank "Explode". Usually it blows off the gas cap, a tongue of flam e jets from the filler pipe
a n d y o u h e a r a " w h o o m p " s o u n d a n d t h e t a n k g e t s e x p anded a little "rounder".
W e were always m ore afraid of the tires exploding, now those would blow off fenders and toss chunks for yards. Fifteen feet
away a 1' x 10" chunk will dislocate your shoulder, which will cause you to d r o p t h e 2 " h o s e a n d s o a k d o w n t h e C hief. It's funny
now but at the tim e it wasn't and I can now forcast rain with that shoulder.

I spent quite a few years on a Volunteer Fire Departm ent and probably answered a hundred or more "Car Fire" calls. Not once
have I ever observed a car's gas tank "Explode".
W hen I said "cars would be blowing up left right and center when they turn the ignition" I was giving an exa mple of what would
happen if anti-freeze could be used as a terrorist weapon.
I f t h a t w a s n t what you were s a y i n g , I a p o logize.
Thank you for giving m ore evidence th at fuels can not be used as a terrorist weapon. :)
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2006, 10:57 AM

Anti-freeze d oesn't normally burn because it's diluted with 50% water, an d not being ignited at 3 m i l e s a b o v e s e a - l e v e l .
But pure, and under reduced pressure, it IS combustible.
the_twitchy1 S e p t e m b e r 5 th, 2006, 07:35 PM

I wonder, though, if the combustion of antifreeze would be exothermic enough to m aintain itself once you returned the
pressure to norm al? I m ean, at that point you are back to dealing with the nitrogen heatsink in the equation. If the fire is not
producing en ough heat to ove rcome that effect, end of fire. That, in turn, lim its the usefulness of this fuel...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirudinea
have you heard they're using liquid CO 2 under pressure for envirom ently dry cleaning? Now that would be a n interesting
explosion, flying, frozen underware!
Your not serious are you?
About using liquid CO 2 as for "Dry C leaning" or flying, frozen underware? As for the CO2 yes, I rem e m ber hearing a while back
that somebody was investigating using CO 2 under pressure as a replacem ent for present day dry cleaning because the
chemicals (Preclorethylene?) today are toxic an d CO 2 under pressure is an ideal cleaner a nd (except if you breath too m uch as
g a s ) n o t h a r m ful to p eople. As for the flying, frozen underware, well I'ed assum e if a pressure vessel conta ining liquid CO2
had a catastrophic failure the clothes inside would be blown out and beca u s e o f t h e c o l d p r o d u c e d b y t h e e x p a n d i n g CO 2 the
c l o t h e s w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e c o m e f r o z e n , s o y e a , I g u e s s I ' m s e r i o u s a b o u t t h e F F U too. :D
Sausagemit S e p t e m b e r 6 th, 2006, 07:44 PM

Thanks for the info NBK.
I'm g o i n g t o h a v e t o d o s o m e experim enting with this stuff seeing as how I have access to high altitude places that are within
an hour of m y house.
W here I live it's at about 7,25 0 feet (11.5 to 12 psi) but I can be up at about 9,5 00 feet in about 20 min o r up at a bout
11,500 feet in about an hour.
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 7 th, 2006, 05:44 AM

You should also try glycol-based brake fluids.
Sausagemit S e p t e m b e r 8 th, 2006, 05:06 PM

I just tried som e g l y c o l - b a s e d b r a k e f l u i d s e e i n g a s h o w I h a v e s o m e of that stuff lying around.
Right now the atm ospheric pressure is at 791.8 m b (11.48 psi).
I put about 30 m l in a porcela in bowl with a the rm o m e t e r h a n g i n g o u t o n e side of it and then proceded to hit it with the
propane torch. It got up to about 40-50 deg C (couldn't really te ll seeing as how it's day time and I couldn't find m y g o o d
therm ometer, or about 30 sec of torching) before it reached com bustion tem p. And after it ignited it just kept heating up and
burning quicker. The 30 m l s t a y e d b u r n i n g a g o o d 1 5 m in from ignition and put off a lot of heat.
Next week sometim e I ' m g o i n g t o g o g e t s o m e a n t i - f r e e z e a n d h e a d u p t o t h e m o u n t a i n s . I t h i n k s o m e f r i e n d s a r e p l a n n i n g

o n g o i n g c a m p i n g u p t h e r e n e x t w e e k s o m abye I can show them a new quick and easy way to start a cam pfire. :D
IronMongrel S e p t e m b e r 2 6th, 2006, 09:12 PM

have you heard they're using liquid CO 2 under pressure for envirom ently dry cleaning?
I believe it's call "sup er critical fluid extraction". Ii'ts also used in the perfume ind ustry for obtaining very high purity plant oils.
You can extract THC from low grade weed using this me thod, but it's a bit dodgy as it involves injecting huge am o u n t s o f
butane into a tube and collecting the run off in a bowl, when you evaporate the butane away you end up with a very high purity
oil, or at least that's the theory.
Leeds university sell a unit which I believe costs about 10,000 or $18,000.
http://www.chem.leed s . a c . u k / P e o p l e / C M R / n a v . h t m l
Sorry for going so off topic, I did a search and couldn't see anything on this field, though I'm not a chem ist I thought som e
here m ight find this an interesting m e t h o d .

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Hot shot
Log in
View Full Version : Hot shot
Hirudinea S e p t e m b e r 1 3th, 2006, 09:34 PM

I hope this is the right section for this question. I was thinking a while ago about torture m e t h o d s a n d I t h o u g h t , " H e y p e p p e r
spra y is pretty hot, what about injecting it?"
USE
The two best places I can think to inject it would be into the fluid in the e ye and (of course) directly into the blood stream .
PARAGR A P H
Now my questions are:
BREAKS
1) Is the "Fluid" in the eye really a fluid that the pure capsaicin (sp) oil could m ix in so it would achive its effects on the flesh
inside the eyeball, or is the "fluid" m ore of a je lly that wouldn't mix with the oil and not let it intera ct with the interior of the
eyeball?
NOT
2 ) I a s s u m e that the capsaicin would react with the lining of the veins, etc. but wh at action would it have on the heart, this is
m e a n t a s a m ethod of torture and not execution so killing the victim is n ot what I want.
TEXT
So does anyone out there have any answers to these questions and would this make a viable torture m ethod? I can imagine
the eye would be quite painful (if it worked) but the victim would have to be restrained to m ake sure they didn't tear out their
own eye.
MO NOBLOCKS!
Oh yes, and I am not a sick fuck, just so you k now. :D
NBK2000
bklff3 S e p t e m b e r 1 3th, 2006, 11:19 PM

The main active ingredient of pepper spray is Capsaicin.
It doesn't look like in jecting C a p s a i c i n w o u l d b e a g o o d i d e a .
LD50 Intrave n o u s R o d e n t - m o u s e 4 0 0 u g / k g
LD50 Intramuscular R odent - m o u s e 7 8 0 0 u g / k g
You'd probably want at least a 100-fold safety m argin (to account for interspecies and intraspecies variation) and even then
you'd probably kill a fair num ber. I wouldn't inject i.v. m ore than 30 ug into a person that I definately wanted to keep alive
( 0 . 4 u g / k g - a 1 0 0 0 - f o l d s a f e t y m argin over the anim al LD50).
But interestingly (no idea why this would be tested)
L D 5 0 R e c t a l R o d e n t - m o u s e > 2 1 8 m g /kg
now there's a nasty thought.

An injection of standard white vinegar in the m uscles produces crippliing pain, like the worst charley horse you've ever had
x100, without systemic complications like injecting an in f l a m m atory agen t into the blood would have.
So I'd vote NO on using capsaicinoids as injectables.
Further inform a t i o n o n O C :
http://www.zarc.com/english/cap-stun/tech_info /oc/#different
Diabolique S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2006, 03:39 PM

T h e b u r n i n g s e n s a t i o n f r o m capsaicin is due to its action on the calcium channel in the nerves. This is why it is used in m a n y
linim ents. It is also why it loses effect after a short tim e . T h e n e rves' calcium channel are not given a chance to reset. The
calcium channel is seperate from t h e s o d i u m / p o t a s s i u m channel usually thought of.
An LD50 for rectal application? At least the m ouse would die with its hemorroids burnt out.

It doesn't look like in jecting C a p s a i c i n w o u l d b e a g o o d i d e a .
LD50 Intrave n o u s R o d e n t - m o u s e 4 0 0 u g / k g
LD50 Intramuscular R odent - m o u s e 7 8 0 0 u g / k g
I wouldn't inject i.v. m ore than 30 ug into a person that I definately wanted to keep alive (0.4 ug/kg - a 10 00-fold safety
m argin over the anim al LD50).
So I'd vote NO on using capsaicinoids as injectables.
W ell it was an idea. But what about injection into the eyeball, would the Capsaicin filter into the blo od or rem ain in the viscera?
An injection of standard white vinegar in the m uscles produces crippliing pain, like the worst charley horse you've ever had
x100, without systemic complications like injecting an in f l a m m atory agen t into the blood would have.
Thats in interesting idea, and its a com m on substance. Are there other subtances that can induce pain without prem e n a n t
injury?
Further inform a t i o n o n O C :
http://www.zarc.com/english/cap-stun.../oc/#different
Thanks I'll look it up.
But interestingly (no idea why this would be tested)
L D 5 0 R e c t a l R o d e n t - m o u s e > 2 1 8 m g /kg
now there's a nasty thought.
No idea why this has never been tested? Obviously you've never eaten Indian Food. :eek:
USE PARAGRAPH BREAKS NBK2000
Sorry, I will rem ember in the future.

I'm sure there are other substances, b ut that's something for you to find for yourself.
As for eyeball injection, I don't think the eye would feel pain like that inside, but it would very likely blind them. A spoon to the
eyeball would achieve the sam e effect.
Syke S e p t e m b e r 1 4th, 2006, 08:52 PM

Capsaicin causes nerve damage so blindness is a definite possibility. By the way how to you expect to get it in som e o n e s e y e
without ripping off their cornea?

I'm sure there are other substances, b ut that's something for you to find for yourself.
Self taught is well tau ght, eh?
As for eyeball injection, I don't think the eye would feel pain like that inside, but it would very likely blind them. A spoon to the
eyeball would achieve the sam e effect.
Yes but a spoon to the eyeball would look like torture, the point of using injectible chem icals it to torture someone without
leaving obvious evidence of torture (although I suppose blindness would be noticeable.) That is the great thing abo ut
electricity as a torture device.
Capsaicin causes nerve damage so blindness is a definite possibility. By the way how to you expect to get it in som e o n e s e y e
without ripping off their cornea?
Inject it as a liquid into the eyeball with a syringe.
Syke S e p t e m b e r 1 5th, 2006, 10:29 PM

W hat I m e a n i s s o m eone isn't gonna sit around while you shoot capsaicin into their eye. The strug gling and thrashing would
probably cause their cornea to tear and/or deep puncture into th e optical nerve or braincase.

Learning is like traveling.
If your destination is on the other side of the p lanet, do you learn more about the world b y being instantly transported from
where you are at to your destination, or by having traveled by fo ot across the globe?
W ith learning, the journey IS the destination.
Now, as regards the spoon, you don't have to use it (m ost likely) to pull out the eye, as who would not tell you what you want
a s y o u b e g i n pushing the spoon into their eye-socket?
W hereas, with a needle, that's a m ore abstract threat...not as visceral as a spoon, as everyone knows what a spoon is used
f o r , h a v i n g u s e d s p o o n s f o r S C O OPING. ;)
Syke S e p t e m b e r 1 6th, 2006, 03:51 AM

J u s t t h i n k o f i n R a m b o II where the torturer is coming a t him with a red hot knife. You dont need to know exactly what the
k n i f e i s g o i n g t o b e u sed for just that when it does get used itll m ake you wish you were d e a d . : D

Q U O TE]W hat I mean is someone isn't gonna sit around while you shoot capsaicin into the ir eye. The struggling and thrashing
would probably cause their cornea to tear and/or deep puncture into the optical nerve or braincase.[/QU O T E ]
I would assum e they would be restrained in a bolted down chair, head straped down, but I see you r point.
Learning is like traveling.
If your destination is on the other side of the p lanet, do you learn more about the world b y being instantly transported from
where you are at to your destination, or by having traveled by fo ot across the globe?
W ith learning, the journey IS the destination
Poin t taken.
W hereas, with a needle, that's a m ore abstract threat...not as visceral as a spoon, as everyone knows what a spoon is used
f o r , h a v i n g u s e d s p o o n s f o r S C O OPING.
J u s t t h i n k o f i n R a m b o II where the torturer is coming a t him with a red hot knife. You dont need to know exactly what the
k n i f e i s g o i n g t o b e u sed for just that when it does get used itll m ake you wish you were d e a d .
I agree that m any pe ople would break under the threat of deocculation (is that a word?) b u t s o m e p e o p l e n e e d m o r e o f a
breaking process, continual pain over an extended period, and traditional torture leaves too many marks.
;)
O H m y God, they've spooned you!

The proper term for rem oval of an eye is 'Enucleation'.
http://www.m a m m a l e y e . c o m / m a m m a l e y e - b o o k / e n u c l e a t i o n . h t m

T he E xplos ives and Weapons Forum > Military Sc i e n c e > Improvis ed Weapons > M atc hhead gun powder
Log in
View Full Version : Matchhead gun powder
professor k O c tober 8 th, 2 0 0 6 , 1 1 :0 4 P M

O K, I kinda stole this from totse, but I ac tually did try it mys elf. I made a homemade muzzleloader with a tube, a s pent .4 0 S&W casing with primer
removed over the tube, and s ome duc t tape to keep the c asing on. Y es, extremely ghetto.
For propellent, I got a bunch of matches and removed the red s tuff on them, and got flakes /powdered matchhead stuff. I put it in the tube, pus hed it
down, then got some paper, used that as wadding, put a bunc h of lead s inkers in, then put wadding on top of that. T o ignite it, I us ed a firec racker
fus e.
For the firing, I put it on my porc h (not a smart dec is ion, I know) and lit it. It s ounded like a gun, and it kic ked back like 6 feet (I didnt hold it.) A few
of the lead s inkers may have hit a car, but I dont want to think muc h about that.
But, it was definitely c ool.
A nyway, I noticed that it sounded very muc h like regular s mokeles s powder, and very little s moke came out of the muzzle, s o I've c oncluded one
c ould substitute matchheads for smokeless powder in an emergency or s omething. I dont think s toc king up on matches to use for gun powder is a
good idea, though, but I 'm saying if it's an emergenc y and you want to reload c artridges , or make a muzzleloading crap gun like mine, but dont have
gunpowder, matc hheads s eemed to work O K for me.
What I want to figure out next is how to reus e primers, and how to reload rimfire c artridges . I 've heard the 2 things are poss ible, but I've never read
anything on how to do it.
O h, what really c onvinced me to do this little muzzleloader projec t is this here:
kitc hen s ink reloading
Y ou can reus e a primer, here is how (as taught in the book Homade Guns & Homade A mmo) :
1 . P ush out/remove primer with a small nail.

2 . C arefully remove the anvil from the primer cup (do not lose this 'the anvil' ! ).
3 . With the head of a nail (us eing a hamer) reflaten the primer c up where (the dent) the fireing pin hit.
4 . C arefuly remove the white or blue part (at the tip) of a strike anywere matc h, then powderize (if you are not carefull it c an s trike the match) it
then pack it in the primer c up "tight" till it is half full and will not fall out if up-s ide- down.
5 . Replace the anvil into the primer c up.
6 . P ush back into the brass (the c aseing).
you are done (these work like a c harm)
Y ou can also powderize the red part or kitchen matches for gun powder/the main c harge (of c ors e this is not as powerful as real s mokeles s powder,
but is pretty powerful).
Here is the number of matchheads that s hould be us ed for gunpowder per c aliber (as seen in the book Homade G uns & Homade A mmo) .
C aliber number of heads

-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -
Rifle C alibers
-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -
.2 2 Hornet 1 3
.2 2 2 Rem. 2 6
.2 2 3 Rem. 3 9
.2 4 3 Win. 6 1
.3 0 C arbine 1 6
.3 0 - 3 0 Win. 4 5
.3 0 8 Win. 5 8
.3 0 - 0 6 7 4
.3 7 5 H&R Mag. 87
.4 4 M ag. 3 2
.4 5 - 7 0 Govt. 7 6
.4 5 8 Win. 7 9
-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -
P istol C a l i b e r s
-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -
9 mm P arabellum 8
.3 8 Spec ial 15
.3 5 7 Mag. 2 6
.4 5 A C P 2 7
-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -
Shotgun C aliber/Guage
-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -
1 2 G a. 33
1 6 G a. 30
2 0 G a. 27
.4 1 0 Bore 1 9
I have done this many times and c an tes tify that it does work, and I have never had any trouble or ac c idental s et- off's, but I am very carefull, take
my time, and us e my brain so that I don't.
I unders tand if some of you are not wanting to try this , but you do one mach head at a time s o for if s ome reas on it was to go of it would only be like
lighting a match (produc e a c andle sized flame). It has a slow burn rate, and if it all were to go of it would jus t make a little woos h s ound and a bit of
flame not an explosion. like s mokeles s powder the mach powder burns , it does not explode like blac k powder.
T he matchead priming mixture c ould be wetted firs t if it makes you feel safer, you will just have to give it plenty of time to dry, or it will not go off.
Note: this is corrosive (like blac k powder) s o if this is used be s ure to c lean your gun promptly to prevent rust from setting in.
-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --
I dont really trus t the strike anywhere matc h thing for primers, I heard it does nt work, and I dont got any s trike anywhere matches to try it with, but
yeah. T he matc hhead gun powder does work, though, and it works quite well. I f you're bored s ometime, I gues s try what I did, but like in the woods
or whatever.
g in
04 PM
imer
hed it
ker
A few
one
is a
have
r read
it
wder,
take
e like
bit of
off.
h, but
oods
5_seven O c tober 9 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 1 :1 9 A M

Firs t, the red s tuff on the match, it's s ulfur, s ec ond, it sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Sulfer is c ombustable, s o I 'm not s uprised, but I just
c an't picture s pending all that time s craping matc hheads off the little s ticks to make a small cannon, or muske or something. Does s ound like fun
though, I 'll probably try it some day.
Marmaloon O c tober 9 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 2 :5 1 A M

It would be inc redibly corros ive, as one of the by-products is potas s ium c hloride. I tried making a gallery round for my Ros s rifle from a 0 0
buc ks hot (too soft) and put in about 1 8 match heads, tamped tis sue in there and then the ball and some vaseline. It went through a couple 3 /4 "
planks and didn't make much nois e. I poured lots of boiling water in there to get rid of the fouling afterwards, and s crubbed her out good.
gunwriters ontheweb, a website out of Finland, has exc ellent information on making thes e gallery or 'cat's s neeze' loads . I n fac t they have a wealth
of information available on many fac ets of small arms . I rec comend perus ing it. T hey rec comended a hard alloy, and a fas t burning pistol powder
like Bulls eye. I think these types of loads are worth experimenting with. For one thing they are nic e and quiet if it's all that's required for small
game. In a pinc h I t could be pretty nas ty, quiet and no muzzle blast to give up your pos ition. Y ou c ould us e it for a firs t round, and follow up with
regular rounds after the enemy realizes what happened, if you had to use something like that in anger. I remember reading a book by E dwin P . Hoyt
about a U S offic er tasked with starting a guerrilla warfare operation against the Japanes e in the P hillipines , one of their c ore guns at the beginning
was a Marlin model 39 , they used it bec ause they c ould pop off J apanes e s oldiers in an ambush, it was a while before the Japanes e realized what
was happening. I read s omewhere that Russ ian T O Z 1 7 .2 2LR rifles were us ed by the enemy in Hue during the V ietnam War to snipe at U S s oldiers
in a s imilar fas hion.
Corona O c tober 9 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 4 :3 6 A M

A question.... Which is better? Matchhead powder alone? O r M atc hhead powder plus fine s ugar (5 0 - 5 0 ratio)? I ass ume that the sugar mix would be
a better propellant?
I did make a load.... use pliers to c rus h the powder off the matc hes... muc h eas ier and faster than using a knife... and used it with sugar. It was
battery fired ins ide a plastic pipe and left almos t no res idue.
c.Tech O c tober 9 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 6 :3 5 A M

Firs t, the red s tuff on the match, it's s ulfur, s ec ond, it sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
T he red in match heads is a dye added to give its colour, s ulfur is yellow.
Yes its mo re trouble tha n its worth, it s als o da n g e r o u s be c a u se i f there is s ulfur in s ide th e match it wo u l d m a k e it ve ry s ens itive when it
c omes in contact with the c hlorate on the s urfac e.
T he idea of matc h heads being used as a propellant s ounds like a k3 wl idea to me, but it would have its advantages in s ituations when you have
limited or no alternatives .
A s for adding s ugar, IMO it would help to add s ome s ugar or charc oal becaus e there may be s ome extra oxider on the s urface of the match although
not too much, the c hlorate is jus t dying to give its oxygen away.
Lewis O c tober 9 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 8 :0 3 P M

P rofess or K:
M a t c h "dus t" is not an acc eptable s ubstitute for any type of gunpowder. Not only is it extremely friction and heat sensitive, in many c onditions it
has a much higher burn rate than c ommercial gunpowder. Match compos ition is an interesting material to play around with in s mall quantities , but
s hould never be used in bombs or c annons.
5 Seven:
Where does the idea that the red on matches is s ulfur c ome from? FYI : Sulfur will barely hold a flame on its own, muc h less create a hot fireball
c apable of reliably s tarting wood on fire. I 'm not sure where this c onfus ion s tems from but I know that matc h compos ition has been dis c us sed on
E &W before.
Cindor O c tober 1 0 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 1 :3 4 A M

A t least in my c ountry matches are made of Potass ium C hlorate + A ntimony T risulfide/T in T risulfide + Binder
c.Tech O c tober 1 0 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 3 :5 3 A M

A t least in my c ountry matches are made of Potass ium C hlorate + A ntimony T risulfide/T in T risulfide + Binder
Sounds like a s trike anywhere match (illegal in A ustralia :(.)
T he sulfides /phosphorus compounds are us ually kept on the match pad s o they will be nowhere near as fric tion and heat s ens itive. If you have
antimony trisulfide/tin tris ulfide in the match they c an no longer be c alled 'safety' matc hes.
I wou l d n t us e a mixture of phos p h o r u s or s ulfu r c o mpound with c h l o r a te anywh ere i n py rotec h n i c s .
Cindor O c tober 1 0 th, 2 0 0 6 , 1 2 :2 0 P M

No no, they aren't "s trike anywhere", they are s afety matc hes. Y ou can't set them off without the Red P hosphorus of the box.
T hos e Sulfides are s afer than Sulphur, and I think the binder kept them from reac ting.
professor k O c tober 1 0 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 9 :2 2 P M

Well, a few things I did regret to tell everyone, it was nt all a fine powder, a lot was jus t flakes , that may have s lowed the burn rate to a more
managable rate. The paper matc hes , while being s tupidly c heap, dont burn well compared to the wooden ones. T he best are the big kitchen
matc hes. T he red s tuff c omes off muc h eas ier off the wooden ones.
But, dont stock up on matc hes to reload or anything when/if you c an jus t stock up on ac tual gun powder. T hat one should be obvious, but yeah.
Lewis O c tober 1 0 th, 2 0 0 6 , 1 1 :3 7 P M

No no, they aren't "s trike anywhere", they are s afety matc hes. Y ou can't set them off without the Red P hosphorus of the box.
T hos e Sulfides are s afer than Sulphur, and I think the binder kept them from reac ting.
S A FE R than s ulfur alone? Not s ure what you mean by that but it is n't true.
E ven NO N strike anywhere match material is s till quite s ens itive to fric tion. T ry s triking one on a pane of glass and you'll s ee what I mean.
O R, Get the material from about 5 wooden s afety matc hes, powder it s omehow, and plac e between 2 c oins on a hard surfac e. T hen s mack the
s andwich with a hammer.
19 A M
I just
fun
51 A M
4"
ealth
er
th
Hoyt
ning
hat
ldiers
36 A M
uld be
35 A M
ve
hough
03 PM
s it
but
ll
on
34 AM
53 AM
20 PM
22 PM
37 PM
Marmaloon O c tober 1 1 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 2 :4 2 A M

Sounds like a s trike anywhere match (illegal in A ustralia :(.)
No way, you're kidding me, right? :eek: Have things gone s o bad in A us tralia? I thought Howard was a c entrist?

When I tried to buy them I was told they were illegal by the guy at the army dispos al store. T his is probably bec ause too muc h s hoc k or friction
c ould cause them to ignite and start a fire, not good for camping if your living in A u s tralia with all of the bus hfires, its bes t to avoid disas ters like
A s h Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A s h_Wednes day_fires ).
Cindor O c tober 1 1 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 6 :4 8 P M

S A FE R than s ulfur alone? Not s ure what you mean by that but it is n't true.
E ven NO N strike anywhere match material is s till quite s ens itive to fric tion. T ry s triking one on a pane of glass and you'll s ee what I mean.
O R, Get the material from about 5 wooden s afety matc hes, powder it s omehow, and plac e between 2 c oins on a hard surfac e. T hen s mack the
s andwich with a hammer.
I've never s een matc hes with jus t sulfur and no oxidizer :c onfus ed:
T hey are pretty hard to set off with out the box, I have suc ceed with a wood, but no with glass .
A nd they are made of C hlorate, of c ours e they are, at some point, s ens itive to heat, fric tion, and s hock...

I've never s een matc hes with jus t sulfur and no oxidizer :c onfus ed:
He was referring to what you said "T hos e Sulfides are s afer than Sulphur" saying that s ulfides are not s afer than sulfur in a matc h.
A nd they are made of C hlorate, of c ours e they are, at some point, s ens itive to heat, fric tion, and s hock...
T he o x i d e rs aren t 1 0 0 % c hlorate, jus t a c o ating wou ld b e a b l e to c aus e ignition. I v e r e a d s ome where tha t K N O 3 is us ed a lot in matc h
manufac ture.
Cobalt.45 O c tober 1 2 th, 2 0 0 6 , 0 5 :5 3 P M

T hat's like outlawing war by banning the sale of .2 2 s hells .
Safety matc hes light when struc k across clean glas s. Leaves a nice sc ratch, too.
B e s t us e of s trike anywhere matches : P ut them into the muzzle of a BB gun and fire them against a hard surfac e.
professor k O c tober 2 3 rd, 2 0 0 6 , 1 2 :2 2 A M

But anyway, I made more powder. I found the bes t way was des cribed in one of the threads here. P ut the matc hes in water, and the heads will jus t
c ome off like pas te, onc e it's dry, it's good. You c ould maybe get it while it's s till wet and like form it. It's definitely interesting s tuff.... A nyway, it's
not very high yeild. I us ed 1/3 of a box of 2 5 0 large kitc hen matc hes and only managed to get enough flakes to fill 8 .3 8 spl c artridges.
I think mixing it with s ugar might be a good idea, however, it's hard to do a lot of tes ts due to my general s ituation, s o yeah.
A s far as practic al us e, I'm not s ure. T his takes a LO NG time to do, and is nt very high yield.
In waging an all out war agains t new world order and the illuminati and the U N and the U S government and the jews and the muslims and everyone
els e, it's not very effic ient.
A whole box of matc hes will barely c over like 3 0 c artridges I 'm gues sing. It takes a good 1 - 2 hours to do around 1 0 0 matc hes , s o yeah.
I think if you just needed to make 6 - 1 2 bullets for a revolver or something, or wanted to make a few shots hells for a pump or break ac tion shotgun
for hunting and home defense, this is an O K way to do it, but really, stock up on more ammo, and save your c as es , rather than buying
4 0 3 8 5 0 9 4 8 5 0 boxes of matches to badly reload your c artridges. A s I s aid before, this will be very impractic al in an above s c enario. Y ou wont be
reloading hundreds of cartridges like this...
My main iss ue now is primers, does anyone know of a touc h sensitive explosive/flame making thing that c ould be poured into a spent primer. T he
only fairly easy to make touc h explosive I c ame across was in the A narchist C ookbook (I know, not s upposed to be mentioned here bec aus e it
s uc ks ) but I read about that later, and found out if even a feather touches that mixture, it'll all go off.
A nother propellent I'm interested in is "red powder" des cribed in that C ookbook (yeah, again) whic h is kno3 , s ugar, and iron oxide. I forgot the ratio
and I 'm too lazy to look it up. I'm mainly wondering if it'll burn cleaner than black powder, I know it gets water from the air eas ily, and that's not
good.
O ther things I've been wondering about is if I reloaded say a 9 mm Luger cartridge with blac k powder, would the gun c yc le/ect? Blac k powder is
e a s y to make c ompared to s mokeles s powder. I read s ome ins tructions on tots e on how to make gun c otton, and I'd like to try doing it.
A nyway, I gues s that's all. A nyone got any sugges tions/c omments ? Sorry if this pos t sounds k3 wlish, but yeah. A s I said before, this is nt very
prac tical unless you RE A L L Y need ammo for s ome reas on. A nother thing to remember is that guns arent the only weapons available to use, you can
jus t as easily do s ome damage with a knife. However, even with this not s o good ammo, you s till have a gun, and it will still fuck up something. It's
like the A K vs. M1 6 argument, when someone walks into a mall with an M 4 and starts s hooting, you're not going to s it there and think, "oh, that's
jus t an M4 with a 1 4 .5 inc h barrel, that is weak, .2 2 3 can't hurt me, he s hould have went with 7 .6 2 x5 1 at least."
A nyway, this is really all.
nbk2000 O c tober 2 3 rd, 2 0 0 6 , 0 3 :1 5 A M

T he tip of s trike-anywhere matches can be used to reload primers, as detailed in the Blac k Book series .
SafetyLast O c tober 2 3 rd, 2 0 0 6 , 0 8 :2 0 P M

T hat primer reloading method is also in FM2 1 - 2 1 0 Improvised M unitions Handbook. I 'm hesitant to try matchhead powder in any of my finely tuned
guns, but maybe if I had s omething c heaper like a NE F handi rifle and a remote way of firing like a res t with a remote trigger release suc h as this
http://c abelas.c om/cabelas /en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=00 2 4 1 5 2 2 2 6 0 8 4 a&type=product&c mC at=s earc h&returnP age=s e a r c h -
r e s u l t s 1 .jsp&Q ueryText=remote+trigger+releas e&N=4 8 8 7 & N t k = P roduc ts&Ntx=mode+matchall&Nty=1 &Ntt=remote+trigger+release&noImage=0
E ven then I would be hes itant to us e a chlorate with a perc u s s ion primer with a lot of metal all around it:(
+++++
U s e the C O D E tag for very long U R L ' s , s o they don't get trunc ated. NBK
42 AM
58 AM
n
ike
48 PM
09 AM
53 PM
22 AM
us t
, it's
yone
tgun
t be
T he
t
e ratio
ot
ry
ou can
It's
at's
15 AM
20 PM
tuned
his
age=0
vBulletin v3 .7 .2 , C opyright 20 0 0 - 2 0 0 8 , Jelsoft E nterprises Ltd.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Stop Sticks
Log in
View Full Version : Stop Sticks

We have had topics on caltropes, carpets with nails in them, and even ultra-tough fibre nets that destroy tyres, but we haven't had one on the "StopStick".
http://www.bonowi.com/prod/ng_EN_STOP_ug_BARRAC.htm is an example.
The Barracuda and other "stop sticks" are a neat idea, and could be improvised really really quickly and easily, and actually be better than the commercial one!
First, we get some steel tube and cut it at the right angle to be an effective penetrator. Do both ends. That site tells us that a 2" tube will defeat even anti-puncture tyres without trouble, so that gives us a good
guide. I'd think that even a 1" hole would be plenty!
The comercial design is fitted with two rubber circles and a weight, so that it lands and automatically rolls to the right way up, spikes exposed. However, this means that the operator is obviously carrying a
stopstick! They might cut themselves, too. We can do better.
Take a triangular length of foam (Toblerone shape), and into it insert the cut bits of tube. Rotate them such that the first one points from one face to the 2nd, the next from the 2nd to the 3rd, and so on. Stagger
them down the length, no more than 1/3rd of a tyre width apart. Now you are good to go. It looks like a foam triangle. Hit someone with it, and you'll do some damage, though!
If you want fast effect, chuck it under a car tyre. Any way up will do. The core will be punched out of the tyre with rapid results on any hard surface. The foam should also drag up and into the wheel arch, which will
make driving even harder.
If you want to do the same on soft ground, and/or have a faster effect (about 1 tyre rotation to flat) you want to use a flat board with a few of these in it (obviously cut only at one end.) If you want to conceal it, you
can put the foam on top of the spikes, and it will ensure that it remains unheaded (paint it grey or like wood or something) These will actually be sure to core the tyre, leaving a 2" hole for the air to leave through.
No tyre sealant will stop that! You would probably also find that the board will smack the underside of the car too.
Sausagemit October 13th, 2006, 11:40 PM

Good idea!!
But,
The key elements of Michelin's PAX system are special wheels with unique tire bead locks and a solid insert that can fully support its share of the vehicle's weight and let it continue rolling even without any tire
pressure.
Run-flat tires may allow the assailant/target to get to safety because they will support the weight of the car for 40-60 miles with zero air pressure and a golf ball sized hole in the sidewall.
I think we can do one better and figure out a way to completely destroy a tire with an improvised stop stick.
Maybe some sort of cheap cast incendiary device inside the puncture tube with a with a wood cap at the end that would ignite once the car rolled over it. And mount it in such a way so that the puncture tube will
stay with the tire.
Tire rubber burns pretty well once it hits ignition temp.
As for the ignition, I'm thinking a layer of KMnO4 and a water balloon filled with sucrose, duct taped off then hot glued with a nail in the hot glue pointing at the balloon. But alas, I have never experimented with KMnO4 and
s ucrose so I wouldnt know if this would wor k as it is w ay more sucrose than is necessary. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better way too.
JakeGallows October 16th, 2006, 07:50 PM

The Bonowi company also appears to not just to have 2 inch quills but coat them with Teflon as well...
Jacks Complete October 22nd, 2006, 07:21 PM

The teflon is just to ease entry and exit, it's not essential by any means. In fact, if you are sure you really, really want to stop them, having the board nailed to the car tyre is probably more effective.
Screws. That might be the answer. Use screws, which would grip the tyre hard, and not pull out. The board would be solidly attached, and hit the underside of the car. Either this would break the board and leave a
solid lump which would seriously limit forward speed due to unbalanced tyres which are no longer round, or the board would break something under the car, stopping it.
Tyres have a lot of forced air, so they would probably stay lit, but I don't know. I imagine any super-advanced run-flat would be made of a fully synthetic non-flamable rubber?
If the screws were wired together with strong (steel?) wire and the board was designed to fragment into smaller chunks, you might well get a good tangling effect. Shredding the tyres in a non-explosive manner is
far preferable.
the_twitchy1 October 22nd, 2006, 09:17 PM

I'm not sure if it would work, but how about over-pressurizing the tires? I know that the average tire is rated for 40 psi, and will 'blow loose' somewhere around 100 psi, so if you can get the pressure of the tire up
to that kind of pressure, rather than depressurizing it, you could have some nasty effects... and the runflats won't be effective at all as they are designed to run low, not high.
The only problem is that I'm not sure how you could overpressurize the tires in that type of way. A pucnture & stay mechanism would be needed obviously to do it, but any tank that could do this would be too big.
Hmm...
Anyway, it's a thought. I think that the unbalancing effect with the screws would probably be your cheapest, most reliable, and most cost-effective solution. A few boards wired together in a cross formation, so
that some of them would slam up into the sidewalls would probably increase the damage potential, too, thereby causing more pressure loss and possibly ripping the tire to shreds.
Jacks Complete October 25th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Nice idea. If you had a bit of time to set a trap, dig a trench and put the board over it so that it drops away when they drive over the "speed bump". It will drop the car downwards into the slit trench and stall it,
plus the board will be hammered home really well. Once they are stopped with a big board hammered in place across both wheels they probably won't start up again.
As for the overpressure idea, I'm not sure. Think how long a tyre pump takes! Perhaps with a butane cylinder it would work fast and hard? And if it failed, the tyres are full of flamable gas, which might help you.
the_twitchy1 October 25th, 2006, 09:26 PM

I love that! Just so I understand, I've attached a few rough sketches... Is this what you mean? It's a classic one-way trap, too. because the trap will just slap the bottom of your car before resetting itself if you go
over it the untrapped way, but hammer those boards home if you go over it the 'trapped' direction...
The only way to get the pressure high enough to blow the tires would be an explosive presurization. No pumping, just have a superpresurized tank that can blow the required amount of air into the tires to put them
at exploding pressure. The problem with this is twofold; one, you need to get a lot of air into the tires to do this, which means that a small tank holding that much air would have to be at a very large pressure
(especially considering that when it's connected to the tire, blowing air, it's part of the loop and needs to be at tire-bursting pressure, too), and getting the container that holds the pressurized air to release it all at
once (or at least fast enough to do what you want). To be honest, I don't think it's possible. The physics of the situation kinda make it, well, hard. But it's an interesting thought, anyway.
BTW, if you really want to be nasty, the trap listed for cars can easily be scaled up to human-catching. Just dig a 10' trench and cover it with a heavy slab instead of a board (or even use boards, but make them
sturdy.) Counterbalance the board so that when the person walks over it, the whole rig tips them into the trench, but when their weight is no longer on the slab it bounces back up to the top of the trench. The
people inside can't get out because the slab is too high up to grab and to heavy to move anyway. if they can get a hold of it, they can drag it down, but only on top of themselves. I know, it's big, useless, and
esoteric... but it's really just a really overdeveloped pit trap at that point.
Sausagemit October 26th, 2006, 12:17 AM

Tyres have a lot of forced air, so they would probably stay lit, but I don't know. I imagine any super-advanced run-flat would be made of a fully synthetic non-flamable rubber?
They are usually made out of silica compound rubber, which I think acctually melts and burns easier than regular tire rubber. I've seen racing slicks made out of silica compound rubber ignite just from driving on
them.
Pretty much all the BMW (the ///M models are the exception) models from '02 till now have been equiped with Michelin's PAX system. They are currently the most widely used run-flat tire on the market. And if I
recall corectly, use silica compound rubber.
I might have to shave a little bit off of one of my Dunlop SP Sports and see how easy it ignites. Just to make shure that I'm correct in saying what I just said.
Skean Dhu October 26th, 2006, 11:53 AM

The only way to get the pressure high enough to blow the tires would be an explosive presurization. No pumping, just have a superpresurized tank that can blow the required amount of air into the tires to put them
at exploding pressure. The problem with this is twofold; one, you need to get a lot of air into the tires to do this, which means that a small tank holding that much air would have to be at a very large pressure
A simpler solution would be to use actual explosives, Sodium azide(used in airbags) when detonated converts into a whole lot of nitrogen in a very short amount of time.
So theoretically all one would need is a container to hold the blast(say an airbag canister) a puncture tube to deliver the gas and a means to detonate the sodium azide when the tube is in the tire. All one would
need to do is rig it similar to the VC bullet mine( dig a hole, place a board with a nail in the bottom, place a tube over the nail, set a bullet on the point of the nail), use the cars weight to set off the explosion.
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Airbags/airbags.html
According to the above site you have around 60L of nitrogen to cram into the tire in a matter of 40 milliseconds. If one were to use a standard airbag canister as the gas generator.
That should put a little bit of stress on even the best made tires.
FUTI October 26th, 2006, 06:07 PM

I heard once about assasination method which involves replacing a portion of air in a car tyre with propane/butane gas. Then the victim goes to the highway and when the tyre go hot enough it blows. At the speed
the car normaly goes at highway driver has little chance to survive the crash and I really want to see how would police CSI that...maybe by mercaptane trace if they manage to find it (hardly) or partial rubber
depolimerisation by the mercaptane present in gas (unlikely). I know this is OT but over-pressurisation story digg-up this from my mind.
akinrog October 27th, 2006, 02:27 AM

If the above scheme is feasable (which I don't know for sure), one can use propellant butane used in deodorant sprays, instead of regular LPG gas. I don't know how it's in other countries but in my country it's
mandatory to use propellant grade butane/propane in pressurized sprays since other propellant gases deplete the ozone layer.
Since this butane/propane gas used in vicinity of humans, they do not contain mercaptans. Think for a moment you have a deodorant which stinks like a skunk :D.

Yes and I manage to find a cigaret lighter refill LPG or propan/butane container that doesn't contain mercaptane (now that should be illegal in my country but... if it isn't pressed under the nose of the law, the eyes
of the law won't see it ;)).
I doubt that it is reliable to ignite that mixture when the tyre heat up, but it is plausible and smart assasin can make explosive mixture (you know the volume of the tyre, pressure of air, add LPG to a certain point
where the pressure of the mixture corespond to a perfect explosive composition (which should be close to a tyre blow-out limit)). There is a legend that some old local politician (in my neighborhood) is "removed"
that way.
nbk2000 October 27th, 2006, 04:12 PM

You could take a piece of encapsulated sodium or potassium, coat it with superglue, slip it into the tire through the stem (using a stem-core removal tool), let it set, then rotate the tire 180 degrees and add a
couple cups of water.
If you then inflated the tire with an ideal gas/air ratio, when the car was driven, the water would contact the sodium metal capsule, dissolving the coating, react with the water, igniting the gas, and BOOM!. :)
But how fucking complicated is that compared to putting a bomb under the car?
ShadowMyGeekSpace October 28th, 2006, 02:39 AM

There's one problem with that, have you ever taken a fully inflated tire, deflated it quickly, and then taken it off the rim? Water condenses on the inside of tires when they're inflated and put under pressure.
nbk2000 October 28th, 2006, 06:07 AM

Hence the encapsulation.
It'll take some time to dissolve, and require immersion in liquid water, not just dew, to dissolve enough to expose the sodium.
Or screw a squid into the the tire stem, with a centrifugal switch that'll close the circuit once the vehicle gets up to freeway speed. :)

Propane can be replaced on hydrogen. After explosion find only traces of water.

Hydrogen is the best one. It would be utterly impossible to find anything from any investigation, unless there was, perhaps, a little hydrogen embrittlement of the steel rims, or a video of the tyre going bang. Plus
the great thing about H2 is that it burns/bangs at almost any mixture level, unlike most fuel gases which are actually quite fussy.

Also as delayed igniter can be used 30% (or more)hydrogen peroxide.

I think that most reliable idea in this thread (that uses over-pressurisation) is combination of airbag gas generator and centrifugal switch NBK proposed (that is a good one I think you could make it close that
circuit only when car reach certain speed)...but it is easy to CSI that from the remains it left behind.
Hydrogen is cool idea from reliability of making a right mixture issue, but it is harder to find a bottle of that gas isn't it? Sodium generation of hydrogen "in-situ" ;) is easy to make (but require good "hands" with a
head who knows what they are doing) and also leave good trail to CSI team (higher then average sodium level and maybe splinters of unreacted sodium).
Teshilo I'm curious about your hydrogen peroxide delayed igniter idea...would you please explain with little more details.
I appologise for stealing the thread, please move those posts elsewhere where they are more on the topic or make a new thread.
teshilo October 30th, 2006, 12:54 PM

Use high concentrated H2O2 mixed with organic substance as delayed igniter for arson discussed in "Silent Death" by Uncle Fester .As these placed in to tire ?May be used pump with hollow needle.

I doubt you would need anything more than just the peroxide inside the tyre at that concentration (30%). The heat and agitation would easily cause decomposition within a short distance at any speed. It might
even cause the rubber to start burning chemically without any ignitor or additional stuff. That way, CSI would only find water and burned rubber.
Anyone want to grab an old tyre and run a test?
nbk2000 October 30th, 2006, 08:52 PM

Even if it didn't ignite, the decomposing peroxide could cause the tire to overpressurize and rupture, though whether or not it would do this while the car is in motion (and not just parked) would have to be tested.
teshilo November 1st, 2006, 12:14 PM

As about use of corrosive chemical for stopping car?
Jacks Complete November 2nd, 2006, 02:57 PM

I don't think many non-explosives would act fast enough. At least not the sort of things that would agree to being on the road for a while.
FUTI November 2nd, 2006, 06:40 PM

This is stupid maybe but benzoyl-peroxide should be decomposing at 80 degrees Celsius which should make it good peroxide candidate for NBK's and teshilo's idea. That way you done all you can to use peroxide
which will be inert until certain temperature of tyre is obtained on road when overpressure blows the tyre.
It can still be found by CSI unless someone mistake those traces of benzene as contamination from solvents used for tyre mould cleaning or even their own procedure for taking tyre "fingerprint" (there is some
method where they take some hydrocarbon mixture like ligroin and soak the tyre surface before they roll the tyre over clean white sheat of paper).
kelb December 10th, 2006, 10:34 PM

I dunno about a "chemical" stop stick. But if I was that damn desperate to get away from the cops and saw one standing by the road about to sling a stop stick in front of me, well lets just saw he better be quick or
his ass and my hood would get in the same place.
That being said for the most part there is still a decent amount of steel in the bodies of even more modern cars. Seems like 4-5 hard drive magnets stuck to 1/2 to 1 pound of C4 could be tossed onto the car and
stick. Then by remote detonation you could disable the car easily. Think of it as a modern and much less dirty sticky bomb.
teshilo December 17th, 2006, 04:47 AM

Nazi in WW2 used similar desigh cone-shaped SC magnetic limpet grenades-mines.For protect tanks used special coating on bottom.

Remote detonation? Why not a 5 second fuse? Cheaper and more use, as well as more reliable. If you leave it more than 30 seconds they will have stopped and either removed it or caught you, and you simply have
the fuse light on contact.
You could hide a device like this in a water filled pothole, so it automatically jumps and sticks to the first car to hit the pothole, then 5 seconds later goes bang.
Sausagemit December 29th, 2006, 10:03 PM

Stop sticks are going to be completely obsolete in a couple of years if Michelin's Tweel hits the market anytime soon.
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o240/eurodfp/33.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o240/eurodfp/22.jpg
Oh well, we will just have to keep up on ways to stop cars quickly with Tweels :D
+++++++++
Originally mentioned here (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?p=85403#post85403). NBK
festergrump December 30th, 2006, 01:14 AM

Ever see what happens to a bicycle when you ram a broomstick in the front spokes whilst it's travelling?

Try jamming a broomstick into a tweel going at 50MPH.
The spacing is much closer together on the tweel's supports than the spokes of a tire, and traveling at a much faster rotational velocity than you'd ever get with a bicycle.
Of course, there is money to be made by the person who comes up with effective ways to deal with the proliferating numbers of run-flats and future tweels. :)
Sausagemit December 30th, 2006, 05:12 PM

Sorry about that NBK. I didn't realize you posted a very similar post about the tweel in another topic on the same day almost exactly 12 hours before me. :o It is a pretty strange coincidence though. And just so
you don't think I'm plagiarizing you and trying too pass it off like nothing happened, I first heard about the tweel here (http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=1759169) a little less than a year ago and a
recent repost (http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=2998343) on a subsidiary forum brought it too my attention again and I thought the roguesci community might like to know about it. Those links
probabbly did little to convince you but all I can say is evil minds must think alike. :D
Festergrump, a bike with a person on it weighs at most 5%-10% of what a car weighs. You would have to either get something very stout and thus very heavy and hard to handle or something very sharp if you plan
on either seperating the spokes or stopping the car completely by shoving something in the tweel.
Preliminary tests by Michelin show that the Tweel can run over explosives and keep on rolling even if some of the spokes are broken and some tread ripped off. It also directs the blast energy of land mines and
other explosives outward rather than up and into the vehicle like traditional tyres.
http://www.tyresite.com/tyrearticle.asp?page=13
And it looks like most small yield explosives are out of the question.

Good stuff. Of course, they are illegal in the UK, like any tyre that has a zero air pressure!
Liquid nitrogen would deal with these, but timing would be an issue. As regards "keep on rolling even if some of the spokes are broken and some tread ripped off", that's going to be rather like your current tyres,
which will merrily drive 5 miles without issue when flat. They won't ever work again, but it is worth knowing that as long as you don't overheat the engine and keep it below 15mph, you can drive on tarmac on a flat
without much more than increased road noise. With spokes and chunks missing from a tweel, you are going to have much the same balance and speed issues.
nbk2000 January 2nd, 2007, 03:49 PM

I bet they say the 0-PSI tire ban is for 'safety', right? Not so that they can kill your car tires with stopsticks and immobilize you, eh? ;)

I don't think they had run-flats back then. It's just one of those badly worded laws, we have so many of them. Time and mankind has moved on a long way since Mr. Dunlop first got a law passed to protect his
market.
FullMetalJacket January 10th, 2007, 10:47 AM

I'm thinking that an injection of pirhana fluid into the tire would cause it some grief. Spontaneous ignition, anyone? Mind you, it would leave residue, so it's not as good as some of the other options mentioend.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121457,00.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl
Interesting article on just how far behind the curve the US military are in places. Like Humvees not having run-flat tyres! I mean, how retarded is that? (Apparently it uses an air pump to reinnflate the tyre if it
goes down)
The article also shows how dull the thinking is about this. The military guys at the top are saying "We are years away from having a passenger car application," Mann said. "We do have a very early prototype for a
passenger car. When you get it up to a high speed, 50 or 60 mph, there is noticeable noise. We need to solve the noise issue."But who cares about running noise at 60 on a Humvee, when the other option is death
by RPG?
Pergantis of the Army Research Center said airless tires must provide comfort, no vibrations and little noise, in part because of the sophisticated electronics used in military vehicles. Which is odd, because I
would have thought that the tyre should provide mobility first, and everything else second. The burned out humvee is not a better vehicle than the one with a slightly higher level of road noise.
So, apparently stopsticks will kill a humvee.
nbk2000 January 14th, 2007, 03:55 AM

I'd think that since most army units aren't involved in combat, it's better for them to use tires, as the constant vibration and noise of tweels (or tracks) is a constant fatigue factor.
But, when your unit rotates into the sandbox, on go the tweels, since they won't go flat from fragments and bullets in the middle of a firefight.
FullMetalJacket January 15th, 2007, 01:32 AM

So, apparently stopsticks will kill a humvee.
So will half a pound of plastique and a martini glass.
Humvees = Wheeled coffins.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Microwave oven gun patent
Log in
View Full Version : Microwave oven gun patent
megalomania October 31st, 2006, 04:48 AM

New Scientist published an article this week about a patent that uses commercial microwave ovens, or rather the magnetrons,
to construct a megawatt microwave beam for weapons purposes.
The patent application in particular is 20060208672 and the New Scientist article is here: http://www.newscientisttech.com/
article.ns?id=dn10356&feedId=online-news_rss20
Since it would not do for the patent to disappear from the web, I shall reproduce it in its entirety.
United States Patent Application 20060208672

Kind Code A1
Achenbach; Robert Parker ; et al. September 21, 2006
High-power microwave system employing a phase-locked array of inexpensive commercial magnetrons
Abstract
A high-power microwave generator employing a plurality of inexpensive commercial magnetron tubes cross-coupled by means
of a secondary coupling path between each magnetron output pair, whereby a portion of the output energy from a first
magnetron tube is injected into a second magnetron tube and a portion of the output energy from the second magnetron tube
is similarly injected into the first magnetron tube. The resulting cross-injection of microwave energies brings the respective
magnetron tube pair into a phase-lock sufficiently stable to permit coherent combination of their outputs for many high-power
microwave applications, such as directed energy weapon systems. The magnetron phase-locking system requires no external
components other than the secondary coupling paths of this invention.
Inventors: Achenbach; Robert Parker; (Albuquerque, NM) ; Lerma; Albert; (Albuquerque, NM)
Correspondence Name and Address:
Terrance A. Meador;INCAPLAW1050
Suite K
1050 Rosecrans Street
San Diego
CA
92106
US
Serial No.: 083850

Series Code: 11
Filed: March 18, 2005
U.S. Current Class: 315/500

U.S. Class at Publication: 315/500
Intern'l Class: H05H 7/00 20060101 H05H007/00
Claims
1. A microwave power generator system comprising: a plurality of magnetron tubes each having an anode coupled to an
output cavity, and a primary coupling waveguide having a sidewall disposed to transfer microwave energy from the magnetron
output cavity to free space to produce a radiated microwave field; and secondary cross-coupling means disposed to redirect a
portion of the microwave energy from a first magnetron tube output cavity into a second magnetron tube output cavity and to
redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the second magnetron tube output cavity into the first magnetron tube output
cavity.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein: the secondary cross-coupling means includes a first reflective element disposed in the
microwave field radiated from the first magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the first magnetron
output cavity into the second magnetron output cavity.
3. The system of claim 2 wherein: the secondary cross-coupling means includes a second reflective element disposed in the
microwave field radiated from the second magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the second
magnetron output cavity into the first magnetron output cavity.
4. The system of claim 1 further comprising: a first sidewall aperture disposed in the sidewall of the primary coupling
waveguide of the first magnetron tube; a second sidewall aperture disposed in the sidewall of the primary coupling waveguide
of the second magnetron tube; and a secondary cross-coupling waveguide disposed to couple the first sidewall aperture to the
second sidewall aperture.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein: the plurality of magnetron tubes includes a plurality of standardized commercial magnetron
tubes suitable for microwave oven applications.
6. A directed energy weapon system for projecting microwave energy along a predetermined path, the system comprising: a
plurality of magnetron tubes each having an anode coupled to an output cavity, and a primary coupling waveguide having a
sidewall disposed to transfer microwave energy from the magnetron output cavity to free space to produce a radiated
microwave field; and secondary cross-coupling means disposed to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from a first
magnetron tube output cavity into a second magnetron tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy
from the second magnetron tube output cavity into the first magnetron tube output cavity.
7. The system of claim 6 wherein: the secondary cross-coupling means includes a first reflective element disposed in the
microwave field radiated from the first magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the first magnetron
output cavity into the second magnetron output cavity.
8. The system of claim 7 wherein: the secondary cross-coupling means includes a second reflective element disposed in the
microwave field radiated from the second magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the second
magnetron output cavity into the first magnetron output cavity.
9. The system of claim 6 further comprising: a first sidewall aperture disposed in the sidewall of the primary coupling
waveguide of the first magnetron tube; a second sidewall aperture disposed in the sidewall of the primary coupling waveguide
of the second magnetron tube; and a secondary cross-coupling waveguide disposed to couple the first sidewall aperture to the
second sidewall aperture.
10. The system of claim 6 wherein: the plurality of magnetron tubes includes a plurality of standardized commercial
magnetron tubes suitable for microwave oven applications.
11. A microwave power generator system comprising: a plurality of magnetron tubes each having an anode coupled to an
output cavity, and a primary coupling waveguide having a sidewall disposed to transfer microwave energy from the magnetron
output cavity to free space to produce a radiated microwave field, wherein the magnetron tube plurality is disposed in an array
having a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows; and secondary row cross-coupling means disposed between a first and a
second magnetron tube within a single array column to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the first magnetron
tube output cavity into the second magnetron tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the
second magnetron tube output cavity into the first magnetron tube output cavity.
12. The system of claim 11 further comprising: secondary column cross-coupling means disposed between a third and a fourth
magnetron tube within a single array row to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from a third magnetron tube output
cavity into a fourth magnetron tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the fourth magnetron
tube output cavity into the third magnetron tube output cavity.
13. The system of claim 12 wherein: the secondary column cross-coupling means includes a first reflective element disposed
in the microwave field radiated from the third magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the third
magnetron output cavity into the fourth magnetron output cavity.
14. The system of claim 13 wherein: the secondary column cross-coupling means includes a second reflective element
disposed in the microwave field radiated from the fourth magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from
the fourth magnetron output cavity into the third magnetron output cavity.
15. The system of claim 11 wherein: the secondary row cross-coupling means includes a first sidewall aperture disposed in the
sidewall of the primary coupling waveguide of the first magnetron tube, a second sidewall aperture disposed in the sidewall of
the primary coupling waveguide of the second magnetron tube, and a secondary cross-coupling waveguide disposed to couple
the first sidewall aperture to the second sidewall aperture.
17. A directed energy weapon system for projecting microwave energy along a predetermined path, the system comprising: a
plurality of magnetron tubes each having an anode coupled to an output cavity, and a primary coupling waveguide having a
sidewall disposed to transfer microwave energy from the magnetron output cavity to free space to produce a radiated
microwave field, wherein the magnetron tube plurality is disposed in an array having a plurality of columns and a plurality of
rows; and secondary row cross-coupling means disposed between a first and a second magnetron tube within a single array
column to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the first magnetron tube output cavity into the second magnetron
tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the second magnetron tube output cavity into the
first magnetron tube output cavity.
18. The system of claim 17 further comprising: secondary column cross-coupling means disposed between a third and a fourth
magnetron tube within a single array row to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from a third magnetron tube output
cavity into a fourth magnetron tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the fourth magnetron
tube output cavity into the third magnetron tube output cavity.
19. The system of claim 18 wherein: the secondary column cross-coupling means includes a first reflective element disposed
in the microwave field radiated from the third magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the third
magnetron output cavity into the fourth magnetron output cavity.
20. The system of claim 19 wherein: the secondary column cross-coupling means includes a second reflective element
disposed in the microwave field radiated from the fourth magnetron tube to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from
the fourth magnetron output cavity into the third magnetron output cavity.
21. The system of claim 17 wherein: the secondary row cross-coupling means includes a first sidewall aperture disposed in the
sidewall of the primary coupling waveguide of the first magnetron tube, a second sidewall aperture disposed in the sidewall of
the primary coupling waveguide of the second magnetron tube, and a secondary cross-coupling waveguide disposed to couple
the first sidewall aperture to the second sidewall aperture.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0001] 1. Field of the Invention
[0002] This invention relates generally to high-power microwave generators and more particularly to high-power microwave
systems employing a phase-locked array of inexpensive commercial magnetrons.
[0003] 2. Description of the Related Art
[0004] The conventional magnetron (herein also denominated "magnetron tube") is a well-known and very efficient device
used to convert stored electrical energy into microwave-frequency alternating currents. Magnetron operating principles have
been known since at least 1921 and magnetrons have been used in extensively in microwave radars since the first pulsed
resonant cavity magnetron (3 GHz) was developed by the British in 1940. Today, inexpensive mass-produced magnetrons
(herein also denominated "commercial magnetrons") can be found in every home possessing a microwave oven.
[0005] A typical single-body magnetron tube known in the art is a coaxial vacuum device consisting essentially of an external
cylindrical anode (which attracts electrons) and an internal, co-axial cylindrical cathode (which emits electrons). In a typical
design, the anode is grooved to form resonator cavities disposed to form a symmetric series of vanes. In operation, an
electric potential ("anode voltage") is placed across the evacuated annulus formed between the anode and cathode.
Simultaneously, a constant axial magnetic field is created in the evacuated annulus that serves to cause electrons emitted by
the cathode responsive to the anode voltage to travel around the cathode in paths that are ìnfluenced` by RF fields in the
anode resonant cavities. With appropriate conditions, electrons following these paths form rotating `spokes` of space charge
that interact with the anode resonator fields in such a way as to induce displacement currents in each resonator cavity. As a
spoke of electrons approaches an anode vane, it induces a positive charge in that vane. As the electron spoke passes, the
positive charge diminishes in the first vane while another positive charge is being induced in the next vane. The physical
structure of the anode forms the equivalent of a series of high-Q resonant inductive-capacitive (LC) circuits. The vanes are
alternately strapped together to effectively connect the LC circuits in parallel. The induced displacement currents of each
resonator are coupled to a tuned output cavity by any of various means, and from there are coupled to a primary output
waveguide that conducts the microwave energy into an energy absorbing or transmitting load. The number and shape of the
resonator cavities and the dimensions of the anode and cathode are most often selected by the designer based on scaled
values from previous magnetron designs that are, in turn, selected for their appropriateness for the given application. Design
features that might cause one type of resonator configuration to be preferable over another type include operating
characteristics such as the "pushing factor," which denominates a measure of the output frequency variation arising from
anode voltage fluctuations, and the "pulling factor," which denominates a measure of the output frequency variation arising
from changes in RF load impedance. Clearly, as is well-known in the art, the magnetron tube is a complex resonant `system`
for energy conversion whose precise operating parameters, for example frequency and efficiency, depends on many different
design and load factors and may accordingly be somewhat intractable.
[0006] It is also well-known in the art that the output energy from a magnetron can be `locked` in frequency and phase to
that of an externally-applied signal that is properly ìnjected` into the magnetron's resonant structure with an appropriate
amplitude within a limited `locking range` of frequencies. The basic equation that describes this injection-lock behavior for
small injection magnitudes was derived by Adler (R. Adler, "A Study of Locking Phenomena in Oscillators," Proc. IRE, Vol. 34,
pp. 351-357, June 1946): .DELTA. .times. .times. .omega. L ( .omega. 0 / 2 .times. Q ) = V L V 0 .times. sin .times. .times.
.alpha. [ Eqn . .times. 1 ] where .DELTA..omega..sub.L is half of the maximum locking range, .omega..sub.o is the `natural`
frequency of the oscillator, Q is the quality factor of resonant circuit of the oscillator, V.sub.L is the injection input level, V.sub.o
is the oscillator output level, and a is the steady-state phase difference between the injected signal and the output signal.
[0007] A single magnetron tube operating continuously is presently subject to practical output power limits of about 1 MW,
which can be attained only with a very large and expensive device supported by large and expensive external cooling systems.
In principle, Eqn. 1 above teaches that larger microwave energy outputs suitable for applications such as radar, power
transmission and directed energy weapons, can be obtained by means of the coherent combination of synchronous output
energies from a plurality of magnetron tubes. Moreover, in principle, for any particular system output power, the system cost,
size, and reliability can be improved significantly by phase-locking many smaller magnetrons. In view of these conceptual
advantages, early practitioners in the art attempted to achieve higher system output power by phase-locking a plurality of
separate magnetron tubes. For example, several early efforts were made to achieve injection phase-locking of several distinct
or separate magnetron tubes with a common master input signal with varying levels of success. Another early effort was made
to achieve bootstrap phase-locking of several distinct magnetron tubes arranged in a hexagonal array with pair-wise
waveguide connections between them, by energizing them simultaneously without benefit of a common master input signal.
The phase-locking effect of such pair-wise waveguide communication between hexagonally-arrayed magnetron tubes was
found to be achievable only at the expense of dedicating an evacuated port between each adjacent pair of individual
magnetrons. Neither approach is presently considered in the art as a useful solution to the magnetron tube phase-locking
problem.
[0008] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary solution to the dual magnetron phase-locking problem from the prior art, showing a
dual phase-locked magnetron system 10, including a separate drive signal source 12, the two magnetron tubes 14-16 each
having a respective output 18-20, and the respective three-port power circulators 22-24 each disposed to couple output power
from the respective magnetron tube output 18-20 to the respective primary coupling path 26-28 from which the resulting
microwave energy is coupled to free space (not shown). Power from drive signal source 12 is introduced at the port 30 and
respective portions of the respective magnetron tube output powers are introduced at the ports 32-34 for distribution to
circulators 22-24, from which the respective energies are injected into the respective magnetron tube outputs 18-20 to "pull"
the respective magnetron tubes 14-16 into phase-lock with drive signal source 12. Circulators 22-24 and drive signal source 12
represent a substantial weight, volume, cost, and complexity burden for dual phase-locked magnetron system 10; so
substantial that a single magnetron tube having twice the individual power rating of magnetron tubes 14-16 may represent a
more cost-effective embodiment for system 10. Moreover, the power losses in power circulators 22-24 are also a significant
burden in some applications.
[0009] FIG. 2 illustrates a well-known injection magnetron phase-locking method from the prior art. A three-port high-power
circulator 36 is coupled to the output cavity (not shown) of the magnetron tube 38 by way of the primary coupling path 40. An
injection signal generator 42 produces an injection signal f.sub.i and couples it to the second circulator port 44, where it is
injected into primary coupling path 40 to "pull" the magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o into phase-lock with injection signal
f.sub.i. Output signal f.sub.o at circulator 36 is coupled to the load 46 by the third circulator port 48. Circulator 36 must be
fabricated to handle the primary output power from magnetron tube 38 and is generally disadvantageously inefficient. For
effective phase-locking, the requisite level of injection signal f.sub.i depends on the spectral bandwidth (also known as the
quality factor `Q`) of magnetron tube 38 as defined by Adler in the reference cited above in connection with Eqn. 1. This
technique is expensive but it permits the precise control of the somewhat unruly magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o by
injection signal f.sub.i from injection signal generator 42, which may be as precise and stable as desired.
[0010] FIG. 3 illustrates a well-known phase-locked loop (PLL) magnetron phase-locking method from the prior art. The
magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o from the output cavity (not shown) of the magnetron tube 50 is coupled by the primary
coupling path 52 through a loop coupler 54 to the load 56. A reference signal generator 58 provides a reference signal f.sub.r
to a phase detector 60, which also accepts a sample of magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o from loop detector 54. Phase
detector 60 compares reference signal f.sub.r and magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o to produce an error signal f.sub.e,
which is coupled to the anode current control element 62 for magnetron tube 50. Loop coupler 54, anode current control
element 62 and phase detector 60 operate as a PLL circuit in the well-known manner. With the proper loop stability, adjusting
the anode current to magnetron tube 50 responsive to error signal f.sub.e soon brings magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o
into phase-lock with reference signal f.sub.r. This technique is also expensive but it permits the precise control of the
somewhat unruly magnetron tube output signal f.sub.o by reference signal f.sub.r from reference signal generator 58, which
may be as precise and stable as desired and this method may avoid some of the power losses noted in circulator 36 of FIG. 2.
[0011] Other practitioners in the art have more recently proposed solutions to the magnetron array phase-locking problem.
For example, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,571,552, Brown discloses a technique for phase locking a magnetron output signal with a
frequency source signal that is obtained by comparing the output signal phase to a source signal phase to obtain an error
signal that is applied to a winding of the magnetron magnet to thereby change the flux applied to the magnetron tube, while
the magnetron output signal frequency is also "pulled" by the source signal injected into the magnetron tube by way of a
three-port circulator. Brown's technique requires an additional magnet winding, external error detection circuitry, and an
external three-port high-power circulator; all additional to the magnetron tubes themselves.
[0012] In U.S. Pat. No. 4,634,992, Brown discloses an alternative technique for combining the high output power of two
magnetron tube amplifiers using a novel ("Magic T") microwave circuit to reduce the power dissipated by a low-power ferrite
circulator connected between the input signal source and the Magic T circuit. Brown is obliged to add external phase and
amplitude comparators to control the magnetron tube outputs so that they may be coherently combined in the Magic T circuit.
Brown's alternative technique also requires significant additional components, including an additional Magic T circuit, external
phase and amplitude error detection and correction circuitry and an external three-port low-power circulator; all additional to
the magnetron tubes themselves.
[0013] With a different approach, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,162,698, Kato et al. disclose a cascaded magnetron device having a series
of tubular anode elements placed end to end in a linear cascade extending along at least part of an elongate cathode shank.
Each adjacent pair of anode elements is separated by a conductive, annular pin-down disc, and the cathode shank has a
series of spaced bands of field-emitting material separated by non-emitting regions, each band being located within a
respective one of the anode elements and spaced inwardly from the ends of that element. Suitable power inputs and magnetic
field generators are provided for producing electron emission and oscillation in the interaction zone between each emitting
band and the respective anode element surrounding that band, and suitable extraction devices are provided for extracting
power from each of the interaction zones, thereby phase-locking the cascaded magnetron bodies. In effect, Kato et al.
propose a single device having a plurality of magnetron tube cavities disposed in a fixed coaxial relationship, which neither
resolves nor even considers the problem of coupling a plurality of separate commercial magnetron tubes for effective high
power operation.
[0014] These magnetron tube phase-locking efforts were motivated primarily by the high power requirements of, e.g., radar
transmitters, particle accelerators and space-power-generators, where precise phase, power, and frequency control is
imperative. For example, electron accelerators require microwave power supplies having phase stability within 0.1 to 0.2
degrees of nominal. A secondary motivation for these efforts is the universal availability of inexpensive commercial magnetron
tubes. Finally, magnetron tubes are generally preferred because even a relatively expensive high-power magnetron tube can
be manufactured for less than half the cost per kilowatt of, for example, a klystron. Available solutions to the magnetron
phase-locking problem, such as the external phase-control circuitry described in the two Brown patents (U.S. Pat. Nos.
4,634,992 and 4,634,992), all introduce unwelcome burdens of complexity and cost into any microwave system employing a
plurality of separate magnetron tubes. Although such solutions may succeed in stabilizing frequency, phase, and power output
from a plurality of phase-locked magnetron tubes, the attendant burdens are disadvantageous for many microwave power
applications (such as directed energy weapons) that may be more tolerant of small variations in output phase, power and
frequency.
[0015] There is accordingly a clearly-felt need in the art for an efficient and inexpensive means for phase-locking a plurality of
simple and inexpensive commercial magnetron tubes to permit the coherent combining of the resulting plurality of energy
outputs. These unresolved problems and deficiencies are clearly felt in the art and are solved by this invention in the manner
described below.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0016] This invention solves these problems by adding, for the first time, a secondary coupling path between each of a
plurality of magnetron tube output pairs whereby a portion of the output energy from a first magnetron tube is injected into a
second magnetron tube and a portion of the output energy from the second magnetron tube is similarly injected into the first
magnetron tube. The resulting pair-wise cross-injection of microwave energies brings each respective magnetron tube pair into
a phase-locked operating condition sufficiently stable to permit coherent combination of the output energies for many high-
power microwave applications, such as directed energy weapon systems. The magnetron tube cross-coupling phase-locking
system of this invention for the first time facilitates the coherent combination of a plurality of inexpensive commercial
magnetron tubes without expensive external components.
[0017] It is a purpose of this invention to provide an efficient and inexpensive means for phase-locking the energy outputs of
a plurality of simple and inexpensive mass-produced magnetron tubes for coherent combination.
[0018] In one aspect, the invention is a microwave power generator system employing a plurality of magnetron tubes, each
having an anode coupled to an output cavity and a primary coupling waveguide disposed to transfer microwave energy from
the magnetron output cavity to free space to produce a radiated microwave field, and a secondary cross-coupler disposed to
redirect a portion of the microwave energy from a first magnetron tube output cavity into a second magnetron tube output
cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the second magnetron tube output cavity into the first magnetron
tube output cavity.
[0019] In another aspect, the invention is a directed energy weapon system for projecting microwave energy along a
predetermined path employing a plurality of magnetron tubes, each having an anode coupled to an output cavity and a
primary coupling waveguide disposed to transfer microwave energy from the magnetron output cavity to free space to produce
a radiated microwave field, a secondary cross-coupler disposed to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from a first
magnetron tube output cavity into a second magnetron tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy
from the second magnetron tube output cavity into the first magnetron tube output cavity, and a microwave reflector for
redirecting the radiated microwave field along the predetermined path.
[0020] In one embodiment, the invention is microwave power generator system employing a plurality of magnetron tubes,
each having an anode coupled to an output cavity and a primary coupling waveguide disposed to transfer microwave energy
from the magnetron output cavity to free space to produce a radiated microwave field, wherein the magnetron tube plurality is
disposed in an array having a plurality of columns and a plurality of rows, and a secondary row cross-coupler disposed between
a first and a second magnetron tube within a single array column to redirect a portion of the microwave energy from the first
magnetron tube output cavity into the second magnetron tube output cavity and to redirect a portion of the microwave energy
from the second magnetron tube output cavity into the first magnetron tube output cavity.
[0021] The foregoing, together with other objects, features and advantages of this invention, can be better appreciated with
reference to the following specification, claims and the accompanying drawing.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0022] For a more complete understanding of this invention, reference is now made to the following detailed description of the
embodiments as illustrated in the accompanying drawing, in which like reference designations represent like features
throughout the several views and wherein:
[0023] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary dual-magnetron circuit from the prior art;
[0024] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a injection magnetron phase-locking method from the prior art;
[0025] FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a phase-locked loop (PLL) magnetron phase-locking method from the prior art;
[0026] FIG. 4 is an perspective view of a first illustrative embodiment of the phase-locked magnetron array of this invention
having eight magnetron tubes disposed in a two-dimensional array, including an exploded view of one of the secondary
coupling paths and a cutaway view of a magnetron tube output;
[0027] FIGS. 5A-C are front, bottom and right side scaled views of the phase-locked magnetron array embodiment from FIG.
4;
[0028] FIG. 6A is a chart illustrating measured spectral data representing the output signal from the waveguide outputs of a
second illustrative phase-locked magnetron array embodiment having four magnetrons disposed in a one-dimensional array
without the secondary coupling paths of this invention;
[0029] FIG. 6B is a chart illustrating measured spectral data representing the output signal from the waveguide outputs of the
illustrative embodiment from FIG. 6A modified by the addition of the secondary coupling paths of this invention;
[0030] FIG. 7A is a chart illustrating measured temporal data representing the output signal from the waveguide outputs of
the illustrative embodiment from FIG. 6A; and
[0031] FIG. 7B is a chart illustrating measured temporal data representing the output signal from the waveguide outputs of
the illustrative embodiment from FIG. 6A modified by the addition of the secondary coupling paths of this invention; and
[0032] FIG. 8 is a functional block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a directed energy weapon system
employing the phase-locked magnetron array of this invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS
[0033] FIG. 4 is a perspective view of an illustrative phase-locked magnetron array embodiment 64 of this invention having
eight magnetron tubes, exemplified by the magnetron tube 66, disposed in a two-dimensional array, with rows exemplified by
the row 68 that includes magnetron tube 66, and columns exemplified by the column 70 that includes magnetron tube 66.
Each magnetron tube may be appreciated with reference to the following description of magnetron tube 66, which includes a
body 72, an output antenna 74 extending into an output cavity 76, which is coupled to a primary coupling waveguide 78,
having a sidewall 80. The microwave energy produced at anode antenna 74 is coupled from output cavity 76 and radiated into
free space at the primary aperture 82 of primary coupling waveguide 78 to create a radiated microwave field in the usual
manner.
[0034] The operation of any horizontally-adjacent pair of magnetron tubes can be appreciated with reference to the following
discussion of the horizontally-adjacent pair of magnetron tubes 66 and 84, which are provided with the secondary cross-coupler
86 incorporating the two reflective elements 86A-B. Reflective element 86A is disposed in the microwave field radiated from
primary aperture 82 to redirect a portion of the microwave energy radiated from primary aperture 82 (from output cavity 76 of
magnetron tube 66) into the primary aperture 88 and therefrom into the output cavity (not shown) of horizontally-adjacent
magnetron tube 84. Symmetrically, reflective element 86B is disposed in the microwave field radiated from primary aperture
88 to redirect a portion of the microwave energy radiated from primary aperture 88 (from the output cavity of magnetron tube
84) into primary aperture 82, from where the energy portion is guided into output cavity 76 of horizontally-adjacent magnetron
tube 66. Accordingly, reflective elements 86A-B of secondary cross-coupler 86 operate to redirect a portion of the microwave
energy from the output cavity of each of two horizontally-adjacent magnetron tubes into the output cavity of the other
respective horizontally-adjacent magnetron tube. By using symmetric disposition of the other reflective elements with respect
to the other horizontally-adjacent pairs of magnetron tubes, every other magnetron tube in row 68 is then similarly phase-
locked to adjacent magnetron tubes as are 66 and 84. The precise dimensions and disposition of reflective elements 86A-B
(see the description of FIG. 5 below) in combination with the length of waveguides 78 and 90 and any internal waveguide
`tuning` elements (e.g. screws, not shown) should be chosen to produce the desired degree of phase-lock for the horizontal
pair of magnetron tubes 66 and 84.
[0035] The operation of vertically-adjacent phase-locked rows of magnetron tubes can be appreciated with reference to the
following discussion of the vertically-adjacent pair of magnetron tubes 66 and 92. Because magnetron tubes 66 and 92 are
disposed at the end of their respective rows, the respective sidewalls 80 and 94 of their respective primary coupling
waveguides 78 and 96 are exposed and accessible. Thus, magnetron tubes 66 and 92 may be phase-locked according to this
invention by means of a secondary cross-coupling waveguide 98 as follows. Sidewalls 80 and 94 are provided with respective
sidewall apertures 100 and 102 (embodied as, for example, waveguide irises) into the respective output cavity of magnetron
tubes 66 and 92. Secondary cross-coupling waveguide 98, shown in exploded view, is disposed over sidewall apertures 100
and 102 to redirect a portion of the microwave energy radiated from sidewall aperture 100 (from output cavity 76 of magnetron
tube 66) through sidewall aperture aperture 102 into the output cavity (not shown) of vertically-adjacent magnetron tube 92.
Secondary cross-coupling waveguide 98 also redirects a portion of the microwave energy radiated from sidewall aperture 102
(from the output cavity of magnetron tube 92) through sidewall aperture aperture 100 into output cavity 76 of vertically-
adjacent magnetron tube 66. Accordingly, secondary cross-coupling waveguide 98 operates to redirect a portion of the
microwave energy from the output cavity of each of two vertically-adjacent magnetron tubes into the output cavity of the other
vertically-adjacent magnetron tube. When every other magnetron tube in row 68 is phase-locked to magnetron tube 66 and
every other magnetron tube in the row 104 is phase-locked to magnetron tube 84 in the manner discussed above, the phase-
locking of the single vertically-adjacent magnetron tube pair 66 and 92 is sufficient to phase-lock all magnetron tubes in rows
68 and 104; that is, for the entire eight-element array 64. The precise dimensions, adjustment and disposition of sidewall
apertures 66 and 102 (see the description of FIG. 5 below) should be chosen to produce the desired degree of phase-lock in
the vertical pair of magnetron tubes 66 and 92.
[0036] FIGS. 5A-C are front, right side and bottom scaled views of the phase-locked magnetron array embodiment 64 of FIG.
4. FIG. 5B shows one example of the proper disposition of reflective elements 86A-B, which are oriented at about 42.8
degrees from the radiation axis with one end substantially horizontally centered within the respective 3.5625 inch primary
coupling waveguide radiating aperture and extending away therefrom by about 1.927 inches, being otherwise disposed and
dimensioned substantially as shown. For example, section A-A shows elements 86A-B as having an L-shaped cross-section
with a 0.25 inch horizontal width and a 0.125 inch vertical lip. FIG. 5C shows an example of sidewall apertures 100 and 102,
which may be embodied as adjustable microwave irises for convenient adjustment of aperture dimensions, for example. FIG.
5A shows an example of secondary cross-coupling waveguide 98, which is dimensioned and disposed substantially as shown.
For example, secondary cross-coupling waveguide 98 is shown with substantially the same 3.56 inch width as shown for each
for exemplary primary coupling waveguide 78 at magnetron tube 66.
[0037] According to this invention, reflective secondary coupling paths facilitate phase-locking between magnetrons within a
single row and sidewall secondary coupling paths facilitate phase-locking between adjacent rows of magnetrons in a two-
dimensional array of phase-locked magnetrons. The signal portions that couple between magnetron pairs along the secondary
paths may be tuned for desired performance by adjusting aperture and reflector dimensions and by providing tuning screws
(not shown) or the like in the primary-path so that signals of optimal amplitude and phase for inducing phase-locking are
coupled between each magnetron. By means of the secondary coupling paths, each magnetron in array 64 drives adjacent
magnetrons and is, in turn, driven by the same adjacent magnetrons. The net effect is that all magnetrons in the array
behave as essentially identical parallel magnetrons. With the appropriate design and tuning, exemplified by the secondary
coupling element dimensions and dispositions disclosed in FIG. 5, the eight separate radiated primary coupling path signals
are thereby phase-locked to form an output plurality that coherently combines to form one high-power far-field microwave
signal in free-space.
[0038] FIG. 6A is a chart illustrating measured spectral data representing the output signal (at 1.2 m range) from the
waveguide outputs of a second illustrative phase-locked magnetron array embodiment having four magnetrons disposed in a
one-dimensional array without the secondary coupling paths of this invention. Note that the spectral power is spread over a
relatively wide band and significant multiple spectral components are apparent. FIG. 6B is a chart illustrating measured
spectral data representing the output signal (at 1.2 m range) from the waveguide outputs of the same illustrative embodiment
modified by adding the secondary coupling paths of this invention. Note that only one significant spectral component is
apparent, demonstrating that the far-field spectral power is coherently combined within a relatively narrow frequency band.
Thus, comparing FIGS. 6A-6B demonstrates the efficacy of the phase-locking system of this invention.
[0039] FIG. 7A is a chart illustrating measured temporal data representing the output signal (at 1.2 m range) from the
waveguide outputs of the same illustrative phase-locked magnetron array embodiment having four magnetrons disposed in a
one-dimensional array without the secondary coupling paths of this invention. Note that the signal level fluctuates widely within
each pulse interval because of interference (the `beat` effect) among the different radiated frequencies. FIG. 7B is a chart
illustrating measured temporal data representing the output signal (at 1.2 m range) from the waveguide outputs of the
illustrative embodiment from FIG. 6A modified by the addition of the secondary coupling paths of this invention. Note that the
signal level is relatively stable within each pulse interval, demonstrating that the far-field spectral power is coherently
combined (i.e. frequency-locked) within a relatively narrow frequency band. Thus, comparing FIGS. 7A-7B also demonstrates
the efficacy of the phase-locking system of this invention.
[0040] FIG. 8 is a functional block diagram illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a directed energy weapon system 106
employing a phase-locked magnetron array 108 of this invention. As shown, directed energy weapon system 106 includes
phase-locked magnetron array 108 consisting of three-hundred low-cost commercial magnetrons (20.times.15) and a primary
power supply/conditioner 110 mounted on a vehicle 112 for mobility. The high-power microwave output from array 108 is
directed along a predetermined path, in this embodiment, at targets aft of the vehicle as would be appropriate in non-combat
battlefield applications. Although mobile systems of this type are limited by primary generating capacity, pulsed operation at
over 1,000 kW is feasible with appropriate energy accumulators.
[0041] The magnetron array system of this invention is a robust compact structure with far less mechanical complexity than
similar arrays known in the art. The advantages of the system of this invention include reduced complexity, reduced overall
system size, weight, and cost and improved reliability. FIGS. 6A-7B demonstrates that a stable phase-lock is achieved over the
magnetron array without power circulators, magic T's or phase-control electronics. Using eight inexpensive mass-produced
commercial 1.2 kW "microwave oven" magnetron tubes, including two different models from the same manufacturer, to
implement phase-locked magnetron array 64 (FIGS. 4-5), the inventors have measured output power densities equivalent to
that measured from a single, and far more expensive, 20 kW magnetron tube with aperture of comparable dimension. It is an
advantage of the system of this invention that it is scalable to as many magnetrons as power can be provided for. Phase-
locked magnetron arrays of hundreds of cheap commercial magnetron tubes may be embodied for mobile applications using
the system of this invention.
[0042] Clearly, other embodiments and modifications of this invention may occur readily to those of ordinary skill in the art in
view of these teachings. Therefore, this invention is to be limited only by the following claims, which include all such
embodiments and modifications when viewed in conjunction with the above specification and accompanying drawing.
random136 October 31st, 2006, 11:30 AM

I believe David Gunn (nom de plume?) first scratched the surface on the possibility of construction such a weapon in 1996 in
his book The Poor Mans Ray Gun, published by Desert Publications.
The book gave simple cookbook instructions for the inexperienced on how to basically turn a microwave oven inside out and
protect yourself while firing it. Look in the Lots of Rapidshare Links thread for an upload. This however exceeds anything
written in that book giving some solid numbers and facts.
nbk2000 October 31st, 2006, 01:46 PM

Attached are the images from the patent. :)
atlas#11 October 31st, 2006, 02:03 PM

Random, I seriously doubt he mentioned coupling the secondaries of multiple magnetrons to increase the power. These
devices would produce coherent high energy microwaves quite efficiently.
The US military, I'm sure many of you know, is looking to use a microwave dish looking thing to bombard enemy troops with
microwaves to heat the skin and make it impossible to fight. It's currently in development as a non-lethal weapon.
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0721-10.htm,)
(http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001565.html)
The only problem I can see would be the retinal dammage as human eyes lack large enough blood vesseles to keep the eyes
cool during microwave bombardment.
Solution? How to evade the gun? Microwave ovens doors allow you to see through them by having small holes in the metal
shield, as long as the holes are smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves, they can;t get through. 95 GHz would be
pretty small, so you would need, basicaly, to be wrapped in aluminum foil to avoid getting hit.
I have had plans to construct somethign of this nature for quite a while, directed energy sounds like alot of fun. The only
problem is the ammount of power required to run them, you would have to be using grid power to run any more than a few of
them, as batteries would weigh astranomical ammounts. Something cool would be to mount a device with about 50KW of
power on the back of a pickup truck and direct it at your target. Bateries wouldn't last long, but it would have a hell of an effect
on troops or any form of technology. Especialy if the energy is coherent and can be directed in a beam.
Goodwill (local thrift shop/used goods store) has a large selection of microwaves at 10-15 dollars a piece. Perhaps I will buy
three or four of them and play around with this patent. Does anyone know of any good articles or books on microwave energy
and how it is directed? I can't seem to find much information on exactly how microwave physics work.
Thanks for the pics NBK, my quicktime plugin wasn't working very well so that saves me alot of time.
It looks like it would be easier to build than I thought. If anyone has any ambition to build one of these things please share
your results. I'm going to go looking for microwaves possibly tonnight. I will see if I can throw one together for less than a
hundred bucks.
FUTI October 31st, 2006, 02:18 PM

You don't need to have grid power. I'm sure that army thinks about something along the armored car with motor driven
generator which supply the energy to that microwave gun/dish. Now I'm not sure about 50kW can be made that way but...I
never thought about it and naturaly never research it, therefore I don't know is it posible.
atlas#11 October 31st, 2006, 02:38 PM

Woops, forgot about generators. The 50KW, now that I think about it does seem abit impratical. You can get a 6KW diesel
generator for around 2 grand new. That would be enough to run about 5-6 good sized magnetrons and would be enough to
blast someone pretty good.
I was thinking of using a capacitor bank in conjunction with the power supply to give high-power bursts rather than a
contineous thing. The bursts would have a much longer range and be abit more lethal than just a burning sensation.
The military is making use of megawatt sized devices though, so I'm assuming they use a bigger genorator. http://
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8644374/, look at the pic in that one, seems abit scary and alot more expensive than our homemade
idea. One of the articles mentioned development of a man-portable version, thats a technology I'd love to have.
the_twitchy1 October 31st, 2006, 08:31 PM

Another use would be multiple low-power beams converging on one spot inside a target. The low power beams would be barely
perceptable on the skin, but if the convergence is within a delicate part (heart, lungs, brain) it will cook with no pain and no
evidence...
akinrog October 31st, 2006, 10:14 PM

You don't need to have grid power. I'm sure that army thinks about something along the armored car with motor driven
generator which supply the energy to that microwave gun/dish. Now I'm not sure about 50kW can be made that way but...I
never thought about it and naturaly never research it, therefore I don't know is it posible.
I saw a prototype on Discovery channel in one of the episodes of ultimate machines or something like that. There was a
Humwee like truck on which the said device was mounted in addition to many miltary warfare gadgets like IR decoys etc.
However I vaguely remember that the narrator said the cost of the vehicle is about six zero range. Regards.
h2o235 November 1st, 2006, 07:26 PM

Great find megalomania, thank you
Altroman November 2nd, 2006, 01:54 PM

I believe that Atlas#11 has the idea - use an energy storage device like a flywheel (as in a motor-generator) or a large
capacitor bank (actually this is called a pulse-forming network, or PFN).
Think of your targets as you would with explosives: semiconductors have very small thermal mass, and so would be like glass
to the blast, while resistors, wires, batteries, etc. look more like concrete and steel. Thus, a single high peak power pulsed
microwave source (like a high brisance explosive) would blow out the silicon chips while sparing the other components while
consuming low average power.
A continuous-wave (CW) microwave source would heat things much slower just like in your oven, and would be better suited to
delivering a resistor and wire insulation burning dose over many seconds or more, but this would require much more overall
energy to heat all that thermal mass (much like an ANFO charge used to heave tons of earth).
Both are possible using microwaves generated by magnetrons, and would only require a few tens of kW of average input
power.
The publicly disclosed concept using the W-band "people blaster" was to provide a short, high-power pulse sufficient to
overheat only the first mm or so of skin (where most of the thermosensitive nerve endings are) so that the total dose is
insufficient to damage the fragile corneas, but each pulse hurts like hell!
The protective solution to this obvious if you think it through, however it would be bulky and uncomfortable and very difficult to
protest/fight/see using it.
Jacks Complete November 2nd, 2006, 02:53 PM

Use a homopolar generator.
Non-lethal weapons are a required development for the installation of a ruling elite. You can only keep the masses quiet with
game shows and cheap fatty food (bread and circuses) for so long. Eventually, like the miners in the UK or the air traffic
controllers in the US, they get up and talk back. Sure, you can fire them all or use lots of police to crack heads, but that only
works when you still have a big enough stick.
Once people are rioting, you define them as enemy combatants and then use lots of non-lethal weapons on them so they
have no effect.
At that point you seed the press with tales of how close to being shot they were, and that it is a miracle that there were only 3
dead. Then you deal with the ring-leaders, and then you have control.
At the end of the day, if the Bastille guards could have flicked a switch and no-one could have reached the gates, France would
still have a monarchy. If the British Army could have ignored the Minutemen due to Kevlar, and individual soldiers could have
stunned even large crowd situations non-lethally (to start with) then interned them, you would still be paying taxes to us.
This is why this forum is important, and what we learn here doubly so.
As for converting microwaves:

For full effect you want the beam to be coherent. To do this, simply mount each magnetron on a screw adjustment, such that
the individual parts can be moved back and forth by a little over 2 wavelengths, and start with them all at halfway in the travel.
Turn one on, then the next. Adjust one so the beams become twice the power (constructive interference), rather than 0 power
(destructive interference). Repeat with the next one, and so on. Once all ten are acting together, your array will be 10X 650W
= 6.5KW. Use a newer microwave system to get 950 Watts per unit, and 9.5kW of cooking power is yours to command! (You
are likely to need water cooling beyond this point!)
atlas#11 November 13th, 2006, 02:31 PM

Good wills cheapest unit was 20 bucks, Getting a sufficient ammount of these (fairly low powered, around 500w) would cost too
much for me to make good use of.
Still, does anyone know of a good source of info on the behavior of microwaves? I can't seem to find any good info on how
waveguides work and such.

warfare gadgets :) like IR decoys....why would they need that ;)? Maybe heat seeking projectiles come to visit the hot served
dish for dinner...hell maybe even HARMs can hit it.
Maybe they don't need 50kW of power to the device but something like 50kW of "peak power" (I hope that is right word)?
But last night something cross my mind...could phosphoric acid based fuel cell generator with 50kW output be placed inside
the vehicle? They can use same fuel as vehicle.
DyeVad November 14th, 2006, 09:54 PM

Quick everyone get tinfoil lined hats. I find this very interesting. I have never pulled apart a mircowave to even look at the
parts.

Grab freebie microwaves off Craigslist or Freecycle. I used to have three for no real reason. I fixed one, gutted one and
binned one.
A tinfoil hat will help save you. Or at least let others know why you died, due to your being cooked like a roasted ham.
ozboy December 15th, 2006, 08:35 PM

This is slighlty off the topic but, does anyone know about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)?
The U.S. gov. is using it in Iraq , AND against U.S. civillians (rioters?).
Does anyone know how you could defend youself from such an attack?
c.Tech December 15th, 2006, 10:54 PM

Are you sure your not thinking of this http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/03/03/sonic.weapon.ap/ rather than this http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program unless they are the same technology...
Isotoxin December 30th, 2006, 12:04 AM

IIRC NBK was the first(that I know of) to think of the focused microwaves for the traceless "cooking" of brain tissue for killing
or otherwise damaging someone.
I don't have any background in this sort of thing but I have found a book that may help people understand the theory of
microwaves.
http://avaxhome.ru/ebooks/collin_microwave_engg.html
A search of avax will turn up some other books that may also be useful. If one gets a 502 error just try again later. This is in
reply to the guy that couldn't find information on microwave theory.

As far as I know, HAARP is a load of made-up stuff. It sounds good, but it's not going to work in reality. Yes, you can affect
people with microwave weapons, yes, the Aura Borealis exists and is due to the interaction of charged particles with a magnetic
field, causing low frequency EM waves. However, there is no possible way that you could modulate or change or direct them.
It's like saying the amazon could be blocked to affect the ocean. Even if you managed such a huge task, the effect would be
tiny, if not unmeasurable, anywhere not immediately affected.
If anyone disagrees, let me know, and I'll go through the maths & physics and see what I find.
junk12 June 13th, 2007, 05:58 AM

Recently I came across this: "Neighbors attack themselves with manipulated ovens. The radiation penetrates through walls
and leads to heavy health damage."
-http://www.poolalarm.de/forum/messages/22.html
-english machine translation: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poolalarm.de%2Fforum%

2Fmessages%2F22.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8
and
-http://www.regentreff.de/messages/22976.htm
-english machine translation: http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regentreff.de%2Fmessa

ges%2F22976.htm&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8
It is relatively old material (2002) and has even older references, but still interesting. If anyone has any recent similar articles,
please share it. Even better, if stuff is in pure none translated english :) .
The idea of building "gun" with features of a microwave is attractive, but it is wise to have some hard fact, before one starts to
put together such a dangerous device.
In a Poor man's ray gun there is explained how to use magnetron from microwave and somewhere even theoretical
background is given, but still some vital/useful information are left out, such as, what is the shape of radiation
(cone,cylinder,...) and it's dimension, how intensity is fading with distance (my engineer feeling: with square root), how (if
possible) to enhance power output, and so on.
junk12 June 17th, 2007, 02:28 PM

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/587507/microwave_technology_homemade/
I didn't figure it out, why is necessary glass cover at the output.
Do glass lense works the same for microwave as does for lightwaves (nanowaves)?
By the way, NBK2000, I couldn't open rar file you have attached in this thread. It's always downloaded and have 0 KB size.
++++++++++++
Someone needs to pay more attention to the announcements at the tops of every section that says "Regarding Attachments",
created by yours truly. NBK
PS: Soda lime and pyrex glass are transparent to microwaves.

Junk12 - I don't know if there is a material that can "focus" microwaves, but you can use metal to deflect, reflect and get
interference patterns on microwave transmitters.
Have a look in a thread about making nitric acid with microwaves. I believe one of the members hypothesised a way to focus
microwaves, etc.
Edit: Here (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=5661&page=2&highlight=nitric+acid+microwave) is the thread.

Look for Al Sheik Yerbuti's posts.

You can focus microwaves with waveguides and reflectors. Pyrex and borosilicate glass is not completely transparent to
microwaves because they contain some metal oxides, and their tan delta changes with rising temperature, but for practical
purposes they are transparent. Quartz glass is the most transparent to microwave energy, and for that reason it is
preferentially used in microwave reactors.
You can melt regular glass in a microwave by creating a hot spot with a blow torch. The permittivity drops like a stone and the
hot glass will absorb more and more microwave energy until...
In a similar way ice is actually rather transparent to microwaves, but the hotter it gets the more microwave energy it absorbs.
Boiling water absorbs more energy than at room temperature.
Since I happen to have every book published on microwave chemistry sitting next to me, here are a few tan delta figures for
"transparent materials." For those of you wondering what tan delta is, it is the ratio between the ability of a material to convert
microwave energy to heat divided by the transparency of a material to microwave energy at a particular frequency. The higher
the tan delta, the better a substance will be at being heated in the microwave.
quartz: 0.6 x 10-4

phosphate glass 46 x 10-4
borosilicate glass 10 x 10-4
plexiglass 57 x 10-4
water: 0.12
As you can see regular glass absorbs almost 77 times more energy than quartz glass. These figures are for 2.45 Ghz and
room temperature
It is interesting to note that the optimal frequency for water is actually 20 GHz, optimal being the frequency of microwave
radiation where water has the lowest permittivity. The reason we do not want an optimal frequency for food cooking is because
the penetration depth drops to almost nothing, this is called the skin effect. All we would do in a commercial microwave oven is
heat the outside of a cup of water, or our mashed potatoes, while the inside would still be cold. That's the same thing a
convection oven does.
I bring this up because a microwave tuned to 20 GHz should make for a more effective weapon precisely because of the skin
effect, as in burning human skin instead of cooking one's insides. All those delicious nerve endings are in the skin, and
cooking that part of the body would make for a painful weapon. A 21st century flame thrower.
I just had another thought. Lets say you had some guards holding up inside their armored car, and you want them to politely
exit the vehicle and turn it over to you. For some reason they won't get out, so you fire up the microwave gun. Zap zap zap,
right through the window it goes, unimpeded by the reinforced glass, and conveniently being absorbed by the meat bags
inside. I also wonder what would happen if you stuck the business end of a microwave emitter into a gun port of an armored
car. That big rectangular metal box seems to be just the perfect housing to bounce around all the microwaves, being absorbed
by any meat bags in the back.
nbk2000 June 19th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Armored glass is composed of one of three materials; Glass, polycarbonate or acrylic plastic and a laminated layer of polyvinyl
butyryl.
Are all of these materials transparent, to what degree, and what effect does unequal adsorption have?
junk12 June 20th, 2007, 03:41 PM

I also thought, that glass in general is transparent for microwaves, but when I saw video (my previous post), where "shooter"
with glass at magnetron's output aims and shoot at "human target's" hand and he (target) feels pain/burning only in his hand
I began thinking, that microwaves and light waves aren't so different (only difference is wavelength and even that is very close
together) and that maybe there is possibility that lens glass (with some admixture), works with microwave similar, as glass
lens for light. In video only thing that was added at magnetron's output was metal (aluminium?) tube and glass. Now, how
come that microwave didn't disperse when they came out of metal tube, but did remain in "beam scope" and hit only target's
hand?
Megalomania: I think, that weapon is more effective if microwaves penetrate through skin and cook vital organs (brain, heart,
...), rather than just tan the skin. At least if the purpose is not just to drive a way demonstrators.

All three of those materials are more or less transparent to microwaves, by more or less I mean with a penetration depth of
several feet. Glass is the lowest with a penetration depth of 35 cm, and the other materials seem to have a penetrations
depth of several meters. Polymeric materials are still not good at converting microwave energy into heat, so they don't get
very warm except after extended bombardment. Their tan deltas are all down in the 10-4 range.
If you attached a microwave gun directly to a windshield and wiggled it around (to chase the squirming driver) any local
heating of the glass would quickly cool in a matter of seconds. Keep in mind the absorption of microwave energy goes up
(transparency goes down, tan delta goes up) the hotter the glass gets.
I would say you would have to irradiate glass for hours at high intensity to get it to the melting point unless you use a
blowtorch to create a hotspot first.
There may be some concern with microwave reflection from the back of the drivers cabin in something like an armored car.
The closed in cabin being metal is right behind the driver, so any microwaves not absorbed by the meat bag would get
bounced back out. A simple wire mesh screen placed over the windshield would take care of that problem quite easily (with a
hole for the microwave emitter).
Ones desired need for a microwave weapon may differ. I was thinking in terms of immediate value to cause pain as soon as
the weapon is fired. It may take some time to actually cook someones organs before they would be incapacitated, so in an
urgent tactical situation that would not help you save your skin. A compromise would be to reduce the frequency slightly down
from the optimal 20 GHz to increase the penetration depth a few cm. A brief but massively powerful burst from a microwave at
any frequency could end up doing a fair bit of damage.
nbk2000 June 20th, 2007, 08:53 PM

Rather than wiggling the gun around, what about widening the beam to encompass the entire drivers compartment from a MW
gun on the hood?
I certainly wouldn't want to be squatting on the hood while holding a MW sterilizer. :eek:

With a properly designed horn on the business end that would be easy to do. Building a microwave horn is rather simple I
gather, I have been looking into them as of late. It should be as simple as calculating the angle of a triangle. Set the device
on the hood a few feet in front of the windshield, step around to the door to await the drivers exit, and press cook :)
megalomania August 16th, 2007, 01:03 AM

Starting August 30 to September 4 the government liquidation website has an auction for 4 pallets of used microwave ovens
weighing in at 3,704 pounds worth of equipment. If anyone has the cash and wants to make the microwave weapon a reality,
this might be the opportunity to get started. There must be at least 75 microwaves at this weight. The old ones are damn
heavy as my recent acquisition of 4 surplus microwaves from a junk day taught me. The pictures feature what look like newer
models, which are much lighter as my box rattling at walmart taught me. I am on a microwave spree for chemical reactors, so
I have come to know the zen of all things cheap microwave oven.
Here is the linky
LOT (APPROX 3700 LBS) 4 PLTS MICROWAVES SUCH AS: EMERSON, MICRO FRIDGE, & AMANA, MUTILATION NOT REQUIRED AS
CONDITION OF SALE.
http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=1332205&convertTo=USD
Auction Type: Internet Auction Open Time: 08/30/2007 12:00AM Eastern Time Close Time: 09/04/2007 05:00PM Award Time:
09/05/2007 12:00AM Eastern Time Time Left: 19 days 17 hours and 9 minutes Current Bid: $0.00
Item Location: 3012 MISSISSIPPI ST. Bldg 3212 A
Great Lakes, IL 60088 Facility Manager: Site Manager Facility Email: info@govliquidation.com
monkeyboy September 8th, 2007, 01:39 AM

This post is for the people asking the more "basic" type of questions.
You expert can ignore it, or correct my inaccuracies, as you see fit.
I know quite a bit about audio, and have a basic grasp of microwaves.
Basically, it is a helmholtz resonator. A cavity is tuned to a specific frequency. When energy of that frequency is applied, you
get a whole lot more out than you would normally expect. Blowing across the mouth of a pop bottle is a good example. As you
adjust the frequency, you come across the one that makes it whistle, man is it loud!
Microwave ovens oscillate at about a frequency of 2.45 GHz, a wavelength of 12.24 cm (4.8 inches). Not really what I would
term micro, but I guess in comparison to LW=1-10 km, or MW=100 M-1 km, or SW=100 M-10 M that is pretty micro. Light is in
the 400 to 700 nm range, I think that would be written as 0.000000400 meter, that's micro!
As far as the wave guides, I think it would be similar to audio, where you want it to be a multiple of the resonant (or Q)
frequency in cross section. Too small & you degrade the wave, to big & it gets lost in there.
The horns I built for my speakers flared out on a curve with a radius = 1/4 of the wavelength of the Q of the box/speaker
combo. This GREATLY improved the efficiency of the speakers.
I took a college chemistry tech class about 30 years ago where we got to play with raw, unshielded microwaves. We made
them jump over little fences made from copper clad circuit board. played with discovering where the troughs and peaks in the
wave were & then using ones with stripes, we played with the effects of polarization. If I remember correctly, some of the guns
had a radial pattern & some had fairly flat patterns.
Oh yeah, it does degrade using the inverse-square law...
pangos_59 September 6th, 2008, 05:40 PM

rapidshare.com/files/143184713/foi-weapons-prot-2005.pdf.html

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Caselman Air-powered Machine Gun
Log in
View Full Version : Caselman Air-powered Machine Gun
aikon November 4th, 2006, 10:08 AM

While visiting the Luty's website I stumpled over a new part of his page
where he describes an improvised air gun. If this is true I can't w ait to
see the plans.
Does anyone know more about the Caselman gun?
'http://ww w.thehomegunsmith.com/CaselmanAPMG.shtml'
EDIT:
Minutes after w riting the above I discoverd that page:

'http://ww w.ladonegro.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5876&sid=73249c3a2a5df6bb3db37ae9f1a4abcd'
There's a link to the plans as w ell!!! :)

'http://ww w.supervirtual.com.br/acervo/pdf/00/000000VIRUSES000EXE000/survivalism/000_New_Nasties_000/caselman_amg_blueprints.pdf'
inventorgp November 4th, 2006, 09:56 PM

Wow, thanks aikon.
I saw Luty's site last night and couldn't be bothered to find the plans, thanks!
WARNING (for dial up users): 27.54MB
A mixture of propellant based mechanics and pneumatics.
FragmentedSanity November 13th, 2006, 10:04 AM

Just wanted to add my thanks for those plans.
This is a really nice looking unit. A quick summary of the main features -
It claims 30 high pressure shots per fill, or up to 150 if your just plinking (requires a lighter spring to be used). Claims power is similar to a .32acp. 30 round detachable mag and
a two stage trigger for semi/full auto firing.
McDonald December 7th, 2006, 02:48 PM

URL was dead.
This one should work:
http://ww w.instructables.com/id/F93HKE2RLQES9J51EX/
oxbeast December 10th, 2006, 06:38 AM

I see Luty is selling the plans now. Strange since the South American guy was on about how they should be free to the public. Having said that, the project pictures from the
New Zealand gunsmith are interesting. If he supplies better detailed blueprints w ith the plans, then they may be worth the money.
The w hole idea of homemade, big bore airguns may just start driving the cops nuts.
sharpshooter December 11th, 2006, 10:55 AM

I'd like to say thanks for the plans, I think I shall have a go myself, but I'll try to make it more aesthetically pleasing, maybe with a bit more w ood furniture.
b00mslang December 14th, 2006, 09:23 PM

I spoke w / Jeff Caselman in the mid 90's and he never even mentioned that the plans were ever even available. I took notes during our conversation and if I remember
correctly he w anted something like $1,200 U.S. to build me one.
I was in the process of purchasing a Farco pneumatic shotgun from Air Rifle Specialists and they w ere the people that turned me onto Jeff Caselman. This is the first I've actually
seen of any photos but it is pretty much as he discribed it.
I wound up purchasing a Brigand from Dennis Quackenbush and I would highly recommend his products due to the w orkmanship, pricing, performance and service after the sale.
If anyone comes up w / a copy of the Jeff Caselman video that goes w/ the blueprints I'm sure we'd all like a copy.
TIA
oregon-machinist December 19th, 2006, 04:40 AM

I'll add my thanks here as well, as that is a project that Really interests me... being a machinist oriented person! :rolleyes:
Bugger December 21st, 2006, 06:49 AM

http://ww w.supervirtual.com.br/acervo , mentioned above, which used to have about 25,000 files at one stage, mostly English but also many in Portuguese and other
languages, has been out of action for at least a year or tw o. However, before they went away, I dow nloaded almost everything of real value.
b00mslang April 9th, 2007, 10:32 PM

It w ould be nice if any members that have a copy of his video and better scans w ould share them.
soikedubois April 29th, 2007, 06:34 AM

I'm working on a caselman amg rebuild . Slow ly , very slooowly , but I'll get there eventually .
The pics on luty site are by me btw . But now that he's selling the plans , he won't get any more . Keep the net free !
If someone who has looked at the plans understands the trigger mechanism , I'd like to discuss that .
I'd like to modify it to have a full auto / selective / burst option.

soikedubois, you mean you took the photos, or that you designed it?
Pretty big claims, either w ay.
And if you are the guy who took the SMG photos then reported him to the cops, you deserve a kicking.
Some proof might be a good idea.
soikedubois April 29th, 2007, 04:48 PM

@jacks Complete : I don't understand . I can't see my own post , but obviously you can .
You can't see your own posts, but a moderator can, because your posts w ere not yet approved. NBK
Anyway ;
The "new zealand gunsmith" pictures luty is show ing on his site are parts made by me on my lathe . Pictures were send to him cause I needed a soulmate to discuss certain
parts and techniques .
I' m not a gunsmith , but a talented amateur .
Little did I know he was gonna sell plans instead of distributing them like Mad Abe intended .
And no , I didn't report anyone to the cops :)
I didn't sayd I designed the gun , that credit goes to Mr J. Caselman only .
And he did a tremendous job , believe me .
But I've studied his plans , cad redraw n many of them , converted to metric adapted to parts I can obtain over here and made a start building the gun .
I'll be converting it to airgun pellets because of availability and because of legal stuff round here .
Right now the project's on hold , I'm converting my mill to cnc .
If you want proof , tell me where to send a picture of the parts I've already made . I'll put a piece of paper behind displaying a text you choose .
Jacks Complete May 1st, 2007, 11:16 AM

I thought I had approved it before replying. Ah w ell.
You could happily post a pic of whatever part you want, perhaps a part completed one, and sign it to us at RS. Or just show us the CAD plans, I'm sure that there are many
here who w ould like a copy!
soikedubois May 2nd, 2007, 07:00 AM

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t179/soikedubois/caselman/valve.jpg
Here's a picture of the firing valve , with a sign with my name on it , today's date and roguesci.org .
That OK as proof ?
Luke
Basement Builder May 4th, 2007, 08:03 AM

soikedubois
I have just started a build of the Caselman. I am working on item #5, Firing valve holding area.
The Caselman is a second project I am working on w henever I run at of material for the Low Temperature Differential Stirling Engine I am building. Therefore my Caselman
build is going slow .
I have looked at the trigger group info and would discuss anything you w ould like.
soikedubois May 8th, 2007, 03:37 PM

Basement builder ,
do you think the trigger assembly is capable of selective fire .
Or is it full auto or nothing .
I would very much like to be able to switch between selective/full auto . But that's gonna require modifications to the trigger assembly , and I'm not quite familiar with that .
Also , caselman welded hif firing valve assembly to the breechblock .

Don't knwo if that's a good idea.
Might cause warpage of the breech and or the valve .
So I intend to modify it to use some kind of bracket and an O-ring to attatch the valve .
I've also used a red copper seal instead of heavy plastic .

This is because I'll probably be using CO2 , and CO2 eats plastics for breakfast .
Oh and btw , do share some pictures of progress w ill you
Luke
tomu May 9th, 2007, 05:51 AM

@soikedubois
The trigger is a tw o stage selective fire trigger.
Pressing the trigger only to the first stage moves down the disconnector (part number 44, PN 44) and the sear (PN 45) is pulled dow nwards by the groove in the front of the
disconnector and releases the striker. On recoil the striker moves back and disengages the the disconnector which enables the sear to move upwards and catch the striker (PN
9).
Pressing the trigger down the whole way pulls the sear down as described but it also moves the hook shaped front of the full auto sear trip upw ards.
Upon pulling the trigger the first time the striker (PN 9) moves forward and fires the weapon on recoil both the bolt (PN 17) and the striker move backwards the sear goes up
and catches the striker and the bolt moves allthew ay forward pushes a projectile from the magazine into the breach and on on reaching it's end of the forward movement the
brass overlay (ring around the bolt body) trips the front hook projection of the auto sear trip lever w hich moves dow n and pushes the sear down with the pin (PN 41). This goes
on as long as the trigger is hold alltheway down.
Hope this helps.
soikedubois May 13th, 2007, 04:31 PM

I see . Now I understand. Yes that makes sense.
So a simple lever locking the trigger in it's first position could already do the trick. To secure the gun in selective mode only. More like a legal issue for me then a must have.
Thanks , and w atch this tread for progress. Although it'll take a month or two more before the mill 's operational again.
tomu May 15th, 2007, 06:35 AM

@soikedubois
What you want is semiautomatic fire not selective fire. Selective fire capability let's you choose betw een firing a single shot or burst fire, for legal considerations you need to
install a semiauto only trigger. Which is simple.
You just leave out the auto sear trip lever (part number 41) completely, that's all and the gun is only capable of semiauto fire. No other alterations are needed nor would they
make any sense.
Have fun!
Basement Builder May 23rd, 2007, 08:02 AM

Well I finally had some time to work on some more components last night. My w ife has the camera visiting her family, so no links to pictures -- sorry.
I completed the follow ing items last night:

3 - Firing Valve Seat
4 - Firing Valve Body
I am still working on 5 - Firing Valve holding Area. I am having a tough time drilling out the 9/16 diameter hole in the steel w ith the inxpensive drill bits I have. I sw itched from
drill bits to a boring bar but I do not have one long enough. Soikedubois, was your part #5 made from steel. It almost looks like aluminum in the pictures.
I ordered some 3/32 drill rod for item 2, Firing Valve stem, but they sent me 7/64. So this is on hold a little longer. I have some 3/32 steel rod, but I assumed I needed
something like O1 steel so I could harden it.
I plan on trying to make item 7, Firing Valve Spring guide, tonight. It says 22 ga. on the drawing and if I remember right, 22 gauge material is about 0.029 inches thick.
Therefore I was assuming that the spring guide is hollow. Can anyone confirm
I also received my O1 tool steel for 9, Striker, so I may look at starting that this week also.
Another question for everyone. The barral called out is a Select 311 bottom groove. Can anyone give my an information on this item.
Verbatim September 1st, 2007, 03:37 PM

The extremely rare Casleman video.
5min and 2 min clips.
Shows it sawing a 2x3" timber in two.
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=POCGiy5VpxI
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=HUKxO03HlOM
Regards,
nbk2000 September 2nd, 2007, 08:36 AM

Unfortunately, the linked file for the complete plans and video is corrupted at .95MB, out of 65MB, making it useless. :(
Defendu September 3rd, 2007, 04:09 PM

the linked file for the complete plans and video is corrupted at .95MB
I downloaded it perfectly and re-upped it to Megaupload:

http://ww w.roguesci.org/theforum/showpost.php?p=94541&postcount=695
http://ww w.megaupload.com/?d= S9J3GDQM
Corona September 3rd, 2007, 06:34 PM

Both, the dow nload and the file, were fine (I'm talking of the link on YouTube).
You normal-click on the link (no right-click/save as) and you end up on a horrid little page written in some extinct language. It does have an input box where you w rite the
passw ord, "caselman", and you get the file.
It is a zip file with a PDF inside which contains 2 YouTube videos as attachments.
nbk2000 September 3rd, 2007, 09:16 PM

Yes, I tried that, getting the password prompt for the dow nload, entering the password, and getting dropped at .95MB of the file, every time. :(
Perhaps you could upload it to the FTP instead?

Perhaps you could upload it to the FTP instead?
OK...
I'll put it in the open in the upload folder on TMP's ftp. I'll say here when it is done.

Breakfast is served....
It's in TMP's upload folder, out in the open, no sub-folder, "caselman plans with videos.pdf" - 63 MB.
I would've said it much earlier but the forum w asn't accessible.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Gamo PR-15 360 m/s lead ball .177
Log in
View Full Version : Gamo PR-15 360 m/s lead ball .177
JAS November 12th, 2006, 07:26 PM

Hi everybody! Please be nice to me, English is not my main language. :)
I had a old Gamo BB-gun that was kind of lame. Thougt I'd tune it up!
I stripped down the gun totally and flipped the barrel so the 'chamber' pointed backw ards into the gun. (Many of the airguns on the market has a bigger hole in the end of the
barrel to prevent damage to the rifling. On this particular gund this 'chamber' is very big, and can be used to fill with energetic materials.)
With the barrel flipped, I reinforced the loading block in the back of the gun w ith a steel plate, cause it was made of some composite material that w ould easily melt when I
fired the gun.
With all that fixed and lined up I installed a 9V battery where the pressure chamber used to be, and installed a 'click' sw itch connected to the trigger.
To load the gun, I open it as usual, but instead of traditional pump action I load the 'chamber' w ith a bullet and after that a mix of PYRODEX and a tad of aluminum(to speed it
up a notch). I put a thin twinned line of steelwool inside the chamber with the end of the wires in such a position that it connected to the circuit when I closed the gun. I have
tried other high resistant element wires of different kind but the steelwool seems to light faster.
When I first testfired the gun I clocked the bullet with a chronograph to 360 m/s, this was with pure pyrodex. When I added the aluminum it went out of scale.. ERROR.
Probably around 400 m/s. Thats about 1312 feet per seconds!
I have now tried different mixes and I pre-load some kind of homemade cartridges of tissue paper so the loading of the gun is kept as simple as possible.
I have documented some of the rebuild and can upload pictures in a while if anyone is interested!
It may sound like a difficult task but it is not that hard. Took me ten hours to get the basics done.
This gun stances nicely cut holes in an 1mm steel plate! Good for a ten year old toy pistol!
stupid939 November 12th, 2006, 11:30 PM

I am sad to say that this may be the first banning I have been around for.
You should have read the rules before joining the forum and starting a post. If you are going to start a fresh post, and you are new, you should have something really important
to share.
Personally, I think that this would be an OK post if you provided pictures and a more detailed description, but the admins may have a different opinion. If I was you, I w ould put
up some pictures and describe it in more detail. You may still have a chance of staying around here, and good luck.

If you can provide pictures, and improve your grammar in the future, than all will be forgiven.
Otherw ise...
JAS November 13th, 2006, 07:34 AM

If you guys give me a couple of days I'll make a proper write-up with pictures. As for the spelling, I think I'll come in to it. It was some time ago I w rote or spoke english. I'll do
my best since this is the only forum of its kind around.
I posted this because I thougt it was a fairly simple conversion other may like to hear about and I had nothing useful to contribute with in the w atercooler.

I would be interested in seeing something similar to this 'http://www .ctmuzzleloaders.com/mlexperiments/electric_ml/electricml.html' but in a more easily replicated design. The
problem I see with your design, as with most electrical ignition sources is how to set off the charge. Steel wool is at best a primitive means, and sparks won't ignite pyrodex.
Also, how is the chamber sealed?
file November 13th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Maybe a coiled fillament like in a lightbulb might work to ignite the pyrodex

I'm sure it would, the problem isn't ignition, any hot coil of wire w ill do that fairly well. The problem is replacing the ignition source with each shot. Without a reusable/self
contained ignition source w e are no further ahead than a matchlock rifle. How ever as the link I've given demonstrates the hot gas erosion problems provided by such a system.
If they were relatively simple to produce, I wouldn't see a system that lasted 100 or so shots before needing to be replaced as such a hassle for the hunting of small game.
Any form of ignition where the element burns out after one shot and requires replacement is asking for trouble w ith accuracy, which I would think should be in the region of 1.5"
or less from the point of aim at 50m, or around about 6MOA.
mydnight December 6th, 2006, 06:27 AM

I have no idea if this would w ork, or if it w ould be destroyed during the firing process, but would glow -plugs for a diesel engine w ork well? They are designed as re-usable
electrical ignition sources.
Cobalt.45 December 6th, 2006, 06:06 PM

Along that same line, a glow plug from a model aircraft engine would be much smaller, reusable, and cheap.
ShadowMyGeekSpace December 7th, 2006, 11:47 AM

One problem I see with the w hole thing, is pyrodex leaves behind residue(lots of it) that could interfere with the igniter.
festergrump December 7th, 2006, 12:18 PM

I think a glowplug would be impractical because it would require too much time for it to heat up enough to ignite the propellant. (and people think flintlocks had a delay!).
Remember, the old deisel engines that used glow plugs required turning the ignition switch to the ON position for a good while before turning over the engine. This was because
they took a long time to heat up.
The smaller glowplugs Cobalt mentions might work better, but once you took your first shot you'd be a fool to load more BP or Pyrodex onto a hot glow plug for the next shot.
The steel wool idea w ould be slightly better as it burns up upon ignition and more would need to be fed in for the next shot.
The only thing I can think of better than this for ignition w ould be a percussion cap, and SMGS's thoughts about residue left behind w ould interfere alot more with such a small
bore. Most folks who shoot frontstuffers give the bore a wipe after every couple of shots to remove the fouling, and that's with 1/2" bores or larger even! .177 is gonna foul out
alot faster.
My thoughts are to just start over and build yourself a muzzleloader from the ground up. Can't be all that expensive. I kind of hate the idea of that modified breech plug/
mechanism failing and launching right towards your face, too. (doubt you'll be set up to chronograph THAT projectile!).

And, with electrical ignition (via a resistance-type element scheme) will make the "lock time" so long that accuracy w ould surely suffer.
Truth be know n, the w hole idea is somewhat lame, but w ho knows w here the next good idea may come from?
Often, brainstorming things such as this w ill spaw n an idea that has applications outside of the intended area of inquiry.
mike16 December 7th, 2006, 01:34 PM

I have a .22 cal break barrel air rifle w hich has been transformed to fire 30grain pellets using plain guncotton inside the barrel and a disposable nichrome wire attachment for
ignition, and then a breach plug behind that.
When the barrel is closed it is locked with a 4mm steel bar pushed through a hole drilled in the breach block.
The barrel is about 6mm thick DOM type, its a Weihrauch rifle and will hold a lot of pressure.
It uses A 6V 750mAh rechargable battery w ired to a tw o stage trigger, when fired it has no noticible lock time, it fires instantly when the wire on the back of the trigger touches
the wire behind it.
The nichrome wire ignitor is designed to be completly disposable and is replaced after each shot.
I have yet to test accuracy and I do not know the velocity I'm getting.
I'm using about half a gram of guncotton for each shot, it sounds a bit louder than a .22WMR

I think a glowplug would be impractical because it would require too much time for it to heat up enough to ignite the propellant. (and people think flintlocks had a delay!).
Remember, the old deisel engines that used glow plugs required turning the ignition switch to the ON position for a good while before turning over the engine. This was because
they took a long time to heat up.
It takes a long time to heat up because the glow plugs are used for heating the precombustion chambers of the diesel engines. Otherwise w hen they are energized they almost
immediately glow s with the major drawback that they need an enormous amount of current for glowing. Regards.
stupid939 December 7th, 2006, 04:56 PM

I found this link on another thread.
http://ww w.geocities.com/elmgrove1765/
The guy who made this 4-shot pistol used model aircraft glowplugs and he said that they ignited "A bit slow - about 0.25-0.3 seconds."
He stated that if you cleaned the the plugs carefully, you can get up to about 15 shots per plug. Of course he used a CR123 lithium battery, so it takes a little while for the plugs
to heat up. So, you can use them, but they may not be as easy to maintain.
festergrump December 7th, 2006, 06:21 PM

It takes a long time to heat up because the glow plugs are used for heating the precombustion chambers of the diesel engines. Otherwise w hen they are energized they almost
immediately glow s with the major drawback that they need an enormous amount of current for glowing.
It doesn't solve the problem of loading the powder for the next shot, but it DOES pose a challenge for proper current, though, and also reinforces my thoughts on delayed
ignition. Hmm... yet another obstacle for this avenue of ignition nobody'd yet mentioned... the 9V current simply won't do. :(
The four-shot pistol that Stupid refers to might allow the plugs to cool down enough for a reload, but then again, there also is the delay problem staring us in the face.
I agree with Cobalt that from discussion comes invention (though it might relate to something entirely different in nature, or so I interpreted part of his post) and discussing this
might work out for the best, somehow . :cool:
If there's ever been a great collection of minds all partial to one objective or idea... I think RS is the place to hash them out. ;) You cannot re-invent the wheel but you certainly
can improve upon it. The best question to ponder is: Is the BP rifle/pistol/cannon where to return to in history to promote improvements or should w e be looking more tow ard
what we now have available technology w ise?
I thought this thread began as a somewhat lame attempt at hurting oneself with a shitty pelletgun and some BP substitute... :eek: Please, people, help prove me w rong.

I think that electrical ignition of any propelant is posible. It could provide faster firing rate (thats my opinion) of ammo and military would be very happy to have that, but fact
that you need to make a ammo posible to "ignite" under relatively low voltage/current doesn't look like safe procedure to me. So i think that already is described in some place
we didn't look so far, forgotten as unsafe as hell process.

I have a .22 cal break barrel air rifle w hich has been transformed to fire 30grain pellets using plain guncotton
That would take care of the residue problem, and might have good power to boot.
So, with a small glow plug or steel wool and a "hot" battery, and highly nitrated gun cotton for propellant, a rifled barrel shooting a 30 gr. pellet, we've almost made up
something that probably wouldn't hold a candle to a .22 short.
But, the thing is, something just as "jury rigged" as this could: Put food on the table, put an assailant in the ground and wouldn't be "visible" to law enforcement, as it doesn't
exist as far as the BATFE is concerned.
It sure would be better than nothing. This, along with a bow and arrows, a sling, a sling shot, a fishing pole and a frog gig could keep a fellow eating damn good around w here I
live!
Mr Clemensen March 25th, 2007, 05:11 PM

I had a old Gamo BB-gun that was kind of lame. Thougt I'd tune it up!
...
This gun stances nicely cut holes in an 1mm steel plate! Good for a ten year old toy pistol!
I never thought an airgun like this would be able to manage that kind of pow er, I would very much like to see your pictures of this modification, just for the fun of it.
festergrump March 26th, 2007, 04:50 PM

Think I'll be eating a few of my own words, now!
http://ww w.cva.com/products/rifle_electra.htm
Not just some basement/garage idea, anymore. This ignition system is past R&D, in production now, and uses... a 9 volt battery. :o
I want very badly to take one of these apart and see how exactly it w orks, however, I lack the $458 at the moment. I'd probably find out that it w orks on the mini-glowplug
idea, too, much to my further chagrin...
Keeping in mind the "hot glowplug + fresh powder = BAD idea" thoughts, a certain TV commercial for a battery pow ered soldering iron comes immediately to memory:
http://ww w.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/heat_cold_soldering_set.html
Hmm, "Three seconds and cold to the touch" is not bad at all! :cool: It'd take me at least that long to measure out another charge for it.
tomu March 28th, 2007, 12:12 PM

This might be of interest to anyone intending to build an electrically fired BP gun:
http://ww w.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/electric_ml/electricml.html
Another link to the patent claim of the CVA "invention":

http://ww w.freshpatents.com/Electronic-ignition-system-for-personal-black-powder-firearms-dt20050901ptan20050188872.php
It looks like a cap-discharge system to me nothing really exiting.
And I w onder if this little gadget w ould be usefull in getting the BP going:
http://ww w.technologie-entwicklung.de/Gasturbinen/KJ_Starter/kj_starter.html
Look for "The Zapper".
How about using a Dazer like this as an ignition system:
http://ww w.uoguelph.ca/~ antoon/circ/hv/dazer/dazer.htm
mike16 April 20th, 2007, 03:31 PM

This post is to describe how my "converted" air rifle works using my nichrome wire igniters I have described in another post.
Summary:
>22 cal, it fires 30 grain "piledriver" pellets back to front so they are hollow point. (I use pellets because jacketed bullet heads are very expensive here in the UK).
>It uses highly nitrated, fast burning guncotton pressed into an aluminium case which is sealed into the breach with a steel breach plug, only some, maybe 5% of the hot
propellant gasses escape out of the breach.
>The priming system is electronic, I have two wires behind the breach which are connected to the wires on the nichrome igniter, when I pull the trigger back to the second
stage, it presses a small button which sends the current from a 9v battery to the nichrome wire, immedietly igniting the guncotton.
OK, firstly here are pictures of making the cases:
Guncotton:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture007-1.jpg
Some nichrome igniters:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture008-1.jpg
The aluminium cases w hich are 40mm long:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture009-1.jpg
A igniter is primed with guncotton by threading a peice through the nichrome loop:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture011-1.jpg
The igniter is then stuck to one end of the case w ith a small peice of selotape:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture013.jpg
The case is then rolledaround itseld to a diametre of about 5mm:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture015.jpg
The case is filled with guncotton by pushing it into the case:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture019.jpg
And the back, when the case is full I stop adding guncotton:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture021-1.jpg
Here are some finished cases:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture026.jpg
I would guess that each case is filled w ith around 4-5 grains of guncotton, I don't know exactly as I don't have a weighing machine.
Here is a picture and a diagram of what the setup looks like in the bore:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture023.jpg
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/rifle1.jpg
The barrel plug:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture024.jpg
The pellet:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture025.jpg
To load the rifle, the pellet is put into the breach then pushed about 2.5 inches into the barrel with a small screw driver, then the case and barrel plug are pushed into the barrel
behind the pellet.
Here is a diagram and pictures of how it works:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/gundesign.jpg

Case is pushed into the breach:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture031-1.jpg
then pushed right into the barrel:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture032.jpg
The barrel plug goes in directly behind it, and pushed in:
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture034.jpg
The breach plug is a tight fit onto the bore, so its a good seal.
The barrel is then closed and the two wires connected:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture039.jpg
Here is a picture of the trigger unit with:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture041.jpg

When pulled back the 1st stage, it touches the button, when pulled back more, it presses the button which fires the rifle:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/
Picture042.jpg
Pictures of two used cases, notice how they have expanded from the pressure of firing:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture049-1.jpg
Here are pictures of the rifle:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture046-1.jpg
After firing the rifle, you open the barrel and pull out the old case to reload, sometimes the taped wires get detached from the case, so I use a small hook to stick inside the
barrel and pull them out.
As I have don't have a chronograph, I don't know exactly how fast these pellets are going, but w hen I fire the rifle, I can hear the sonic crack, so I'm geussing they are probably
moving at aroung 1500ft/s.
The accuracy is not perfect though, at close range within 50 yards, I can hit w ithin 3 inches of the target.
mike16 April 22nd, 2007, 05:05 PM

After I completed my converted air rifle, about 2 months ago using the electronic ignition system, I thought what if I used this lightw eight low voltage ignition system on a new
device, maybe something smaller, maybe a pistol design.
I was lucky enough to have 16 inches of spare .22 calibre german made air rifle barrel, which I decided to cut into two sections, one was 7.2 inches long and the smaller was 5
inches long.
Here is a picture of the tw o barrels:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/1Pictureofbarrels.jpg
After the barrels were cut, the muzzle was filed and polished with a file, and the muzzle crow n w as cut w ith a large drill bit.
Here is a picture of the muzzle:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture007-2.jpg
Anyway I found a plastic toy pistol, took it apart and cut a few bits inside so that I could fit a 9volt battery inside the handle and the barrel could slide into the top.
Here is a picture of the plastic pistol taken apart ready to be reassembled and have the w ire stuck on:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/
3Startingmaterials.jpg
The barrel slides into the plastic pistol and is a tight fit to prevent it from falling out:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/14Barrelslidingintoplace.jpg
Here are more pictures:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/15Barrelinplace.jpg
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture015-1.jpg
The trigger works exactly like that on the rifle, but uses bare copper w ires instead of a push button, as I do not yet have any spare push button switches:http://
i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/17trigger1.jpg
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/18trigger2.jpg
The firing mechinism works exactly like the converted air rifle, with a case inside the barrel full of guncotton, a breach plug behind that, but as the breach end of the barrel in this case is
exposed, I have drilled a 4mm hole 3mm from the end of the barrel , so that I can fit a steel breach plug stopper to keep the breach plug from being fired out the end of the barrel from
the pressure upon firing.
Here is a diagram and picture to help describe this:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/4Planofdesign.jpg
This design uses slightly shorter 35mm cases full of guncotton and fires the same 30 grain pellet, Here is a picture of the case and setup:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/
s300/kpppppk/5Pictureofdesign.jpg
Here is a picture of the breach plug and breach stopper:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/7Breachplugandstopper.jpg
The breach plug is 5mm w ide, made from part of a 5mm steel drill bit and is a snug fit inside the barrel.
Here are pictures of the loading procedure:
Case pushed inside barrel behind pellet:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/8Casepushedinsidebreach.jpg
Breach plug pushed into the barrel behind the case:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/10breachplugpushedinbehindcase.jpg
Breach plug pushed 10mm into the barrel and the plug stopper is pushed into the hole so that it is directly behing the breach plug:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/
kpppppk/11Breachplugpushed1cmintobarrel.jpg
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/13.jpg
The safety sw itch is checked and the two wires connected tone the igniter.
Here is a picture of the rifle and pistol together, with a few ready to use cases:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/Picture032-3.jpg
One thing I like about this pistol is that it is all plastic, only the barrel is the metal part, and the barrel can be sw itched w ith a new one or simply removed from the plastic casing
very easily and quickly, it simply slides out.
Here is a video demonstrating the barrel removal:http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/?action= view &current=Interchangablebarrels.flv
Here is a video showing how the guncotton ignites when the trigger is pulled:
http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/kpppppk/?action=view&current=GuncottonIgnition.flv
All of the pictures and a complete document w ith pictures has been uploaded to rapidshare.com :
Pictures only:
http://ww w.rapidshare.com/files/27311968/Pistol_plans.rar.html
http://ww w.rapidshare.com/files/27167812/Rifle_Pictures.rar.html
http://ww w.rapidshare.com/files/27211136/nichrome_igniters.rar.html
Here is the link to all three completed documents with pictures included w ithin the documents for the nichrome igniters, rifle pictures and pistol plans:
http://rs142.rapidshare.com/files/27349010/guncotton_projects.rar
Soon I will get some videos uploaded of the rifle and pistol firing.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Flexible Baton
Log in
View Full Version : Flexible Baton
Red Beret November 15th, 2006, 07:37 AM

I wasn't sure what to call this, but flexible baton is OK for now.
It's a concealable, cheap, effective people whacker.
To make it;
Take a length of garden hose 30-40cm is good, (thats what I used, other hose will work) and seal one end, either by heat sealing it shut, or bogging it with resin or car body
filler etc. Make sure it's secure.
Next fill the hose with lead, in the form of shot, sinkers or whatever you have on hand. When the hose is almost full, seal up the open end in the same fashion.
Put a few wraps of duct tape on one end to form a grip, and that's it.
You may wish to add lead only down one end, and fill the rest with lighter filler (pressed tissue paper etc), to add to the "whipping effect", but I find this method works well
enough.
Something else I have done is, put a few short nails through the hose along it's length, secure them in place. I used "knead it" steel to secure it in place.
It's nothing fancy, but anyone can make it, it's easily hidden down your trousers, up a sleeve etc, and if fucking hurts. A few well positioned strikes should drive the point that
you want to be left alone.
Nothing to write home about, but another tool in the tool box. Let me know what you think.

The same can be done with parachute cord braided in a square braid, but instead of lead shot I've used very large ball bearings.

'http://www.donrearic.com/impacttools.html'

I wasn't sure what to call this, but flexible baton is OK for now.
It's a concealable, cheap, effective people whacker.
Whats the matter, a gym sock full of pennies not good enough for you? That costs a less than a dollar including the pennies! :D
Nah, I'm just kidding, it sounds like a good idea.

Surely two feet of lead pipe is easier?
Red Beret November 16th, 2006, 01:03 AM

Yes, two feet of lead pipe would be easier, but, this weapon is flexible and lighter, allowing for quick snappy follow-up shots, whilst still being heavy enough to pack a fair
puch. Plus it's more concealable.
Hitting things with a solid metal pipe can be hard on the hands. Which is why I thought up this. When you strike with this, it flexes, providing longer target contact and allowing
you to follow through cmpletely, thus delivering more energy to the target.
Charlie Workman November 16th, 2006, 02:23 AM

British thugs have long used a similar weapon made from a piece of heavy steel cable or wire rope. They wrapped it in tape to keep the wire ends from unraveling. They called
it "Flex". I believe the cable was one inch diameter or larger.

-Gidget

Long live the kosh.
Actually lead shot can be used to weight all sorts of things, I've also seen baseball caps with some sheet steel in the brim (with blade edge ofcoarse) shot in ties, detachable
pockets etc.
Good thread

I saw on Discovery Channel a show where they compared old hand weapons mostly Chinese and Japanese origin sticks, blades etc. I was amazed by deep analysis they done,
not just simple physics like force on impact, sweep area, momentum etc., but also control of weapon, amount of energy transfer and stuff that talk about weapon usefullness.
If you look that show you could pick few usefull ideas about how to design good handheld weapon for your purpose.
Alexires November 17th, 2006, 07:41 PM

Yeah, I saw that one too FUTI, and I was pretty impressed...
Until they reached the conclusion that the Katana and the Shuriken were the best weapons.
The Katana I can understand, but there was no calculations done for Shuriken.
At the end of the show, they compared a bow to a Shuriken and said the Shuriken won?
Bullshit.
On another note, where they had all those people in a choreographed fight with the weapons was pretty cool.
c.Tech November 17th, 2006, 11:07 PM

A good soft flexible material that can be used for not only a mouldable weapon but also body armour and other uses is the material inside rib caps which is soft and mouldable
under normal conditions but as soon as any pressure is applied (a strike to the head) the material hardens.
It can be moulded into pointy shapes, around your knuckles or into a bar, the best bit is it wouldnt look like a weapon if you were searched on the street because
nobody knows it will go hard on impact.
'http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/051204_ribcap.html' here is an article on the material and its use in sports protection.

You can do this with cornstarch paste. See http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xUyRHM4eto as an example. You'd have to put it in a tube.
Red Beret, I don't think you have handled a lead pipe. Hold it as hard as you like, and whack something. No vibration, it simply deforms. Very heavy, a great stunning
weapon, it will easily break an arm.
Charlie Workman, I've not seen that in general use ever, but a few feet of steel armoured cable is a nasty weapon, it's about 3/4" thick. I've also seen weird things like a
spring from a chair, 1/2" thick, steel, still covered in fabric. Hits hard, but also very flexible. Very rigid until it starts to bend, then it flexs easily. I've also seen car aerials and
6mm earth wire used.
Going back to the original post, I'd suggest having a little air space so it stays flexible, and also drill and pin the end cap, or it will likely spew it's contents out if you do a long
overhead strike.
c.Tech November 18th, 2006, 07:28 PM

That corn starch looks a little weaker than what I use to play with as a child, maybe they added a bit much water.
Sorry for going a little off topic here but how about cornstarch bullets the same as ruber bullets? Put them behind a charge and when they blow out they will form balls (big and
small) which would harden on impact.
knowledgehungry November 20th, 2006, 05:27 PM

Red Beret, I believe that your device would be more aptly named, "Homemade Black Jack" as that is what your weapon sounds like.

Yes, home made blackjack would be more accurate, it's probably closer to that than a baton.
Jacks Complete- Thats true I haven't handled handled a genuine lead pipe, we don't have them here (in common use). I see your point, no vibration, just bends and absorbs
shock.
In regards to the ends being pinned, I did that on the second one I made, waited 'till the steel putty was almost set, and put a self tapper in.
C-tech, I have made one of those "corn starch" rounds, in 12g. Just made it up (the paste) and placed a plastic bag corner in an opened up shell, poured the slurry in, twisted,
sealed, then closed up the shell. Couldn't find anyone to test it on, or anyone who would fire at me. A little different to what you mentioned but same principal. I imagine the
12g type would be a decent non lethal round, perhaps a little dangerous? In non lethal terms I mean. :rolleyes:
Cindor November 24th, 2006, 08:23 PM

It can be lethal if it hits you in some areas of your chest (like your heart).

A simple punch to the chest, if it arrives in the right fraction of a second, will stop your heart dead. There is a 15ms time window every heartbeat!
Nothing is "100% non-lethal". Even nothing!
What might be interesting would be to take a bike chain and run it up and down the insides of a jacket. This would only flex in one direction, so blocks of a blade would work
fine either way, and stopping a bat or strike would work very well one way, and less so the other. With a few moments to free it, you then have a bike chain to hit people
with, or use as a 'duster.
random136 November 28th, 2006, 03:25 AM

Jack's Complete, while I see how your chain idea would fend off an edged weapon (by the same principle that chain mail functions), I fail to see how it would hold up against
a blunt weapon such as a bat. Physics tells us that the energy absorbed by one object will transfer to another object when one collides with another. The bat would just beat
the chain into your anatomy, especially considering that the chain does not exert a uniform pressure on your body, what with the rings having narrow edges and all.
The use of a chain as a weapon however, gets my total respect; especially if you choose to weigh down the ends of that chain. Theres a reason why nunchakus have
become illegal in many jurisdictions around the world. When used properly, even a humble pair of wooden nunchakus held together with horse hair or leather strips (like the
nunchakus of old) could exert more pressure per centimeter squared then most modern hand to hand weapons.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Fire Extinguisher Paintball Gun
Log in
View Full Version : Fire Extinguisher Paintball Gun
mgmtrtms November 19th, 2006, 01:54 AM

I was reading this idea http://www.rotteneggs.com/r3/show/se/176885.html, and thought it was great, basicly it was a paintball gun made from a fire extinguisher (fire
extinguishers being illegal in my hometown of Australia). However, It would be very expensive, fire extinguishers are expensive, and getting them refilled could be auquard
when theres a barrel attached to it. So I had this idea that you could refill it, with air, using an air compressor, instead of co2. I cant think of any reason why it wouldnt work.
But how would you go about doing this? Any help would be highly appreciated.

An interesting idea, and good for those people living in really fucked up places where the sheeple are bleating for banning anything not toddler proof.
Improve your grammar in the future and you'll have a future here too. ;)

Sorry, but fire extinguishers are illegal where you live? WTF? I wouldn't suggest refilling a fire extinguisher with air, I doubt it would be very good and you would have to go
very high pressure to store enough volume of air. Unlike CO2 which is liquified in the cannister due to the pressure, and then changes state to gas when the pressure begins to
drop, correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, a standard car tyre-type compressor won't reach high pressure, I think there is a limit around 250psi or something similar. Last time I looked RWS/Dianawerk/Daystate
offered a compressor to refill PCP airgun cylinders to high pressures at around 400 in the UK. However, they don't remove much moisture from the air, and the last thing you
want is rust on the inside of your steel cylinder.
Then, you'd have to consider a valve mechanism to withstand these pressure, not in itself too difficult but linking it up with a trigger and making it failsafe could be challenging.
Up to the job? Or a nice idea that isn't going to be of much use? I'll let you decide.
Skean Dhu November 19th, 2006, 08:22 PM

Why go through all of the trouble to use a Fire extinguisher ? You don't need 800PSI of CO2 to send a paintball 300+ FPS downrange. This handy program allows you to plug in
the dimensions of your launcher and it spits out all of the theoretical fun facts.
http://www.thehalls-in-bfe.com/GGDT/index.html
After installing and meddling around a bit becuase I wanted to mess around in the program and I was feeling generous. I came up with these build specs for a paintball gun,
that dosen't require high pressure CO2 gas to operate.
Parts list
-2" PVC pipe
-electronic sprinkler valve
-0.7" tubing
-air compressor
-neccesary fittings to put it together
-paintballs/ other .7" diameter objects
Barrel dimensions: 0.7" diam x 29" length
Resevior dimensions: 2" diam x 4" long
fill PSI: 40 PSI @70*f Muzzle velocity: 219 FPS Muzzle energy: 6.6 Ft*Lb
fill PSI: 70 PSI @70*f Muzzle velocity: 361 FPS Muzzle energy: 17.8 Ft*Lb
fill PSI: 100 PSI @70*f Muzzle velocity: 462FPS Muzzle energy: 29.3 Ft*Lb
These specs were tweaked for optimum performance. In case you decide to try your hand at this, I'll save you some trouble and give you some numbers.
paintballs weigh on average less than 3.5g I put in 4g to play it safe since I only looked at one site. In the calculation program unless you are using a specially made valve just
use the 'generic' setting in the drop down menu.
After you make this launcher you may want to try your hand at a barrel sealing valve. But for just a simple paintball launcher to impress your freinds with and annoy birds, this
will suffice. For optimum performance I would pneumatically modify the sprinkler valve so it can be tripped via a blowgun.

Couldn't you buy/rent a bottle of CO2 to refill the fire extinguisher? Or failing that couldn't you jury rig a CO2 filler from an air pump, dry ice and a container for the dry ice?
billybobjoe November 20th, 2006, 11:28 PM

Or put the dry ice and let expansion do the rest. Are bandages and gauze banned in your area? I mean you COULD asphyxiate some one with them.
ozboy November 21st, 2006, 04:04 AM

CO2 fire extinguishers are NOT banned in OZ.
I think you're getting confused with the BCF (Bromochlorofluoromethane) (Yellow) fire extinguishers.
FragmentedSanity November 21st, 2006, 08:27 PM

I kinda thought he meant to say paintball guns were banned, they aren't illegal however - you just require a firearms licence, and all that goes with having said licence; Aussie
gun laws have been covered in a few places here.
I find the idea that fire extinguishers are banned in your hometown somewhat strange - I've never been one to claim our government was doing a great job or anything but
not even politicians are silly enough to put a blanket ban on fire extinguishers. If on the other hand, by some leap of idiocy fire extinguishers were banned, why would you use
an illegal item - ie already more difficult to acquire and a liability if discovered - to produce yet another illegal item (the "paintball gun").
Unless Ozboy was right and your talking about a certain type of fire extinguisher - the best way to make a fire extinguisher illegal would be to stick a barrel on it as suggested
as you'd then be breaking firearms laws.
Chris The Great November 22nd, 2006, 05:52 AM

A compressor from a fridge should charge the thing over 500psi without a problem. I think they can reach upwards of 750psi.

If you really want to use extinguishers to propell things, and are worried about getting them refilled, steal them.
I personally wouldn't go to so much effort, but it eleminates the problem of refilling. Do you want rapid fire? If not, consider a P.A.C.-Pressurised Air Cannon.
There are other methods of using compressed air to propel projectiles, but it all depends on whether or not you require portability and a practical item, to use and carry.
brother john November 30th, 2006, 02:53 PM
I was talking to a fellow at a welding supply store I do business with a while back about refilling an empty CO2 fire extinguisher [FE] that a neighbor gave me. I'm wanting to
refill it myself as in the U.S. it is required to be hydrostatic tested each time they are refilled. Most tanks don't need tested but every 10 years or something like that. FE's are
the only tanks I've heard of that get every time. I didn't see any problem with doing my own refill but wanted some advice from a professional. The two fellows there saw little
danger in doing so either due to in the process I would have a certain amount of volume not being filled in the FE as I will be using a 50 Lb. cylinder as the source. It simply
won't completely fill. Instead of 20 Lbs. on the fill I might only get 15 Lbs. which is fine with me.
The trick to achieve is a high-pressure hose with one end having the tank connection,which is easy, the other other end whatever it takes to connect to the extinguisher which
could be a bugger. With two FE's that are the same you could rob the parts you need to make up the hard end. There's probably no problem with simply putting CO2 back in
the same place it came out.In this case the barrel or where it attaches?
The fill is made by getting the two tanks situated with the source tank upside down or at least at like a 45* slope with the valve on the low end. The contents are a gas above
a liquid. You want to transfer the liquid into your FE, not the gaseous part. Connect the two with the transfer hose, open both valves, and wait until you can't hear it anymore.
Close the valves, diconnect the hose, go shoot paintballs.
Propane is transferred in the same manner. Also it is a gas above a liquid. I use a hydraulic hose from some machine to transfer it.
I have CO2 to use on my MIG welder.It's inexpensive and works just fine for welding steel.
Skean Dhu's idea with the air sounds pretty good. Compressed air is way easier to come by than CO2. You could try the air and if it doesn't have enough oomph then move on
up to higher pressure.
One plus I can see for the CO2 is that it will take much longer to run out.

If you can unscrew the handle from the tank, you could simply pour a weighed amount of crushed dry ice into the tank, and screw the handle back in, letting it warm up to
pressurize the tank.
No need for regulators or tanks. :)
Just make sure that the tank has been heated and purged with dried air to remove all traces of moisture from the tank before adding the dry ice.
Skean Dhu December 1st, 2006, 12:01 AM

After reading NBK's post I got curious as to how economical that would be for someone to do.
So after consulting the internet I came up with a few things that kind of surprised me. I was expecting it to be a rather pricey endeavour (in the long run ) for someone to
continualy use dry ice to (re)fill a fire extinguisher. However from the few sites I looked at it looks to be a very economical method even in the long run.
When I had more time and money and spent both on paintball, it was considered a good deal to get CO2 for $0.08-0.10/ oz.
With dry Ice I was able to find it at $0.04/oz(5lb block) and $0.12/oz, the latter site having a minimum order size of 12lbs and a $15 service/delivery fee.
So aside from dry ice being more economical for the causual experimenter it seems to be (from my limited research into the topic) cheaper in the long run aswell. The initial
setup costs for a CO2 rig is around $100, that gets you a 5lb tank of gas, and a regulator(those used for pressurizing kegs can be found for 30-50 dollars on ebay, which
regulate down to 0-60psi). It also costs (according to the below site) around 10 bucks to fill a 5lb tank.
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/diy_co2rig.htm
So basically, if you can locate a source for cheap dry ice and are able to screw the valve back onto the tank easily and quickly, it will save you some money to go the route
NBK suggests.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > The battery powered flamethrower
Log in
View Full Version : The battery powered flamethrower
DeathBlade D e c e m ber 1st, 2006, 12:48 AM

I'm currently in the process of finishing up instructions, and editing the pictures.
Untile there finished just check out the v i d e o s o n y o u t u b e .
'http://www.youtube.com /profile?user=DeathBlade556'
(btw does an yone know of a g ood FREE pdf writer program so I dont have to leave this a .doc) The c o m p o n ets are listed below.
1x lite-weight tank I used a can from colm a n f u e l ( 1 g a l )
1x a 12 volt windshield wiper pum p (fo r the front windshield they usually have a higher output)
1x 12 volt gellcell or two 7.2volt rc car batteries in series
1x 5/8" nc 13 nut
1x 3-5 feet of 1/4" fuel hose
1x valve with 1/8" to 1/4"
1x 1/4" barb to 1/8" to 1/4" p i p e t h r e a d s
1x pushbutton switch
and misc. electrical connectors and wire soldering iron etc.
Jacks Complete D e c e m ber 4th, 2006, 11:20 AM

Download pdfwriter from software995, or use OpenOffice.org, where you can simply hit "PDF" and save it as a pdf.
Uraijit D e c e m ber 5th, 2006, 08:10 PM

W hat are you using a s a f u e l ?
crosseout D e c e m ber 6th, 2006, 10:26 AM

T h e m o v i e s l o o k a w e s o m e! is there any way to increase or decrease the range though?
sharpshooter D e c e m ber 11th, 2006, 11:09 AM

T h e m o v i e s l o o k a w e s o m e! is there any way to increase or decrease the range though?
Surely if a higher pressure could be increased then then range could be increased as well, also using a tighter nozzle m ight
increase pressure too .

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Another(and often overlooked) aspect
of Forensic Science [Lethality of Edged Weapons]
Log in
View Full Version : Another(and often overlooked) aspect of Forensic Science [Lethality of Edged
Weapons]
Isotoxin December 22nd, 2006, 02:07 AM

In what way does it concern us - users and makers of weapons; more specifically the "stopping power" of edged weapons
While many here read forensics books and have some idea of the science as it applies to crime scene investigation one of the
other applications of the science may be less well known - but just as(if not more) valuable.
I came upon these articles located here:

The Dubious Quick Kill (http://classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php)
Part 2 (http://classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php)
However, as we all know, things on the net have a way of vanishing and so here are the articles quoted below.
Just note that, while the article is directed to fencers and people interested in what swords could do it doesn't take much(if
any) effort to read between the lines to see how this applies to knives.
The Dubious Quick Kill, part 1

Sword wounds and the circulatory system
by
Maestro Frank Lurz
Frank Lurz bio
The enemy before you consistently carries his guard a bit high. Is it carelessness, or is he baiting you? You effect a small step
backward and, just as you had hoped, your opponent attempts to close the measure. His leading foot begins to lift from the
ground when, with the speed of a lightning bolt, you suddenly straighten your sword arm and direct a feint toward the man's
flank, just under his hand. Seized with panic he parries wildly, but the hostile blade finds only thin air. With perfect timing
you've eluded his parry and, disengaging to the high line you drive a killing thrust, with a vigorous lunge, deep into your
antagonist's chest. To your surprise you feel almost no resistance to your blade as it disappears beneath the fabric of his
blouse. Stunned, the hapless swordsman freezes in his tracks as he realizes in that instant that his life on this earth is over.
"La!" You deftly pull your weapon out of the man's body and, triumphant, you are about to turn and leave the ground when, to
your amazement, your foe recovers himself and returns to the guard! Eyes wide and mouth agape, you stand motionless in
disbelief and, in that brief interval of inaction, the dying man desperately lunges forward, in one last heroic effort, and runs
you through. You stagger briefly and then begin to fall; seconds rush in to arrest your fall and terminate the combat. They
cradle you in their arms and, although your vision begins to blur, you look up to see the expressions of anguish and
desperation on their faces. As consciousness ebbs away a last thought runs through you mind: "This isn't how it was in the
movies!"
The foregoing scenario, while in itself a fiction, broadly describes the outcomes of numerous duels, and almost certainly more
than many of us interested in such things might expect. For those of us who have taken up the courtly weapon with more
interest in fencing than just its practice as a sport, such outcomes might well seem disquieting; after all, we've been taught
that fencing tempo lies at the heart of every attack, defense and counterattack. If we deliver our thrust one or more tempi
ahead of our adversary, we're doing just as our maestri told us--aren't we?
How do we reconcile fencing theory with the anecdotes passed down through history? Can we trust what was reported by
seconds and the principals who survived? How credible is the "evidence?" Take for example the case of the duel fought in
1613 between the Earl of Dorset and Lord Edward Bruce.1 According to the Earl's account, he received a rapier-thrust in the
right nipple which passed "level through my body, and almost to my back." Seemingly unaffected, the Earl remained engaged
in the combat for some time. The duel continued with Dorset going on to lose a finger while attempting to disarm his
adversary manually. Locked in close quarters, the two struggling combatants ultimately ran out of breath. According to Dorset's
account, they paused briefly to recover, and while catching their wind, considered proposals to release each other's blades.
Failing to reach an agreement on exactly how this might be done, the seriously wounded Dorset finally managed to free his
blade from his opponent's grasp and ultimately ran Lord Bruce through with two separate thrusts. Although Dorset had received
what appears to have been a grievous wound that, in those days, ought to have been mortal, he not only remained active
long enough to dispatch his adversary, but without the aid of antibiotics and emergency surgery, also managed to live another
thirty-nine years.
Never happen in a thousand years? Maybe. After all, Dorset himself told the story. If fishermen tend to exaggerate, surely
duelists will. However, consider the duel between Lagarde and Bazanez. After the later received a rapier blow which bounced off
his head, Bazanez is said to have received an unspecified number of thrusts which, according to the account, "entered" the
body.2 Despite having lost a good deal of blood, he nevertheless managed to wrestle Lagarde to the ground, whereupon he
proceeded to inflict some fourteen stab wounds with his dagger to an area extending from his opponent's neck to his navel.
Lagarde meanwhile, entertained himself by biting off a portion of Bazanez's chin and, using the pommel of his weapon, ended
the affair by fracturing Bazanez's skull. History concludes, saying that neither combatant managed to inflict any "serious"
injury, and that both recovered from the ordeal. One could hardly be criticized for believing this story to be anything more than
a fiction.
While the previous tale seems amazing enough, hardly anyone can tell a story more incredible than that witnessed by R.
Deerhurst.3 Two duelists, identified only as "His Grace, the Duke of B " and "Lord B ", after an exchange of exceptionally
cordial letters of challenge met in the early morning to conduct their affair with pistols and swords. The combat began with a
pistol ball inflicting a slight wound to the Duke's thumb. A second firing was exchanged in which Lord B was then wounded
slightly. Each then immediately drew his sword and rushed upon the other with reckless ferocity. After an exchange of only one
or two thrusts, the two became locked corps a corps. Struggling to free themselves by "repeated wrenches," they finally
separated enough to allow the Duke to deliver a thrust which entered the inside of Lord B 's sword arm and exited the outside
of the arm at the elbow. Incredible as it may seem, his Lordship was still able to manage his sword and eventually drove
home a thrust just above Duke B 's right nipple. Transfixed on his Lordship's blade, the Duke nevertheless continued,
attempting repeatedly to direct a thrust at his Lordship's throat. With his weapon fixed in His Grace's chest, Lord B now had no
means of defense other than his free arm and hand. Attempting to grasp the hostile blade, he lost two fingers and mutilated
the remainder. Finally, the mortally wounded Duke penetrated the bloody parries of Lord B's hand with a thrust just below Lord
B 's heart.
In the Hollywood swashbucklers this scene might well have have ended at this point, if not long before, but real life often
seems to have a more incredible, and certainly in this case, more romantic outcome. Locked together at close quarters and
unable to withdraw their weapons from each other's bodies for another thrust, the two stood embracing each other in a death
grip. At this point the seconds, attempting to intercede, begged the pair to stop. Neither combatant would agree, however, and
there they both remained, each transfixed upon the blade of the other until, due to extensive blood loss, his Lordship finally
collapsed. In doing so, he withdrew his sword from the Duke's body and, staggering briefly, fell upon his weapon, breaking the
blade in two. A moment later, the "victorious" Duke deliberately snapped his own blade and, with a sigh, fell dead upon the
corpse of his adversary.
Numerous similar accounts begin to make a case the prudent swordsman cannot afford to ignore. It would appear that
delivering a thrust or cut to an opponent, without falling prey to his own blade in turn, may not be so very simple and easy a
thing. If one is skillful (or fortunate) enough to accomplish this feat, how long after inflicting a wound with a rapier, sabre, or
smallsword can one's adversary continue to pose a threat? Does the type of wound have any meaningful effect on the length
of time during which a stricken foe may continue to deliver a killing cut or thrust? To prevent the opponent from executing a
counterattack, delivering a riposte or renewing an attack, where and how might one strike to take the adversary immediately
out of the combat?
Dynamics of Stabbing and Incising Wounds
Death from stabbing and incising ("cutting" or "slashing") wounds is mainly brought about through five mechanisms: massive
hemorrhage (exsanguination), air in the bloodstream (air embolism), suffocation (asphyxia), air in the chest cavity
(pneumothorax), and infection. Of these, exsanguination is the most common, with hemorrhaging confined principally to the
body cavity because stabbing wounds tend to close after the weapon is withdrawn.4 The amount of blood loss necessary to
disable totally an individual varies widely and may range from as little as one-half to as much as three liters.5
To reach a vital area it is first necessary to pass the blade through the body's external covering and whatever else lies
between, and with regard to techniques in swordsmanship, an important consideration is the degree of force required to pass
through intervening structures in order to reach vital structures with a sword-thrust or cut. In France, in 1892, this issue was
raised during a trial conducted as a consequence of a duel fought between the Marquis de Mores and a Captain Meyer.6 The
question arose on account of an accusation that the weapons used in the duel were "too heavy."7 While two physicians, Drs.
Faure and Paquelin, testified that it did not require great strength to inflict a wound similar to that which took Captain Meyer's
life, there was some difference of opinion expressed by a number of fencing masters called to testify on the matter of
acceptable weights of weapons, and the force required to employ them in the delivery of a fatal thrust.
Even today, prosecutors trying homicide cases involving death by stabbing will sometimes attempt to convince juries that a
deeply penetrating stab wound serves as an indicator of murderous intent by virtue of the great force required to inflict such
wounds. It is generally accepted today among experts of forensic medicine, however, that the force requisite to inflict even a
deeply penetrating stab wound is minimal.8 This opinion would seem to be supported by the experience of a stage actor who
inadvertently stabbed a colleague to death during a stage performance of Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet. The unlucky
young man delivered a thrust at the very moment his vision was inadvertently obscured by a member of the cast. Although he
claimed to have felt no resistance, a post mortem examination revealed that he had penetrated the chest of the victim to a
depth of eighteen centimeters.9
Except for bone or cartilage which has become ossified, it is the skin that offers the greatest resistance to the point of a blade.
In fact, once the skin is penetrated, a blade may pass, even through costal cartilage, with disquieting ease.10 Generally, of
the factors governing the ease of entry, the two most important are the sharpness of the tip of the blade and the velocity with
which it contacts the skin. While the mass of the weapon is a factor in penetration, the velocity of the blade at the moment of
contact is of greater importance, since the force at impact is directly proportional to the square of the velocity of the thrust.11
Unlike injuries inflicted with pointed weapons, the depth of cutting wounds, produced by the edges of weapons like the sabre or
rapier, is governed by a somewhat different set of dynamics which include the radial velocity of the blade at impact, its mass,
the proficiency with which the blade is drawn across the body upon contact, and the distance over which the force of the cut is
distributed. The greatest depth of penetration in many of these wounds is found at the site where, with maximum force, the
blade first makes contact. As the edge is pushed or drawn, the force of the cut dissipates and the blade tends to rise out of
the wound as it traverses the body.12 In the case of cutting wounds directed to the chest, the total force required to reach the
interior of the chest is greater than that for a point thrust, not only because the force of the stroke is distributed across the
length of the cut, but also because of the likelihood that the blade will encounter greater resistance afforded by the underlying
ribs and the breastbone (sternum).13
Wounds to the Heart
Because exsanguination is the leading and most frequent cause of death in stabbing and incising wounds, it is not
unreasonable to direct our attention initially to wounds to the cardiovascular system and further, to consider the evidence
provided by the medical records and coroners reports of the current era. Let us first begin with a brief review of human
anatomy. In an adult, the heart is approximately twelve centimeters long, eight to nine centimeters wide at its widest point,
and some six centimeters thick. It is encased in a membranous sack, the pericardium, and rests on the upper surface of the
diaphragm, between the lower portions of the lungs and behind the sternum. The organ is divided into four chambers: the left
and right atria and the left and right ventricles. It is comprised almost entirely of muscle, and serves a vital function as a
pumping mechanism to distribute blood throughout the body. It is unattached to the adjacent organs, but is held in place in
the chest cavity, suspended by the pericardium and by continuity with the major blood vessels. The muscular walls of the heart
are supplied with blood by the the right and the left coronary arteries, each of which bifurcates into a series of subdivisions.14
Because the heart is a vital organ, it is generally thought that a serious injury to the heart will result in instant death.
Consequently, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the duelist expected a thrust to his adversary's heart to disable him
immediately. While swordplay done in earnest is now a thing of the past, a wealth of information regarding stab wounds to the
heart has been accumulated in recent times by the practitioners of modern forensic medicine. Many of these wounds have
been inflicted with instruments very much like the blades of rapiers, sabres, and smallswords and the means by which such
wounds have been treated, combined with assessments of the injuries through the sophisticated discipline of forensic
medicine, reveal some surprising truths with which many duelists most certainly had to deal.
While a stab wound to the heart is a grave matter, numerous instances of penetrating wounds to this organ have been
documented in which victims have demonstrated a surprising ability to remain physically active. In 1896 a case was reported in
which a twenty-four year old man was stabbed in the heart. Despite a wound to the left ventricle which severed a coronary
artery, the victim not only remained conscious, but was also able to walk home.15 Much later, in 1936, a paper was presented
to the American Association of Thoracic Surgery in which thirteen cases of stab wounds to the heart were cited. Of these, four
victims were said to have collapsed immediately. Four others, although incapacitated, remained conscious and alert for from
thirty minutes to several hours. The remaining five victims, thirty-eight per cent of the total, remained active: one walking
approximately twenty-three meters and another running three blocks. Yet another victim remained active for approximately
ten minutes after having been stabbed in the heart with an ice pick, and two managed to walk to a medical facility for help.16
In another instance a report cites an impressive case of a man stabbed in the left ventricle. Despite a wound 1.3 centimeters
in length, the victim was able to continue routine activity for some time and lived a total of four days before expiring.17 In
1961, a survey conducted by Spitz, Petty and Russell included seven victims stabbed in various regions of the heart. While
none of these people expired immediately, some were quickly incapacitated. Five were not, however, and one victim, despite a
2 centimeter slit-like "laceration" located in the left ventricle, managed to walk a full city block. After arming himself with a
broken beer bottle, the victim finally collapsed while in the act of attempting to re-engage the individual who stabbed him.18
The amount of time elapsing between a stab wound to the heart and total incapacitation of the victim is dependent upon the
nature of the wound and which structures of the heart are compromised. In the light of the cases cited in the preceding
paragraphs, one may expect that a penetrating wound to the left ventricle, such as that which would be inflicted by a
smallsword, may not necessarily bring a combat to a sudden conclusion. Blood in this chamber of the heart, at the end of
ventricular contraction (end-systole), may reach pressures as high as one hundred twenty millimeters of mercury or more,19
especially during combat, and one might reasonably expect blood under such pressure to escape readily through a breach in
the ventricular wall. The walls of this chamber are comprised almost entirely of muscle tissue, however, and are exceptionally
thick. As a consequence, the left ventricular wall has the potential to seal itself partially through the contraction of the muscle
tissue immediately surrounding the site of the wound. While the end-systolic pressure in the right ventricle normally amounts
to only eighteen percent that of the left, wounds to the right ventricle are far more likely to be quickly fatal because the
thickness of this ventricular wall is only a third that of the left ventricle and is, consequently, less able to close a wound.20
With respect to penetrating (stabbing) wounds to the heart the location, depth of penetration, blade width, and the presence
or absence of cutting edges are important factors influencing a wounded duelist's ability to continue a combat. Large cuts that
transect the heart may be expected to result in swift incapacitation due to rapid exsanguination,21 and immediate loss of
pressure, but stab wounds, similar to those that might be inflicted by a thrust with a sword with a narrow, pointed blade may
leave a mortally wounded victim capable of surprisingly athletic endeavors. Knight cites a case of one individual who, stabbed
"through" the heart, was still able to run over 400 meters before he collapsed. Yet two more striking cases are also reported of
victims who survived wounds to the heart, one of which is described as, "a through-and-through stab wound of the left ventricle
that transfixed the heart from front to back."22
Wounds to the Major Thoracic Blood Vessels
The vital area located in the center of the chest is not occupied by the heart alone. The large thoracic blood vessels converge
with the heart in such a way as to present an area nearly equal in size to that presented by the heart. Consequently, a sword-
thrust that penetrates the chest but fails to find the heart may nevertheless pierce or incise one or more of these large
vessels.
Normally, blood pressure in the major arteries located in the chest (thorax) averages approximately one hundred millimeters
of mercury, with a maximum pressure of some one hundred twenty millimeters at end-systole. Subdivisions of the aorta
greater than three millimeters in diameter offer little vascular resistance. Consequently, the average blood pressure in these
vessels is nearly the same.23 Since the thoracic arteries confine blood under considerable pressure, and because the walls of
these vessels are relatively thin, compared to the walls of the ventricles, punctures or cuts in these vessels may allow blood to
escape quite rapidly, depending on the size of the opening. The major thoracic arteries then, are more vulnerable to stabbing
wounds than are the ventricles of the heart.24 While a good deal smaller in diameter, a puncture or severing of the coronary
arteries, because they supply blood to the walls of the heart's ventricles, may also result in rapid incapacitation of a duelist.
Forensic pathologists Dominick and Vincent Di Maio point out that especially vulnerable is the left anterior descending coronary
artery which supplies the anterior wall of the left ventricle. Stabbing wounds which transect this small vessel may be expected
to result in sudden death.25
Nevertheless, cases have been reported in which stabbing victims, whose thoracic arteries were penetrated, remained physically
active for a surprisingly long period of time. An example may be found in the case of a twenty-three year old man who was
stabbed in the chest with a kitchen knife.26 At autopsy a wound tract was disclosed that penetrated both the aorta and the left
ventricle. Blood issuing from these wounds into the chest cavity amounted to a volume of two liters. Despite the serious nature
of his wounds, the victim nevertheless managed to walk more than 100 meters before collapsing and remained alive until
shortly after he had been taken to the hospital. Another example is that of a twenty-five year old man whose subclavian artery
and vein were severed by a thrust delivered by a kitchen knife. Losing a total of three liters of blood, he was able to run a
distance of four city blocks before finally collapsing.27
Wounds to the Major Blood Vessels of the Neck
The aortic arch branches into arteries that service the upper body, including the head. Of these, the left and right common
carotid arteries are of significant interest with regard to dueling practice because these vessels supply the larger share of blood
to the brain and because they extend unprotected, in the neck, on either side of the windpipe(trachea).28 While these arteries
are not externally visible, one can understand why a stroke delivered to the neck with an edged weapon such as a sabre, or
thrust with an edged smallsword or rapier, would seem to be an effective means of incapacitating an adversary. Certainly, the
severing of a common carotid artery will immediately terminate a large portion of the blood supply to the brain. Nevertheless,
the victim of such a wound may remain conscious for from fifteen to as many as thirty seconds;29 a more than ample amount
of time for a dying swordsman to execute a number of cuts, thrusts and parries.
In addition to the carotid arteries, the neck also encompasses the jugular veins, which return blood from the brain, face, and
neck to the heart.30 While the escape of blood under high pressure is a concern for wounds to the vessels of the arterial
system, wounds to the jugular veins pose a different problem. By the time blood reaches these vessels, its pressure is nearly
zero.31 In fact, during the inspiratory phase of the respiratory cycle, when contraction of the diaphragm and intercostal
muscles creates a negative pressure within the thorax, pressure in the jugular veins also falls below zero. As a consequence,
an opening in the jugular vein which communicates with the external environment may allow small bubbles of air to be
entrained into the vessel. As the air enters, a bloody froth can be produced which, when drawn into the heart, may render the
pumping action inoperative (valve lock). Whereas a severed vein is not usually considered to be as serious an injury as a
severed artery, air embolism due to a cut jugular vein may cause a victim, after one or two gasps, to collapse immediately.32
As the neck encompasses the cervical spine, carotid arteries, trachea, and jugular veins in a relatively small space, a sword-
thrust to this area would seem very likely to sever or impale a vital structure and disable an adversary almost immediately.
And so it was, during the reign of Louis XIII, for one Bussy D'Ambrose who was run through the throat while acting as a second
for the Marquis de Beuvron.33 The chance of combat, however, is a fickle companion to the duelist, as Sir Hatton Cheek
discovered in 1609 in his duel with Sir Thomas Dutton.34 Each, armed with rapier and dagger, met the other on the sands of
Calais. On the first pass Cheek directed a dagger thrust to Dutton's throat, close to the trachea, and ran him through. One
may imagine with what surprise Cheek found that the wound proved to be entirely ineffective. In fact, despite the seemingly
serious nature of his injury, it was Dutton who concluded the combat by running Cheek through the body with his rapier, and
then stabbing him in the back with his dagger. If we are surprised at Dutton's ability to continue the combat, it is with horror
that we find that Cheek, after having been so grievously wounded, not only failed to drop to the ground, but continued on with
the combat, gathering enough strength to rush yet again upon his adversary. The conflict continued until Dutton, noticing that
Cheek began to droop on account of massive blood loss, wisely adopted a defensive strategy, keeping his distance until
Cheek finally collapsed from loss of blood.
Wounds to the Major Abdominal Blood Vessels
Within the abdominal cavity are found the abdominal aorta and its two major branches, the common iliac arteries; and their
venous counterparts, the inferior vena cava and the common iliac veins. These vessels are large, relatively speaking, and they
confine blood under end-systolic pressures similar to those found in the major thoracic arteries. All of these vessels are
located in close proximity to the spinal column and lie behind the bulk of the abdominal viscera.35
In the present-day United States, wounds delivered by thrusts or cuts from a sword are almost entirely unheard of; knives are
by far the most common weapon involved in stabbings.36 Obviously, the depth to which a knife may penetrate the abdominal
cavity is less that that for the blade of a sword. It is important to bear this point in mind with respect to a finding that less than
half of all stab wounds do any serious injury to the abdominal viscera. Longer blades might well increase the morbidity and
mortality of such injuries.
Wounds to the abdomen which do prove fatal usually involve the large blood vessels and/or the liver, which is a highly vascular
organ itself.37 The rate of blood loss from even a grievously wounded liver is not likely to be sufficient to cause sudden
cardiac collapse, however, since the vascular resistance within this organ is very high. Complete transection of the abdominal
aorta could be expected to incapacitate a duelist relatively quickly, but some degree of good fortune would be required to
introduce the blade in such a way as to impale this relatively narrow structure within the bulk of the abdomen, or draw the
blade's edge along the artery's wall to transect it.
A sabre stroke would certainly be an effective means of severing the major abdominal arteries and veins, but because they
are located against the vertebral column, the stroke would have to be made with considerable violence in order to pass the
blade through the skin, the underlying abdominal muscles, and the viscera situated in front of the vessels. Were such a stroke
delivered, violating the integrity of the large vessels would be a moot point in any case since the sudden loss of intra-
abdominal pressure and the attendant cardiac return would induce immediate cardiac collapse.38 For a cutting action to do so
much damage the type of sabre would be an important consideration. While a heavy cavalry sabre with a curved blade would
have sufficient mass and dynamics to yield the necessary force, a cut delivered to the abdominal wall by the lighter and
shorter dueling sabre with a straight rather than a curved edge would likely prove inadequate to the task and could leave the
adversary still capable of posing a serious threat.
Wounds to the Blood Vessels of the Upper Limbs
Although relatively far removed from the heart, the arteries of the arms are still of sufficiently low vascular resistance to carry
blood under pressures similar to those found in the greater thoracic arteries. Of the major arteries of the arm, the brachial
artery is the largest and lies along the medial surface of the bone of the upper arm (humerus). As it descends, it progressively
courses anteriorly to the crook of the arm, where it is well exposed to a sword-thrust or cut. From the crook of the elbow it
divides into the ulnar and radial arteries.39 Wounds to any of these vessels can be extremely life-threatening, especially if the
vessel is only partly severed, since the muscular walls of a completely transected artery will naturally retract and impair the rate
of hemorrhage.40 Incisions in the radial artery are a well-recognized cause of death in suicide victims. Nevertheless, because
of their relatively smaller diameters, immediate incapacitation due to blood loss from the severing of these arteries cannot be
expected.
The veins of the arm are far more numerous than the major arteries. They are significantly more narrow and intravenous
pressures are normally less than ten millimeters of mercury.41 As a consequence, incisions or even complete transections of
these vessels can be expected to result in no immediately serious consequences.
Wounds to the Blood Vessels of the Lower Limbs
Much like the arms, the legs each are serviced by one large artery which divides into two major branches. The femoral artery
lies in front of the hip joint and descends along the medial surface of the thigh bone, (femur). Unlike the brachial artery,
however, the mid and distal portion of the femoral artery is not altogether vulnerable to the blade of the duelist. As it
approximates the knee joint it spirals around the femur and passes directly behind the knee in the form of the popliteal
artery, which subsequently bifurcates to become the anterior and posterior tibial arteries.42
Like the arm, the leg is laced with a complex network of veins. Most of these are relatively narrow and deep and the pressure
of blood confined within these vessels is low. The rate of blood flow through these vessels is relatively slow and wounds
severing one or more of them cannot be expected to result in consequences of any interest to the duelist.
Cuts or thrusts to the major arteries of the legs can be serious enough to cause death. Nevertheless, an adversary seriously
wounded in a femoral artery ought still to be considered an extremely dangerous adversary because blood loss is unlikely to
be so rapid as to result in immediate collapse. In the last of the judicial duels fought in France in 1547 between Francois de
Vivonne, Lord of Chastaigneraye and Guy de Chabot, the oldest son of the Lord of Jarnac, Chastaigneraye was wounded by
cuts to the back of the knee of both legs.43 Hamstrung, Chastaigneraye lay helpless on the ground while a lengthy exchange
of words followed between him and his adversary. Jarnac offered to spare Chastaigneraye if he would admit that his
accusations, over which the trial took place, were in error, but Chastaigneraye refused to recant and Jarnac, loth to take his
opponents life, pleaded with the attending monarch, Henry II, to intervene and save Chastaigneraye's life. Initially, the king
refused to interfere, however. Hemorrhaging uncontrollably from at least one artery, Chastaigneraye remained upon the
ground while Jarnac continued to plead back and forth with both Chastaigneraye and the king to end the combat. After Jarnac's
third appeal, the king finally interceded, but Chastaigneraye's pride had been mortally wounded. Refusing to allow his wounds
to be treated, he finally succumbed after "a little time" from loss of blood.44
It is important to note that Chastaigneraye was considered to have been a swordsman of extraordinary skill as well as an
excellent wrestler. Following the cutting stroke to his leg, the extended period during which he lay hemorrhaging to death was
certainly of sufficient length to have afforded him a number of thrusts, strokes and parries. Had the slash to the backside of
his right leg not crippled him, Chastaigneraye might well have been the victor in this combat, severed artery notwithstanding.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, fencing tempo is a vital element of swordsmanship, but clearly for the duelist hitting before being hit is not at
all the same thing as hitting without being hit. Exsanguination is the principal mechanism of death caused by stabbing and
incising wounds and death by this means is seldom instantaneous. Although stab wounds to the heart are generally imagined
to be instantly incapacitating, numerous modern medical case histories indicate that while victims of such wounds may
immediately collapse upon being wounded, rapid disability from this type of wound is by no means certain. Many present-day
victims of penetrating wounds involving the lungs and the great vessels of the thorax have also demonstrated a remarkable
ability to remain physically active minutes to hours after their wounds were inflicted. These cases are consistent with reports of
duelists who, subsequent to having been grievously or even mortally wounded through the chest, neck, or abdomen,
nevertheless remained actively engaged upon the terrain and fully able to continue long enough to dispatch those who had
wounded them.
End Notes
1 L. Sabine, Notes on Duels and Dueling (Boston: 1855) 70-71.

2 Baldick, The Duel (New York: 1965) 52-53.
3 J. Millingen, The History of Dueling, 2 vols. (London: 1841) II 18-21.
4 W. Spitz and R. Fisher, Medicolegal Investigation of Death (Springfield: 1980) 99.
5 W. Spitz, C. Petty and R. Fisher, "Physical Activity Until Collapse Following Fatal Injury by Firearms and Sharp Pointed
Weapons," Journal of Forensic Science 6, no. 3 (1961): 290-300.
6 C. Thimm, A Complete Bibliography of Fencing and Duelling (New York: 1992) 487.
7 Supra, 497-498.
8 B. Knight, Forensic Pathology (New York: 1991) 146-147.
9 Thimm (Supra n. 6), 463.
10 C. Polson, D. Gee and B. Knight, The Essentials of Forensic Medicine (Oxford: 1985)125.
11 Knight (Supra n. 8), 147.
12 Supra, 133.
13 Supra, 140.
14 H. Gray, Anatomy of the Human Body (Philadelphia: 1967) 543.
15 Spitz (Supra n. 4) 291.
16 D. Elkin, "Wounds of the Heart Report of 13 Cases," Journal of Thoracic Surgery 5 (1936): 1936.
17 Spitz (Supra n 4) 292.
18 Supra, 297.
19 A. Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology (Philadelphia:1971) 220.; A. Vander, J. Sherman and D. Luciano, Human
Physiology: The Mechanisms of Body Function (New York: 1970) 256.
20 Knight (Supra n. 8) 154.
21 D. Di Maio and V. Di Maio, Forensic Pathology (New York: 1989) 185.
23 Guyton (Supra n. 19) 219.
25 DiMaio (Supra n. 21) 184.
26 Spitz (Supra n. 4) 297.
27 Guyton (Supra n. 19) 219.
28 Gray (Supra n. 14) 581-583.
29 Mitchel Morey and Lindsey Thomas, personal communication of 4/9/96.
30 Gray (Supra n. 14) 698, 700
31 Guyton (Supra n. 19)
32 Knight (Supra n. 8), 154, and also Spitz (Supra n. 4), 199.
33 L. Sabine, Notes on Duels and Dueling (Boston: 1855) 70-71, and also Millingen (Supra n. 3), I: 149.
34 Millingen (Supra n. 3), II: 12.
35 Gray (Supra n. 14), 631-632, 645-646, 710.
36 Di Maio (Supra n. 21), 187, and also Knight (Supra n. 8), 141.
37 Di Maio (Supra n. 21), 185.
38 Supra, 187.
39 Gray (Supra n. 14), 618-621.
40 Supra n. 63.
41 Gray (Supra n. 14), 704, and also Guyton (Supra n. 19), 219.
42 Gray (Supra n. 19), 657-665.
43 A. Hutton, The Sword and the Centuries (New York: 1995), 46-52; Baldick (Supra n. 2), 29-31; and also Millingen (Supra n.
3), I: 50-54.
44 Millingen (Supra n. 3), I: 53.
Select Bibliography
Adam, J.C. "Stab Wound of the Brain," British Medical Journal, 2 (1925): 546.
Albuquerque Journal. May 6, 1993. cited in Stockel, H. The Lightning Stick (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1995)
Alfieri, Francesco. La Scherma (Padova: 1640).
Amberger, J. "The Coup de Jarnac in 150 A.D.!," Hammerterz Forum, 2, no.1 (1995): 12-14.
Aylward,J.D. The English Master of Arms (London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1956).
Baldick, Robert. The Duel (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.1965).
Capo Ferro, Ridolfo. Gran simulacro dell' arte e dell' uso della scherma (Siena:1610).
Di Maio, Dominick and Vincent Di Maio. Forensic Pathology (New York: Elsevier, 989).
Evangelista, Nick. The Encyclopedia of the Sword (Greenwood: Greenwood Press 1995).
Elkin, D.C. "Wounds of the Heart Report of 13 Cases," Journal of Thoracic Surgery 5: 1936: 590.
Gaugler, W. M. Fencing Everyone (Winston-Salem: Hunter Textbooks, Inc.1987).
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , vol. 1, ed. J. B. Bury (New York: The Modern Library, 1995).
Gray, Henry. Anatomy of the Human Body, 28th ed.(Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1967) 543.
Guyton, Arthur. Textbook of Medical Physiology, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1971).
Harding, David, ed., Weapons: an international encyclopedia from 5000 B.C. to 2000 A.D. (New York: St. Martin's Press 1990).
Hutton, Alfred. The Sword and the Centuries (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995).
Kiernan, V. G. The Duel in European History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989).
Knight, Bernard. Forensic Pathology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Marcelli, Francesco. Regole della scherma insegnate de Lelio e Titta Marcelli (Roma: 1686).
Millingen, J. G. The History of Dueling, 2 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1841).
Morey, Mitchel K., M.D. and Lindsey Thomas, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner, Hennepen County Minnesota. personal
communication of 4/9/96.
Morton, E. D. Martini A-Z of Fencing London: Queen Anne Press, 1992).
North, Anthony. An Introduction to European Swords (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1982).
Polson, Cyril., D. J. Gee, and Bernard Knight. The Essentials of Forensic Medicine (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985).
Sabine, Lorenzo. Notes on Duels and Dueling (Boston: Crosby, Nichols, and Company, 1855).
Saviolo, Vincentio. His Practise, in two bookes; the first entreating of the Use of the Rapier and Dagger, the second of Honour
and Honourable Quarrels (London: 1595), cited in Turner, Craig and Tony Soper. Methods and Practice of Elizabethan
Swordplay (Carbondale, Ill: 1990).
Silver, G. Paradoxe of Defence (London: 1599), cited in C. Turner and Soper, Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay
(Carbondale: 1990) 79.
Spartacus. Lawrence Olivier, Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons. (Columbia Pictures, 1960). Spitz, Werner and Russel Fisher.
Medicolegal Investigation of Death (Springfield, Ill.: 1980).
Spitz, Werner, Charles Petty and Russell Fisher. "Physical Activity Until Collapse Following Fatal Injury by Firearms and Sharp
Pointed Weapons," Journal of Forensic Science 6, no. 3 (1961): 290-300.
Stone, George C. A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor (by the Southworth Press: 1934; New
York: Jack Brussel, 1961).
The Adventures of Don Juan . Eroll Flynn, Robert Douglas, Viveca Lindfors (Warner Brothers, 1949).
Thimm, Carl. A Complete Bibliography of Fencing and Duelling (New York: 1992).
Turner, Craig and Tony Soper . Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay (Carbondale, Ill: 1990).
Vander, Arthur, James Sherman, and Dorothy Luciano. Human Physiology: The Mechanisms of Body Function (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970)
And Part 2:
The Dubious Quick Kill Part 2
Because exsanguination is the most frequent cause of death in stabbing and incising wounds1, the first installment of this
work covered the subject of wounds to the cardiovascular system. Anecdotes of duels fought with rapier, sabre, or smallsword,
and forensic literature based upon present-day coroner's reports of homicides in which knives and other sharp instruments
were used convincingly showed that mortal wounds to the major vessels and even to the heart itself do not always lead to
instant incapacitation of the victim. The veracity of these accounts is supported by a 1961 survey conducted by Spitz, Petty and
Russell which found that of seven victims stabbed in various regions of the heart, none expired immediately. While two were
quickly incapacitated, the remaining five were not, and of these one, despite a two-centimeter incision in the left ventricle,
walked a full city block, armed himself with a broken beer bottle, and collapsed only after he returned to the scene of the
crime to re-engage the individual who had stabbed him.2 This case in particular makes it clear that for the duelist, mortally
wounding an adversary, even in the heart, may not necessarily be enough to place him hors de combat. This final installment
will address other organ systems of the human body with an aim to further explore the question of instant incapacitation by
thrust or cut.
The Respiratory System
To understand the mechanisms of incapacitation and death caused by sharp force injury to the respiratory system, a brief
explanation of the anatomy and mechanical function of this system will be helpful. Air entering the nose and mouth is
conducted to the lungs by way of the windpipe (trachea), a nearly cylindrical conduit passing down through the neck toward the
chest cavity where it divides into the right and left bronchi. Each bronchus further bifurcates into a series of subdivisions within
the lungs. In the chest, within the spaces (pleural cavities) found on either side of the heart, lie the lungs. Divided into a
number of lobes, these organs are exceptionally light, porous, highly vascularized, and elastic.3 The movement of air into the
lungs is governed by a number of muscles which increase the volume of the chest, and hence, the volume of the pleural
cavities within. As these cavities expand, a drop in intrathoracic pressure is produced. Provided the airway is clear, air rushes in
along the pressure gradient to equilibrate the intrathoracic pressure with outside pressure, thereby inflating the lungs which
expand as they fill the larger volume. Upon exhalation the process is reversed, generally through a passive mechanism
produced by the elastic character of the lungs, chest wall, and abdomen.4
Wounds to the Respiratory System
As long as the pleural cavities remain closed to the outside atmosphere, the mechanics of respiration function normally. If the
chest wall is opened, however, intrathoracic pressure will equilibrate as outside air enters, not just into the lungs, but directly
into the pleural cavity through the incision (pneumothorax), thereby causing the lung inside to collapse.5 A sabre stroke
penetrating the intercostal muscles and opening the chest wall will produce a pneumothorax, resulting in the immediate loss of
function of the lung. Of course to do so, the cut would either have to fall between and run parallel to the ribs, or be of
sufficient force to cut through the bone. Since the right and left lungs are each isolated within their own pleural cavities
however, a wound to only one side of the chest would leave the lung on the opposite side functional.
A point thrust inflicted by a smallsword or rapier may produce somewhat different results. While a penetrating wound inflicted
with these weapons may appear on the surface to be much smaller than the incising wound produced by the stroke of a sabre,
the track of a penetrating wound may extend completely through the body, damaging even the most deeply located
structures. In addition, such a wound may be inflicted with little effort since the entire force of the thrust is delivered by a sharp
point over an extremely small surface area. Depending upon the size of the blade, the hole in the chest wall may be small
enough to close itself partially upon withdrawal of the blade, producing only a slow leak of air into the chest cavity. If the victim
were well profiled when the thrust was delivered, the blade could enter one lung and easily pass through the chest to the
opposite side, causing pneumothorax in both pleural cavities. In this case air would enter the pleural cavity not only through
the hole in the chest wall, but also through the holes in the lungs themselves, with each respiratory cycle.
Death caused solely by pneumothorax is generally a slow process, occurring as much as several hours after the wound is
inflicted.6 However, because lung tissue is so heavily vascularized, a blade penetrating not only the chest wall but the lung as
well will also cause hemorrhaging into the pleural cavity (hemothorax); the amount of blood and the rate of its flow being
dependent upon the dimensions of the wound, blood pressure, vascular structures compromised, and clotting factors. While
blood loss alone may produce incapacitation and death, it is important to consider that, in the case of stab wounds to the
chest, most of the blood lost usually remains confined within the pleural cavity because the elastic nature of the tissues
around the site of entry tends to at least partially close the wound . Consequently, as the cavity fills with blood, the lung
becomes increasingly compressed and less able to function, contributing to the cause of death. Today, most fatalities due
solely to stab wounds which penetrate the lungs are caused by hemothorax, with pneumothorax sometimes also present.7
As is the case with pneumothorax, neither death nor incapacitation by hemothorax is rapid. Spitz reports a typical case of a
twenty-nine year old man stabbed in the chest. Immediately after the stabbing the victim ran across the street to ask for help.
He eventually collapsed, but remained alive for one and a quarter hours before expiring. Autopsy revealed a 2.5 centimeter
wound track in the lung and a volume of blood in the pleural cavity in excess of two liters.8
Consistent with the findings of Spitz and other present-day investigators, numerous examples taken from dueling anecdotes
indicate that sword-thrusts to the lungs were not always effective in immediately placing a determined duelist out of the
combat. The duel fought in 1613 between the Earl of Dorset and Lord Edward Bruce is a typical example.9 According to the
account, the Earl received a rapier thrust which entered the right nipple and passed "level through my body, and almost to my
back." It seems certain that a blade introduced in this fashion would penetrate some part of a lung. Nevertheless, Dorset
remained engaged for a considerable period of time and ultimately ran his adversary through with two separate thrusts.
Dorset's wound was, indeed, serious for his complete incapacitation followed immediately afterward; as is evidenced by the
necessity of one of his seconds to intervene to defend him as one of Lord Bruce's friends, in a moment of uncontrolled
temper, attempted to dispatch Dorset where he lay.
This duel almost seems a copy of the duel described by Deerhurst10 in which a mortally wounded combatant received a
through-and-through rapier thrust just above the nipple. With the blade still protruding from his back, the dying man remained
upright and fully engaged, repeatedly attempting to drive his own blade into his adversary's throat. Losing a number of fingers
while attempting to parry away the thrusts with his hand, the ill-fated defender was eventually impaled. Each transfixed upon
the blade of the other, both men remained upright and locked in a death grip for some time before collapsing.
Another example may be found in the duel between Sawyer and Wrey, in which the latter was initially stabbed in the left chest.
As Wrey failed to collapse on the spot, Sawyer quickly launched another attack, this time wounding him in the left arm. Despite
his chest wound, Wrey nevertheless remained an active, capable, and dangerous adversary. Upon the increasingly confidant
Sawyer's third attack, Wrey reversed the fortunes of his as yet unscathed opponent and ran him through.11
Given the typically sketchy character of dueling anecdotes, it is often difficult to ascertain satisfactorily the precise nature of the
wounds involved since duelists who survived their wounds were not examined at autopsy. However, the account of a duel
fought in 1765 between Lord Kilmaurs and an unnamed French officer12 is an uncommonly illuminating one. The likelihood
that a lung was penetrated through-and-through seems, in this case, to be well supported by the details of the anecdotal
evidence. According to the account, after one or two attacks, the Frenchman delivered a thrust which entered the "pit" of
Kilmaurs' "stomach" and exited through his right shoulder. It seems probable that, given the sites of entry and exit, the blade
of the officer's weapon would have had to pass through some portion of a lung. In support of this probability, the account goes
on to state that subsequent to the termination of the combat, Kilmaurs was nearly "stifled with his own blood." The sign of
blood in the airway, combined with the description of the manner in which the blade entered and exited the victim's body,
strongly suggests that a lung had been pierced.
It is impossible to know how this affair would have ended since, after the wound had been delivered, the duel was immediately
interrupted by spectators. In fact, despite the horrific nature of his wound, Lord Kilmaurs was reported to have seemed hardly
aware that anything was amiss. Consequently, assuming that this account is reasonably accurate, Kilmaurs appears to have
been, for some time, capable of continuing the combat, potentially reversing the fortunes of his adversary.
The account goes on to say that His Lordship eventually became speechless and demonstrated every sign of impending death
for several hours. Incredibly, after just a few days, Lord Kilmaurs' condition improved and over time the gentleman ultimately
recovered. Curiously, the Earl of Dorset also recovered from his chest wound and lived an additional thirty-nine years.
As an historical aside, given the current forensic literature one may accept that a swordsman grievously wounded in the lung
may nevertheless remain a dangerous adversary for a considerable period. However, one may yet wonder why Dorset and
Kilmaurs did not eventually succumb due to pneumothorax or hemothorax. Of course, without medical records or any other
information one can only speculate as to why these men survived. Aside from almost impossibly good luck, their survival may
be explained by the fact that because tuberculosis was more prevalent during those times, each of these men may have been
previously afflicted with this disease. If so, the scarring of lung tissue may have left portions of their lungs poorly vascularized
and slow to hemorrhage. While the evidence of blood in the airway strongly indicates that a lung of Lord Kilmaurs was
penetrated, it may be that the rate of blood flowing from scarred lung tissues was low enough to allow clotting to take place
before His Lordship bled to death.
Sword-thrusts to the lungs are certainly a serious matter as far as the question of long-term survival is concerned, but it is
clear that wounds of this type offer no guarantee that an opponent will immediately be rendered helpless. A thrust or cut to
the throat, on the other hand, is a very different matter. As everyone knows, the inadvertent aspiration of even a small
amount of fluid into the airway can instantly produce powerful coughing and choking reflexes and acute respiratory distress.
Stab wounds or cuts to the neck which penetrate or transect the trachea or larynx will allow blood to flow directly into the airway,
quickly causing incapacitation and death by asphyxiation.13
On May 12, 1627 Bussy D'Amboise, while acting as a second in the duel between Francois de Montmorency and the Marquis De
Beuvron, was reported to have received such a wound. Immediately disabled, D'Amboise was said to have "just had time to
cross himself and die." The evidence for the neck as a choice target for quick kill seems compelling, but by no means should
it be taken as a guarantee. In the 1609 duel between Sir Hatton Cheek and Sir Thomas Dutton,14 Cheek plunged a dagger
into Dutton's throat, "close to the windpipe." With so many vital structures compactly situated in the area, it is hard to imagine
how Dutton could have survived. Nevertheless, the blade seems to have narrowly missed the trachea, neatly avoiding the
common carotid and vertebral arteries and the internal jugular vein as well. As luck would have it, Dutton survived both the
wound and the affair, killing Cheek with a rapier thrust through the body, and a dagger thrust to the back as well.
The Musculature
In order to effect locomotion, the human body is invested with an ingeniously designed array of contractile tissues; the
voluntary, or skeletal muscles. These muscles are composed of numerous, relatively long muscle fibers gathered together in
parallel to form bundles (fasciculi) which, in turn, are bundled together to form individual muscle organs, e.g., the deltoid,
biceps or calf muscles with which most of us are familiar.15 To effect locomotion, muscles must span the joints of bones and
attach directly to them at some point by means of masses of strong connective tissues called tendons and aponeuroses16.
Upon contraction, the tension between the attached muscle ends pulls one bone toward the other with the joint acting as a
pivot or hinge.
The fibers which compose a muscle are generally aligned in a parallel fashion, much like the hairs in a horse's tail.
Consequently, a penetrating wound delivered by a narrow blade may have little immediate effect upon the functionality of a
muscle since all it does is separate slightly the fibers which compose the muscle as a whole. Similarly, a cutting stroke from an
edged weapon which results in an incision running parallel to the fibers of a muscle may not necessarily render an adversary
immediately helpless. On the other hand, a cut which incises a muscle at right angles to the longitudinal axis of its fibers can
be expected to compromise the function of that muscle to a degree commensurate with the severity of the cut. The same may
be said for cuts which sever the tendons. Should a muscle, a group of muscles, or their tendons be severed, voluntary
movement of the body part serviced by that muscle or muscle group will be immediately terminated.
Wounds to Musculature of the Forearm
Incising wounds, delivered with the cutting edges of a sabre or rapier, which transect tendons or muscle groups servicing the
sword arm or hand may be expected to serve as an effective means of immediately terminating an adversary's ability to pose
a menace. In a duel with the fencing master of the Chasseurs de Vintimille, Marshal Ney, the Duke of Elchingen is said to have
wounded his adversary in this fashion. Surgical techniques being as crude as they were in those days, the wound left the victim
permanently crippled.17 The dorsal surface of the forearm of a sabreur in the guard of second is particularly exposed. An
examination of the anatomy of the forearm, however, suggests that a single cut to this area may not necessarily succeed in
severing a sufficient number of the muscles at this site before the bones around which they are so elaborately entwined
prevent the blade from transecting the entire muscle mass.
Cuts transecting the palmar surface of the forearm can sever muscles and tendons required to flex the fingers as they effect a
grip on the weapon, and to flex the wrist. An incising wound delivered to this region may incapacitate an adversary more
effectively, especially if the cut is placed across the wrist itself because the tendons of so many muscles pass over this site.
The palmar surface of the wrist is not well exposed, however, by the sabreur maintaining guards of second, third, or fourth. In
rapier play, guards or invitations of second or third suppinate the hand and displace the arm in such a way as to leave the
palmar surface of the wrist more vulnerable, but the protection afforded by rapier hilts, whether swept or cup, makes such a cut
not so easy a thing to accomplish.
Wounds inflicted by point thrusts through the muscles of the forearm most certainly do not guarantee the immediate disability
of an adversary. In the account given by Deerhurst, one of the two combatants received a rapier thrust which entered the
inside of the sword arm and exited at the outside of the elbow.18 This description indicates that the track of the wound, rather
than transecting the muscles of the arm, ran a course more or less parallel to them and likely did relatively little damage. In
fact, after springing back and dislodging the hostile blade from his arm, the combatant was still able to wield his weapon with
dexterity sufficient to enable him to run his adversary through. In the duel between the Earl of Dorset and Lord Edward Bruce,
Dorset also received a "great" wound to the arm.19 Nevertheless, subsequent to the injury, Dorset was able to deliver not one,
but two thrusts, each of which passed through his adversary's body. The affair between Sawyer and Wrey,20 is yet another
example. According to this account, Captain Wrey is reported to have received two wounds, one to the left chest and one to
the left arm. Because both injuries are located on the same side of the body, it is likely that Wrey was left-handed. If so, it
was his sword arm which, though wounded, nevertheless remained serviceable enough to dispatch his antagonist on his third
attack.
Wounds to Musculature of the Leg and Thigh
As in the case for the forearm, attempts to immediately incapacitate an adversary by directing thrusts or cuts to leg muscles
may not have been particularly effective. In the first place, the leading leg of a swordsman in the guard position faces forward
to present a fairly heavy bone, the tibia (shin bone), situated just beneath the skin, on the leg's anterior and medial
surfaces.21 Unless a stroke is delivered with enough force to part the bone, a cut placed across this region of the leg is not
likely to transect a great deal of muscle. Although considerably more muscle lies on the lateral side of the leg, a stroke to this
region would have to be delivered across the target from right to left (in the case of two right-hand swordsmen) with the tibia
once again affording some measure of protection.
Regarding the thigh, in the guard position a duelist presents the leading thigh forward in such a way as to expose the femoral
muscle group, the quadriceps femoris. This group is composed of four muscles of relatively massive proportions which lie in
front and on either side of the thigh bone (femur).22 All four of these muscles cooperate in extending the leg. The posterior
femoral muscles, commonly known as the hamstrings, work together to flex the leg.23 Because the individual muscles in
these groups are massive, and because the individual muscles of each group share common functions, a single cut or thrust
to either muscle group may not do enough damage to cripple a leg instantly.
One example illustrating this point may be found in the sabre duel between St. Aulaire and Pierrebourg in which St. Aulaire,
quickly seizing what appeared to be an opportunity, delivered a cut to his adversary's knee. While the massive tendons of the
quadriceps extend over this site, the account makes no mention of Pierrebourg being either seriously wounded or
incapacitated. In fact, the stroke proved to be a costly one for St. Aulaire in that, upon delivering the cut, St. Aulaire exposed
his upper body. Seeing the opening, Pierrebourg took advantage and gave point to his opponent's chest. St. Aulaire expired a
few minutes later.24
Another example of the damage a leg may sustain without loss of function may be found in the duel in 1712 between the
Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mouhn, in which Hamilton had been mortally wounded. After he had expired an examination of the
body revealed numerous wounds, including one that penetrated his right leg to a depth of eighteen centimeters as well as
another wound on the left. Despite these injuries, the Duke was able to inflict three wounds to his adversary, including one to
the groin and another which penetrated the right side of the body clear through to the hilt.25
It is conceivable that, because wounds inflicted upon the muscles of the forward-facing aspect of the leg were not particularly
effective, a technique was developed specifically designed to incapacitate a swordsman more quickly. The stroke, which
appears to have a history traceable as far back as the second century A.D.,26 ultimately became known as the Coup de
Jarnac.27 The technique disabled one's adversary by severing the tendinous portion of the hamstrings, causing the victim's
leg to collapse immediately, much the same way the limb of a marionette would go limp upon the severing of the string
responsible for its movement. Located behind the knee, these tendons are not well exposed to an adversary facing his
opponent from the front. Consequently, delivering a cut to this area presents certain challenges. The efficacy of the stroke was
clear, however, and the technique may have served as a justifiable alternative to the risky and less effective cutting strokes
directed to other parts of the leg.
The momentous duel in 1547 which gave the technique its name was that fought between Jarnac and Chastaigneraye.28 After
a preliminary exchange of thrusts and cuts, Chastaigneraye was closing distance when Jarnac shifted his position while drawing
Chastaigneraye's defenses high with a feint to the head, leaving the lower limbs exposed. With his hand in pronation, Jarnac
then executed a drawing cut with the false edge of his blade across Chastaigneraye's hamstrings, inflicting a slight wound
behind the knee of the left leg. Surprised, Chastaigneraye became briefly distracted, but before he had an opportunity to
regain his composure Jarnac delivered a similar stroke to the hamstrings of the right leg, this time cutting through to the
bone. Although Chastaigneraye eventually bled to death, it was the severing of his hamstrings which resulted in his immediate
incapacitation.
A similar duel featuring the application of this technique was also fought between Newton and Hamilton in the same year,29
and earlier in that century yet another duel is reported to have been fought in which the same technique was employed in a
combat between an Italian officer and a Frenchman.30 Short of a stroke resulting in dismemberment, this technique would
appear to be the only sure means of disabling instantly the musculature of the leg.
Wounds to the Skeletal System
With the exceptions of the enamel and dentin of the teeth, bone composes the hardest structures in the human body. Durable
and slightly elastic, it is capable of sustaining considerable force.31
Although violent strokes delivered by massive weapons such as cavalry sabres can produce forces sufficient to divide bone,
cuts or thrusts by the duelist's rapier, sabre or epee may fail to have any immediate incapacitating effect. In fact, some
duelists who delivered cuts or thrusts which met with their antagonists bones were sometimes left at a serious disadvantage. A
classic example may be found in the duel fought with rapier and dagger between Lagarde and Bazanez in which a stroke was
delivered by the former to his adversary's head. No doubt to Lagarde's surprise, the stroke proved to be ineffective, as the
steel merely bounced off his adversary's skull, leaving the blade inconveniently bent.32
In the encounter between Baron de Mittaud and Baron de Vitaux, a thrust to the chest by Vitaux also resulted in a disfigured
blade. It had been argued that it was a flesh-colored cuirass, concealed beneath the Baron's shirt, that had caused the steel
to bend, but tricks of this sort were not unknown, and in fact, both Vitaux and Mittaud had been properly examined by seconds
before the duel began. No doubt for this reason it had also been suggested that it was the impact of the point on one of
Mittaud's ribs that had bent the blade; a suggestion which may lead one to conclude that such occurrences may have been
witnessed before or since. In any case, Vitaux was left with nothing to do but hack away at his adversary until, after "four well-
applied cuts," Mittaud finally ran him through.33
Yet another example may be found in the 1777 affair between Captain Stoney and a Reverend Mr. Bate. In this combat a
thrust delivered by Bate is said to have struck the captain's breast-bone. The Reverend's weapon was left so badly bent that
his chivalrous opponent felt obliged to pause in order to allow his adversary an opportunity to restore his blade to its proper
alignment.34
Wounds to the Peripheral Nervous System
Because they lie close to and often between the bones, the larger nerves of the peripheral nervous system are generally not
well exposed to the blade. As they extend farther away from the central nervous system, both motor and sensory nerves
repeatedly subdivide, ultimately forming a complex network of individual fibers.35 By virtue of its wide distribution this
network, as a whole, is capable of sustaining a localized cutting or penetrating wound with little effect to the overall motor
function of the body in most cases.
Severed pain fibers, of course, are still capable of relaying sensory information which the brain interprets as pain. The deeply
distressing sensation of a cut from a sharp kitchen knife is an experience with which nearly everyone is familiar. It is not
unreasonable, therefore, for one to anticipate that the pain resulting from a sabre or rapier blade drawn across the flesh or
passing through the chest, abdomen, or a limb would be severe enough to be immediately disabling. The dueling accounts
cited in this essay, however, suggest that even in the case of mortal wounds, pain may not reach levels of magnitude
sufficient to incapacitate a determined swordsman. Considering the great emotional stress under which these combats were
fought, the adrenaline-mediated "fight or flight" response undoubtedly played a significant role in attenuating the pain of
many wounds. The stress of modern warfare has also provided numerous present-day examples of similar cases in which
combat soldiers who, despite extremely serious and even mortal wounds, were surprisingly unaware of their injuries until the
engagement was concluded or they noticed blood. Some of these men were reported capable of amazing physical feats and
collapsed only when the sequelae of their injuries made further action physically impossible.36
Wounds to the Central Nervous System
The central nervous system is well protected by the vertebral column and by the skull. Because of the thinness of bone in the
orbits and at the site of the temples however, a point thrust may penetrate these areas with relative ease.37 Other vulnerable
areas of the skull are also found in the frontal, maxillary, and nasal sinuses. The vulnerability of the face was clearly
appreciated early in the history of rapier-play. In Vincentio Saviolo's treatise, "His Practice in Two Books," published in 1595,
the master makes it plain that he advocates actions directed to the adversary's face, especially time thrusts.38 Also, a
generous number of illustrations of various fencing actions, described in the treatises published by Capo Ferro39 and Alfieri40
in the first half of the 17th century, depict rapier thrusts entering the forward area of the head. In England, fencing master
John Turner was reported to have developed considerable skill in dispatching adversaries with thrusts to the eye. In one case
Turner is reported to have delivered a thrust to the eye of a combatant "so far in the brain at the eye that he presently fell
down stone dead."41
That one would instantly fall down "stone dead" as a consequence of a stabbing which penetrates the brain through a breach
in the skull may seem an outcome to be reasonably expected. Modern medical case reports, however, show that stab wounds
of the skull and brain are, in general, not immediately fatal. In fact, victims have frequently been reported to have walked,
and in some cases run away from their attackers.42 In some instances, victims may not even realize that they have been
wounded. A report by Adam43 describes a case very much analogous to a sword thrust penetrating the frontal sinus of the
skull. According to the report, the victim sustained a wound from a blade eleven centimeters in length which passed through
the frontal bone in the region of the frontal sinus and penetrated deeply into the brain. The patient was found to be conscious
and coherent upon admission, and after forty days, recovered completely. In another incident, a young man was accidentally
shot through the head with an arrow which penetrated to a depth of twenty to twenty-five centimeters. The patient remained
conscious, and while being transported to the hospital, attempted to extricate the projectile himself. The arrow, which entered
through the face, was finally withdrawn through the back of his skull.44
Summary and Conclusions
Early American motion pictures have frequently misrepresented virtually every aspect of authentic swordplay. This seems to
have been especially true of the industry's depiction of the manner in which swordsmen fell before the blades of their
opponents. While anecdotes of duels may have been biased by politics or personal vanity, modern forensic medicine provides
ample evidence to support historical accounts of gravely wounded duelists continuing in combats for surprising lengths of time,
sometimes killing those who had killed them.
In the first installment of this essay modern forensic evidence indicated that exsanguination is the principal mechanism of
death caused by stabbing and incising wounds, but that death by this means is seldom instantaneous; victims frequently
capable of continued physical activity, even after being stabbed in the heart. Similarly, victims of sharp force injuries to the
lungs are not infrequently able to carry on for protracted periods of time. Wounds which result in the introduction of blood into
the upper airway, on the other hand, are likely to incapacitate and kill an adversary quite rapidly.
Duels featuring penetrating wounds to the muscles of the sword arm appear in some cases to have left duelists fully capable
of manipulating their weapons. Thrusts to the thigh and leg may have been even less efficacious. Strokes with the cutting
edges of swords to the limbs may result in more serious wounds to the musculature than the penetrating variety, but historical
accounts of duels demonstrate that immediate incapacitation of an adversary stricken with such wounds was by no means
guaranteed. Incising wounds which sever tendons, however, can be expected to immediately incapacitate the muscles from
which they arise.
Recent medical reports of sharp force injuries to the brain suggest that even a sword-thrust penetrating the skull ought not to
have been expected always to disable an opponent instantaneously.
While severe pain is usually incapacitating, the stress of combat may mask the pain of gravely serious wounds, enabling the
determined duelist to remain on the ground for a considerable length of time.
The immediate consequences to a duelist of wounds inflicted by thrusts or cuts from the rapier, dueling sabre or smallsword
were unpredictable. While historical anecdotes of affairs of honor and twentieth century medical reports show that many
stabbing victims collapsed immediately upon being wounded, others did not. While a swordsman certainly gained no
advantage for having been wounded, it cannot be said that an unscathed adversary, after having delivered a fatal thrust or
cut, had no further concern for his safety. Duelists receiving serious and even mortal wounds were sometimes able to continue
effectively in the combat long enough to take the lives of those who had taken theirs.
In the case of fencing practiced strictly as an art or sport, any series of fencing movements are represented in terms of tempi,
each of which represents the execution a single fencing action. In terms of time per se, each tempo may be expressed in
terms of fractions of a second. When touches are scored, fencing officials calling "halt," bring exchanges to an immediate
conclusion.
For the duelist, however, another form of tempo had to be considered. In the early history of affairs of honor, this "dueling
tempo" spanned the period extending from the moment that a wound was inflicted until the instant that the adversary was no
longer able to continue effectively. This span of time was unpredictable in length and could be expressed in terms ranging
from a fraction of a second to minutes. Considering the number and severity of wounds that were sustained by combatants in
the early days of the duel, it would not be surprising to find that many duelists of latter days secretly breathed a sigh of relief
when interrupted by seconds rushing in to terminate affairs of honor immediately upon the delivery of a well placed cut or
thrust.
End Notes
1W. Spitz and R. Fisher, Medicolegal Investigation of Death (Springfield: 1980) 99.
2Supra, 297.
3H. Gray, Anatomy of the Human Body (Philadelphia: 1967), 1137-1150.
4A. Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology (Philadelphia:1971) 456.; A. Vander, J. Sherman and D. Luciano, Human
Physiology: The Mechanisms of Body Function (New York: 1970) 304-307.
5Vander (Supra n. 4), 305.
6Spitz (Supra n. 1), 199.

7D. Di Maio and V. Di Maio, Forensic Pathology (New York: 1989) 185.
9L. Sabine, Notes on Duels and Dueling (Boston: 1855), 74-78.
10J. Millingen, The History of Dueling, 2 vols. (London: 1841) II, 18-21.
11Supra, 48-49.
12Supra, 92-94.
14Millingen (Supra n. 10), II: 12.
15Gray (Supra n. 3), 523-526, and also Guyton (Supra n. 4), 76.
16Gray (Supra n. 3), 277.
17Millingen (Supra n. 10), I: 226-227.
18Millingen (Supra n. 10), II: 18-21.
19Sabine (Supra n. 9), 74-78.
20Millingen (Supra n. 10), II: 48-49.
22Supra, 495-497.
23Supra, 502, 505-507.
25R. Baldick, The Duel (New York: 1965), 71-72
26J. Amberger, "The Coup de Jarnac in 150 A.D.!," Hammerterz Forum, 2 no. 1 (1995): 12-14.
27Baldick (Supra n. 25), 29.
28A. Hutton, The Sword and the Centuries (New York: 1995), 46-52; Baldick Supra n. 25), 29-31; and also Millingen (Supra n.
10), I: 50-54.
29Hutton (Supra 28), 51.
30Supra, 53.
32Baldick (Supra n. 25), 52-53, and also Millingen (Supra n. 10), I: 125-127.
33Millingen (Supra n. 10), I: 117.
35Gray (Supra n. 3), 907-1042.
36B. Knight, Forensic Pathology (New York: 1991), 115
37Di Maio (Supra n. 7), 186
38V. Saviolo, His Practise, in two bookes (London: 1595), cited in Turner and Soper, 65.
39R. Capo Ferro, Gran simulacro (Siena:1610).
40F. Alfieri, La Scherma (Padova: 1640).
41J. Aylward, The English Master of Arms (London: 1956) 37.
42Di Maio (Supra n. 7), 186.
43Adam, J.C. "Stab Wound of the Brain," British Medical Journal, 2 (1925): 546.
44Albuquerque Journal, May 6, 1993, cited in H. Stockel. The Lightning Stick (Reno, 1995) 3-4.
Select Bibliography
Adam, J.C. "Stab Wound of the Brain," British Medical Journal, 2 (1925): 546.
Albuquerque Journal. May 6, 1993. cited in Stockel, H. The Lightning Stick (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1995)
Alfieri, Francesco. La Scherma (Padova: 1640).
Amberger, J. "The Coup de Jarnac in 150 A.D.!," Hammerterz Forum, 2, no.1
(1995): 12-14.
Aylward,J.D. The English Master of Arms (London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1956).
Baldick, Robert. The Duel (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.1965).
Capo Ferro, Ridolfo. Gran simulacro dell' arte e dell' uso della scherma
(Siena:1610).
Di Maio, Dominick and Vincent Di Maio. Forensic Pathology (New York: Elsevier, 989).
Evangelista, Nick. The Encyclopedia of the Sword (Greenwood: Greenwood Press 1995).
Elkin, D.C. "Wounds of the Heart Report of 13 Cases," Journal of Thoracic Surgery 5: 1936: 590.
Gaugler, W. M. Fencing Everyone (Winston-Salem: Hunter Textbooks, Inc.1987).
Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , vol. 1, ed. J. B. Bury (New York: The Modern Library, 1995).
Gray, Henry. Anatomy of the Human Body, 28th ed.(Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1967) 543.
Guyton, Arthur. Textbook of Medical Physiology, 4th ed., (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1971).
Harding, David, ed., Weapons: an international encyclopedia from 5000 B.C. to 2000 A.D. (New York: St. Martin's Press 1990).
Hutton, Alfred. The Sword and the Centuries (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995).
Kiernan, V. G. The Duel in European History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989).
Knight, Bernard. Forensic Pathology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).
Marcelli, Francesco. Regole della scherma insegnate de Lelio e Titta Marcelli (Roma: 1686).
Millingen, J. G. The History of Dueling, 2 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1841).
Morey, Mitchel K., M.D. and Lindsey Thomas, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner, Hennepen County Minnesota. personal
communication of 4/9/96.
Morton, E. D. Martini A-Z of Fencing London: Queen Anne Press, 1992).
North, Anthony. An Introduction to European Swords (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1982).
Polson, Cyril., D. J. Gee, and Bernard Knight. The Essentials of Forensic Medicine (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1985).
Sabine, Lorenzo. Notes on Duels and Dueling (Boston: Crosby, Nichols, and Company, 1855).
Saviolo, Vincentio. His Practise, in two bookes; the first entreating of the Use of the Rapier and Dagger, the second of Honour
and Honourable Quarrels (London: 1595), cited in Turner, Craig and Tony Soper. Methods and Practice of Elizabethan
Swordplay (Carbondale, Ill: 1990).
Silver, G. Paradoxe of Defence (London: 1599), cited in C. Turner and Soper, Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay
(Carbondale: 1990) 79.
Spartacus. Lawrence Olivier, Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons. (Columbia
Pictures, 1960).
Spitz, Werner and Russel Fisher. Medicolegal Investigation of Death
(Springfield, Ill.: 1980).
Spitz, Werner, Charles Petty and Russell Fisher. "Physical Activity Until Collapse Following Fatal Injury by Firearms and Sharp
Pointed Weapons," Journal of Forensic Science 6, no. 3 (1961): 290-300.
Stone, George C. A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor (by the Southworth Press: 1934; New
York: Jack Brussel, 1961).
The Adventures of Don Juan . Eroll Flynn, Robert Douglas, Viveca Lindfors (Warner Brothers, 1949).
Thimm, Carl. A Complete Bibliography of Fencing and Duelling (New York: 1992).
Turner, Craig and Tony Soper . Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay (Carbondale, Ill: 1990). d
Vander, Arthur, James Sherman, and Dorothy Luciano. Human Physiology: The Mechanisms of Body Function (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970)
I feel this is a good addition to the Forum - it covers something I have never seen so well covered and have hardly seen at all
- the "stopping power" of edged weapons. For all of us - and first our friends in the UK and other less free nations it is
valuable knowledge.
nbk2000 December 22nd, 2006, 08:40 AM

This is indeed quite a good find. :)
Nowadays, everyone is so caught up in the idea of 'stopping power', as it relates to firearms, but there will be swords and
spears long after humanity falls back into savagery, as it was in the past.
Ropik December 23rd, 2006, 07:32 AM

Thanks for this information. That supports Michael Janich claim that stabbing somebody is not going to incapacitate him fast
enough for the second combatant to be safe, and that cuts directed at tendons and muscles are much more effective in this
regard.

That is a very long and detailed read. In summary: If you stab them, they might well bleed out, but they will normally have
plenty of time to stab you while you wait, disarmed by the fact your blade is sheathed in their chest.
We can go back a long way to see the first accounts of this type of edged weapon under-kill. In 1066 at the Battle of Hastings,
the Saxon king Harold was hit in the eye by an arrow. He was then surrounded by Norman soldiers, who had to hit him 11+
times to put him down. And these were with broadswords and trained knights!
The flip side is the parable of David and Goliath. One good shot was a kill, and what this parable really tells *us* is that a
projectile is far better than close-in wet-work if you want to stay healthy.
Isotoxin December 24th, 2006, 04:20 PM

I am glad to see my find is well received. One thing that was not really touched(no pun intended) upon in those articles is a
direct attact to the CNS. You can't really do this with a western sword but a large knife used by a very strong person could be
used to great effect on the spine or skull. A thin blade going into the brain from the eye may not be very fast at "stopping"
but a larger blow/stab to the base of the skull is a different story.
Jacks Complete has got the right idea - longer range or a more subtle attack is wonderful for reducing the risk of an attack.
I think this information will help us in thinking of better means and methods for weapons. We already know about hide-away-
knives and other homemade or purchased small edged weapons but many probably thought of them as ineffective next to a
big K-Bar or even a 3" folder. However if stabbing isn't as fast as we thought, and new methods of training are used, the little
1" blade will do the job on tendons in a sort of close in non conventional fight as you might see in judo. This is clearly good as
little knives can be hidden more easily and made or found more easily. Without the need for a long strong stabbing blade this
may make little ceramic knives viable as they don't undergo the stresses that a normal knife does.
However, as Jack pointed out, all this close in work is really horrible compared to the alternatives. One must keep in mind all
the blood and mess that would make it almost impossible to avoid leaving some of you behind and taking some of them to
use the forensics mantra.
As it becomes harder and harder to carry(or even buy) knives we must adapt modern ideas of knife combat that are effective
and tilt the advantage to small easily hidden weapons - because these are the only sort that are realistic to carry in some of
our "progressive" cities and nations.
InfernoMDM January 6th, 2007, 01:18 AM

Some of the best knife fighters around are the Russians. They will tell you no matter how good you are your going to get cut.
They just make the point is to reduce the severity by taking the cuts in less vital areas.
Hirudinea January 6th, 2007, 05:41 PM

The flip side is the parable of David and Goliath. One good shot was a kill, and what this parable really tells *us* is that a
projectile is far better than close-in wet-work if you want to stay healthy.
Actually some people theorize that Goliath had a growth abnormality (why he was so big) that caused defects in his skull which
weakened it, basicly David could have used eggs in his sling and brought the bastard down! :)
I am glad to see my find is well received.
Yes, thank you.
One thing that was not really touched(no pun intended) upon in those articles is a direct attact to the CNS. You can't really do
this with a western sword but a large knife used by a very strong person could be used to great effect on the spine or skull. A
thin blade going into the brain from the eye may not be very fast at "stopping" but a larger blow/stab to the base of the skull
is a different story.
I've heard that a favourite trick was to use an icepick through the ear canal and directly into the brain, it was supposed to work
fairly well, since carrying around an icepick might seem strange today mabye that same thing could be done with a large
kniting neddle? As for a heavy blow, what about the "Smashit", a largeish knife designed by Fairbarin for commando usies I
believe.
nbk2000 January 6th, 2007, 06:20 PM

It's called a Smatchet.
Going rate for modern production smatchets is $200.
Alexires January 7th, 2007, 10:10 AM

I would say hitting anything in the back of the head will be rather immediate. Problem is that there is a lot of bone back there.
Sever the spinal column and the body will fail.
Damage the brain at the back of the head and the body will fail.
I can attest that damage to the front of the brain wont stop someone. The worst part is that they won't remember killing you,
and could blame it on temporary insanity in the court and get away with it!
no_fear January 9th, 2007, 02:46 AM

That was an awesome topic. Thank you for that.
As for killing someone by hitting them in the back of the head or by severing the spinal column... my dad is a homicide
detective and he sees stuff like that all the time. As for hits in the front of the head, like Alexires said, they aren't necessarily
deadly.
Once again, awesome articles there. Great find.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Titanium and metal detectors
Log in
View Full Version : Titanium and metal detectors
InfernoMDM January 10th, 2007, 07:31 PM

I forgot about this little bit of information, and thought I would share it. A long time ago probably before my initial sign up on this forum I was looking for the perfect dive knife.
I use to swim extensively in the ocean and have nearly drowned from drifting shrimp nets and ropes around docks. Well as you all know rust is the killer of steel and even high
quality steel, and even tenifer(coating on glocks might have misspelled the word) coated steels aren't a match for the ocean salt water.
While in my travels I came across a titanium folding knife. I will see if I can find it again but the company was oceanmaster or seamaster I believe. Around the same time I
also began to play with the idea of defeating metal detectors. Well I had a chance to run my own titanium knife and a few others claiming to be titanium through the metal
detector. Needless to say it didn't set of the metal detector after I removed the metal pocket clip. The test was more to see if metal detectors in airports, and other higher
security areas would detect the knife itself, and they didn't. That said other knives claiming to be titanium didn't pass through, and were subsequently researched that a few
were covered in, or only partially made of titanium.
I thought I would share that with you guys, although I know many of you know that from pure scientific fact this to be the case, but sometimes its nice to test things.
Grapes Of Wraith January 10th, 2007, 08:40 PM

Have you looked into the idea of a carbon fiber knife I know you can buy them and that they can't be detected. What I do not know is thier resistance to water, I would guess
that it would be impossible for the blade to rust or dull in watter.

Yes but Carbon Fiber knives that are generally found really have no edge. The best thing they have is the ability to pierce.
Also a note on sharpening titanium. Do not use any metal based sharpener as it will magnetize the titanium enough to set off the metal detector.
Match January 10th, 2007, 08:59 PM

Carbon fiber is a mix of a carbon fiber (usually in bands) and a resin, it would be like trying to make a knife out of fiberglass, It has a high tensile strength, but it's not hard
enough to cut anything. Although you could make a knife out of carbon fiber as long as it something hard for the blade.
Ceramic, flint, plastic, are all plausible for a edged weapon.
As for getting past metal detectors, I've *accidently* brought a pocket knife and multi tool, each with a blade long and sharp enough to scare sheeple into submission. I was
unaware that they were in my carry ons. Airport security is a joke.
Grapes Of Wraith January 10th, 2007, 09:04 PM

best thing they have is the ability to pierce.
I just thought I'd mention that because they can still be used as a lethal weapon, and can be snuck onto a plane or other high security place.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/maxdal/cfk.jpg

As for getting past metal detectors, I've *accidently* brought a pocket knife and multi tool, each with a blade long and sharp enough to scare sheeple into submission. I was
unaware that they were in my carry ons. Airport security is a joke.
All metal detectors are calibrated to detect certain levels of metal. That being said this calibration is done by people and can error on the side of good and bad. However the
ones I tested were set so very low as per the sites needs.
GoW - I agree although a edge is usually a lot easier to play with.
+++
Don't quote whole posts. NBK

As pointed out, that nice looking carbon fiber knife wouldn't carve wood for more than 5 seconds. It would also snap if used to pry anything. And a real knife would cut right
through it.
Titanium is a great metal. With the right heat treatment of the cutting edge it can be hard enough to cut well, whilst still having a tough core that won't snap or shatter. It is
(and I'll have to google this to make sure) paramagnetic, so it acts to reduce the effect of a magnetic field through it, and is slightly attracted to the magnet. Steel is highly
magnetic (ferromagnetic) and so has a much breater effect on the AC magnetic field of a detector. Some stainless steels are paramagnetic, so some stainless knives may also
be fine for walking through detectors. However, use of a demagnetiser would be a good idea, since the stroking of the blade whilst sharpening will set up a magnetic field in
the material. Note that any repeated chopping or sharpening will magnetise a metal blade to some degree, even just chopping at a hardwood.
With a carefully tuned system, you still might get found out. Generally, however, it wouldn't be an issue. If a few experiments were run, the answer could be found easily and
rapidly. Stainless steels such as those used for revolvers might also give interesting results.
deaddwarf February 12th, 2007, 05:28 AM

That carbon fiber knife is still an effective weapon and if you know how to utilize it effectively then it serves it's purpose (Think a scumball crackhead with a toothbrush shiv
going as hard and fast as a singer sewing machine). A utility knife could be crafted if needed, the idea of this knife is purely combative.
I'd trust it over titanium due to the reasons stated, the metal can still acquire a faint magnetic field, that could be enough to get you caught out.

I'm sure most people interested in the plastic knives and such has heard of ones like the CIA Letter Opener and Delta Dart.
What I've heard, though have no way of proving myself, is that such knives, manufactured after about 2000, actually have a detectable metal content, either dispersed metal
or a metallic insert.
RTPB: Trust but verify (that any such weapon actually IS non-metallic)
inventorgp February 14th, 2007, 08:46 AM

How bout' a ceramic knife made of zirconium dioxide?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_knife
Oh and just to let you a point of interest, Howa firearms are making barrels out of carbon fiber.
NBK's right on the metal content part, I read it some where and its in the link above.
EDIT: I saw this on another thread http://datacenter.ap.org/wdc/fbiweapons.pdf
InfernoMDM February 14th, 2007, 02:22 PM

If I get a chance to play with a hand held metal detector again I am going to see if I can snatch up a few of the plastic knives. I did a search on the net and didn't find any
evidence of these plastic wonders having metal of any type in them. The only plastic knives with metal apparently is on page 35, 48 of inventorgp's link. Page 73 states a
metallic construction of the "Titanium Charge Card" but doesn't state if the it would be picked up by the metal detectors.
I also have debated the ceramic knife idea, but I don't know much about the design features, and which may have metal reinforcements. I do know that any twisting or
bending stress on the blades is likely to shatter them, which is why we don't see them as self defense blades.
Frunk February 18th, 2007, 09:30 PM

McMaster (Passivation) sell technical ceramics like zirconium oxide. 10 pounds of zirconium ceramic casting compound will cost you 115$. You can always go for silica and save
30$ or you can buy small blocks of them and machine it to a knife shape with diamond tools. Technical ceramics are really hard, normal machining tools are actually tipped
with them, an example being silicon carbide tools. If you're rich and/or intend to make a large batch, pay 85$ for 5 kg of silicon carbide ceramic, buy some carbon fiber rods as
an armature for the blade and practice your woodworking skills for the handles. You might be able to make some good ceramic knives after a few tests. You will probably need
a small 400$ technical ceramic kiln form Ebay, I doubt these are chemical setting ceramics.
I suppose you could always use some super plastics like Lexan to make plastic knives... just buy a sheet, cut it up and try to sharpen it. Any plastic, wood, ceramic or glass
pointy object could pass a metal detector and be used as a knife.
Carbon fiber barrels for firearms must absolutely have steel inserts. Bore size is everything and whatever plastic resin is used in carbon fiber would melt or at least warp if if
was rubbed by an accelerating bullet.
Skean Dhu February 18th, 2007, 11:07 PM

Why go through all that trouble of finding a premade knife that will elude metal detectors, or making your own ceramic cast machined knife when the technology to do so has
already been invented and exists for millenia?
For about 2 hours of your time and 5 USD in parts you could manufacture your own knife that will pass through metal detectors and rivals any surgeons scalple in keeness. The
skill of knapping could be mastered in a weekend of diligent practice. Glass bottle bottoms, window panes, chert, quartz, obsidian, and even porcelain(ie; toilet resevior covers)
can be made into effective knives.
literally so easy a Caveman could do it.
http://www.sterlingsculptures.com/Resources_folder/Knapping_folder/Knapping_2.htm
http://www.onagocag.com/knapping.html
I've even heard the leg bones of large animals can hold a reasonable edge. The Host of 'Survivor man" used an 'elk leg bone' knife when he was in the arctic, but for the life of
me I can't find anything on the internet on using bone as the blade material. For stabbing Steak bones, antlers, toothbrushes, and wood have all been used for the task.
If you're dead set on buying a knife look into these: http://www.englishrussia.com/?p=590
akinrog February 21st, 2007, 04:40 PM

..............obsidian.......
This natural volcanic glass is so sharp, it's used not only by natives / cavemen of the past but also even by surgeons of modern age to make surgeries.
It's said the edge created by the shaped shard is so thin it can directly go through in between cells :eek: and the healed wound leaves very little scar marks.
If I could get them, I would use them, since in ancient times this material was very precious, because of its unique sharpness and shapeability (sp?). Regards.
Too Coolio February 22nd, 2007, 04:35 PM

Hi Guys,
I was a member here a few years back but forgot my old username.Think it was Ragnar57(or something like that).
Anyways.A Carbon fibre knife designed to the effect of a Fairbairn-Sykes Shanghai dagger would be the way to go in my opinion.The F-S knife that I have doesn't really have
much of an edge to begin with.Although it will easily cut bare skin,slashing through clothing like even thick cotton wouldn't be very effective especially with the edge closer to
the tip.
The original shanghai was designed as a stabber.Focusing on this "point" as the main design criteria would seem to be the way to go.
I personally would prefer a robustly made Shiv over a knife that sacrifices toughness as a trade off only to achieve an easily damaged sharp edge.
That sapphire knife is pretty neat tho
Jacks Complete February 22nd, 2007, 06:07 PM

They are sharp but brittle. Eye surgery in the Soviet Union was carried out using these blades, rather than the lasers we now use over here. The Russians still operate "eye
hospital ships" in various places, they drop anchor someplace and for a small fee (far less than lasik!) they will sort vision defects.
The way it works is the crystalline fractures are clean, and this leaves an almost nanoscale sharp edge, unlike a metal, that deforms and smears. Take a look at the difference
between a bee sting and a hypo under high magnification, and you can see the difference!
The issue is that if you hit something hard, it will fracture the edge. A steel blade would shear your ceramic one easily. Also, any force on the side of the blade would snap it, in
the same way as a badly heat-treated knife will snap, rather than bend a little.
Tungsten carbide tools are now quite cheap. They are also technically illegal in the UK! But then, so is nearly everything.
prespec April 3rd, 2007, 02:56 AM

Kyocera makes ceramic knives ,of the kitchen variety, as well as mobile phones. A small boning or paring knife would serve quite well as an easily concealed weapon.
bookwurm99 April 3rd, 2007, 06:46 PM
Carbon Fiber barrels start out as a high quality regular barrel. they then turn them down and wrap them in carbon fiber. they end up larger than the barrel started out as. they
do carbon fiber barrels because they don't heat up as fast and cool better than fluting the barrel. (fluting: cutting grooves to increase surface area that also lighten the barrel)
carbon fiber barrels are also ALOT lighter than traditional barrels. they are used mostly in lightweight hunting guns and in varminting.

Carbon fibre cannot be used alone due to the heat from a round burning it, the high pressures breaking it (think thermal shock and the different strengths and expansion rates
of the carbon fiber and the glues - you want dimensional stability), and the friction wearing the surface away in a few rounds.
The US Army put millions into aluminium/carbon composite barrels, but never managed anything that worked. The OICW has a titanium barrel for the low pressure grenade
launcher barrel.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Homemade/ Custom Knives
Log in
View Full Version : Homemade/ Custom Knives
_SAS_ January 23rd, 2007, 08:33 AM

I'm interested in constructing a sturdy type of combat knife.
I have done a brief search for making knives from scratch, but haven't managed to find anything.
From what I have found, you can make a quality knives from high carbon grade steels which can be acquired from metal shops, recyclers, merchants.etc.
From there, you can anneal the steel to soften it enough to be cut and or ground to the desired shape. Once you have shaped you blade it can be hardened or tempered where
the final steps in contruction take place (final/ minimal grinding, sharpening and surface finishing. etc)
My idea of knife construction is a bit vague, so if anyone has suggestions or tips, (heat treating, construction...) they will be greatly appreciated.
Charon January 24th, 2007, 12:23 AM

From the sound of it, You don't have much knowledge in the land of blacksmithing or forging, please forgive my harshness but making homemade knives (especially the
combat ones you describe) can be a very tedious task.
What kind of blade point do you want? What kind of handle would you want? Full tang? Any serration?
There's alot that goes into knifemaking from block of steel to tool of sweet destruction. Granted, you can easily make a spike or rudimentary grade edged weapon, if your
interested look up knife kits, and get a feel for it, forging knives is not impossible, but it is definetely something that you need to progressively learn about before you go full
fledge into doing.
+++++++++
Improve your grammar before giving advice. It helps with your credibility if you don't come off like a IM n00b. NBK
ONLY January 24th, 2007, 01:39 AM

A bastard file makes a great knife stock. I suggest cutting it with a band saw then bench grinding. After that its just a matter of putting an edge on it.
Alexires January 24th, 2007, 05:10 AM

Well, I'm guessing that because NBK has edited your post, this is allowed.
Obviously your searching efforts were so brief that you stopped before you clicked the search button in google.
Google search - knife making
http://www.knivesby.com/knifemaking.html
http://www.knivesaustralia.com.au/supplies.html
http://www.felesmagus.com/pages/cutler.html
http://www.primitiveways.com/pt-knives-1.html
http://www.texasknife.com/TKS_Mainframe.htm
http://www.knifekits.com/kk_1mainframe.htm
When inquiring about knife making in the past, a knife maker told me to get one of the kits from KnivesAustralia (which come with a book) and start that way.
Good luck.
festergrump January 24th, 2007, 02:38 PM

I highly recommend checking out Texas Knifemaker's site that Alexires linked to for a good blade to start with. Not only can some blades there be had relatively cheap
(assuming your time is money), they also offer a deep cryogenic tempering process (-305 F) for many of their models which would be difficult for most people to duplicate at
home.
Also, I just posted a link in the Rapidshare thread for two knifemaking books by Harold Hoffman. Highly recommended reading , covering all you'd probably ever need to know
on the topic at hand, from start to finish and everything in between.
Here's the download link again:

http://rapidshare.com/files/13201349/Knifemaking.rar.sda.exe.html
Password is "www.roguesci.org"
rayman January 24th, 2007, 05:07 PM

/quote
I have done a brief search for making knives from scratch, but haven't managed to find anything.
From what I have found, you can make a quality knives from high carbon grade steels which can be acquired from metal shops, recyclers, merchants.etc.
/end quote
first you didnt look vary hard, sounds like a spoon feed request, second " from what I found " so you did find somthing didnt you ??!!??
would it not be better to say " I have found little can some one point me in the right direction for more information on X " ?

I have a bit of knowledge. First your looking for a hard enough Rockwell strength to keep a edge while having some flexibility in the blade.
I personally dont think you will make a great combat knife that cant be had for nearly the same price as it would cost to make one.
That being said, go to a place that either makes steel sheets or has some to sell. Pick out the width you want the blade to be. This is important depending on its application. To
thick of a blade will give you a hatchet, and two thin will make it a scalpel.
You will need either a handheld power grinder with assorted cutting and grinding blades, or you will need to get someone that has a good power saw (with proper blades) and
maybe a bench grinder (I used both).
After that cut grind with rough/cutting blades then transfer to something less aggressive to hone the blade. 1500-2000 grit sandpaper works really well to finish off the last bit
of work, but takes a while if your doing it by hand.
Meawoppl January 25th, 2007, 01:34 AM

You will save a huge amount of hassle just buying one. Making something comparable to what you can buy for $50 would require at least $100 worth of time and effort. If it a
sentimental thing though, I strongly recommend the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Bladesmith-Forging-Your-Perfection/dp/0873644301
Great read, takes you from the basics of setting up a knife shop to pattern welding. The same author has a much more advanced book as well, but the name escapes me.
Both are great primers on smithing knives, but assume some basic smithing whatnot.
As for steel, truck axles and drive shafts are good for tough knives, and can be decarburized for smaller applications.
orangeman January 25th, 2007, 04:32 PM

I have tried and failed to make swords and knives of any worth while using a home made forge. Making a forge in its self is pretty easy. Forging the sword is quite hard.
I dont have a digital camera so these pictures are not mine but they will work all the same. Plus while searching this picture out i f ound this website that may be able
to help you.
http://www.instructables.com/id/F2Q1JCJYFOET9K4YG3/
As other stated above pick the steel for what you want to do with you weapon. Put a lot of research into it because if you go through with it, it will take time.
Here are materials for the forge its self.

Building bricks with 2-3 holes, x8
Solid building bricks (sand stone bricks not as good due to the heat) approximately x40
Roofing tiles x5
Breeze block x1
Slabs x2-3 (depending on size of slabs)
Hair dryer x2 (similar powers)
Soft clay about 1kg
I would like to tell you how to hammer out the steal but I am no good at it. So I recommend folding the steel several times and grinding it out to the shape you want.
Sorry I cant be more of a help.
paroxysm January 25th, 2007, 07:23 PM

I have tried this on a few occasions , but never forged a blade myself, just cut a blank out of reasonably high carbon steel (with full tang)
From there I ground it on a bench grinder, and attached blocks of wood to the tang with adhesive in between sections, then I riveted over the end and left to cure. then, lots of
time with a bastard file, rasp and adhesive paper. finish how you like, its the best way I know of (experience limited).

orangeman - Very impressive atempt. I don't think I could ever take the time to hand forge a weapon. I believe one thing you might have overlooked is tempering your
blades. Tempering is extremely easy to try, but difficult to perfect. Not sure if you did that or not.
orangeman January 26th, 2007, 04:48 PM

Thanks for the info. I will have to try it next time. I must not have really thought about it much at the time.
_SAS_ January 26th, 2007, 10:14 PM

Thanks to everyone for all of your replies. :)
In the future I shall be more thorough in my searches for information :p
Regards,
_SAS_
kodiak31 February 14th, 2007, 08:48 AM

Don't forget about using an automobile's leafspring for materials. Ultra cheap at the junkyard.

If you want to learn how to forge a knife in a primitive forge as our forefathers had or at least as my forefathers had check out , hoodswoods at wwww.survival.com they have
a video dedicated to forgeing a knife from junk . Also the knifesmiths in the video have their own web sites and videos that are also very good , but I can only comment on
the hoodswoods video and Tim Livelys videos. another good source for home made knifes is to check out the FOXFIRE books available at the librarey in most southern states.

If you want to learn how to forge a knife in a primitive forge as our forefathers had or at least as my forefathers had check out , hoodswoods at www.survival.com they have
a video dedicated to forging a knife from junk.
Also the knifesmiths in the video have their own web sites and videos that are also very good , but I can only comment on the hoodswoods video and Tim Livelys videos.
Another good source for home made knifes is to check out the FOXFIRE books available at the library in most southern states.
Hitech_Hillbilly July 12th, 2007, 02:54 PM

If you are looking for a military quality combat knife, buy one. If you are looking for a sharp, useful knife (and don't have access to them for some reason) then you can make
a good one with out having to forge or heat treat.
You will need an anvil (any size will do, even a small one), a flat cold chisel, a ball peen hammer (or other non-woodworking type hammer), a hacksaw, a couple of files, and
a tree trimming saw blade.
Get the saw blade and draw a knife pattern on it with a sharpie or other permanent marker that fits in the contours of the blade and handle. Using the flat cold chisel, score
around your sharpie lines with your chisel and hammer on the anvil. Using your hacksaw saw around the curve parts of the point end of the blade and remove excess.
Now, here's the tricky part. Starting at the bottom of the handle end, lay the blade on the anvil, with the excess hanging off the end of the anvil. The score line should match
as close as possible to the edge of the anvil. Next, Strike the blade on the excess part as close to the score line as possible and break off. This can take a few tries to get the
hang of, so have a couple of extra saw blades handy in case you need to start over. Continue working your way around the blade until you have the rough outline of your
blade left. Any further trimming needed will have to be hack sawed.
Now clean up the edges with your file. Then also using your file, file an edge to your knife, trying to keep a consistent angle along the length of the blade. Use about a 25
degree angle for general purpose use, 20 degree for fine slicing, and 15 degree for extreme sharpness but easy dulling.
To put on a handle, you can go with braided rope, tape, or go the extra mile and use wood. Mark a couple of holes in the centerline of the handle, one nearer to the hilt, and
one nearer to the end of the handle.
Now either punch these holes out or a drill and carbide drill bit (your punch or drill bit should only be slightly larger than the brads or brazing rod you will be using to attach you
handles).
If you use a punch, then you want the hardy hole on the anvil (hardy hole is the smallish hole on the striking face of the anvil) directly below where the hole in the handle will
be.
If you drill the holes out, then place on a scrap peice of wood. Don't worry about heat if you drill. This will not hurt, and will actually help as long as you keep the bluish
discoloring mostly on the handle and mostly off of the blade. After you have your two holes in the handle, drill corresponding holes in the wood blanks for your handle using the
same drill bit.
Then place a brad (with point and head snipped off) or some pieces of brazing rod through the first piece of wood, then through the metal of the handle, then through the
second piece of wood. Place the whole mess on the anvil, and using a round punch of same diameter as brads or rod, tap the end of one side of the brads. Stop after several
sharp taps to see if the ends of the brads have flared, and are holding the wood snugly to the metal. Repeat if necessary.
I have made several knives using this method (my great grandfather showed this to me many years ago using worn out parts from an old horse drawn hay rake) and they
work great. My current skinning knife was made like this (I've used it over 10 hunting seasons).
stupid939 July 13th, 2007, 05:39 PM

This has to be the best knife-making site I have found. It has links to tons of tutorials on everything that you would need to know from start to finish and beyond. Just scroll
down to "Instructional Links" and take a look:
http://gbrannon.bizhat.com/old.htm
darkknight1975 July 22nd, 2007, 12:25 AM

If you are looking for a military quality combat knife, buy one. If you are looking for a sharp, useful knife (and don't have access to them for some reason) then you can make
a good one with out having to forge or heat treat.
...
I have made several knives using this method (my great grandfather showed this to me many years ago using worn out parts from an old horse drawn hay rake) and they
work great. My current skinning knife was made like this (I've used it over 10 hunting seasons).
That's the way it is done in the FOXFIRE books .
NoltaiR July 23rd, 2007, 12:51 PM

Knives have always been of great interest to me. Mostly because the injury they inflict has a bit of primitive sport to it (in the case of hunting) as opposed to guns which often
kill without any skill.
The two catagories that are of greatest appeal to myself are those that are handmade from chipped rock and fastened to any available handle, and any of the switchblade or
spring-loaded variety.
On the topic of the chipped rock blade, a person making one probably has a good deal of knowledge about knives and therefore will probably know how to use it. While often
not as sharp has a commercial steel blade, the naturally serrated edge(s) allow for extra damage to be done. More important than this though, since it was handmade, there
won't be any inscriptions on it that would make it distinguishable if ever taken up as evidence (and they won't set off metal detectors).
Switchblades are also quite fascinating to me. While very commercialized and take no skill at all to use effectively, the ability to retract your blade into the handle makes it
extremely concealable... enough said.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Pen Grenade
Log in
View Full Version : Pen Grenade
2ndamendment February 5th, 2007, 10:46 PM

My friend and I conce ived this idea while we were sitting in Biology.
Have you ever looked at the Pilot G-2 pen? It's a gel pen that contains a canister for the gel, a spring, and a push button fo r
pushing the ink cartridge up a nd down. I have filled these pens with BP and found they do com bust even with the pen opening.
Anyway, you take out the spring and canister. It unscrews around the middle. Then you glue sandpaper at the end of the tube
were the clicker is. Ne xt take I'd say three to five strike anywheres and load them in the clicker end. Then fill it with BP. To
k e e p t h e e n d s f r o m j u s t s e p a r a t i n g y o u c o u l d u s e s o m e PVC cem ent.
All thats left to do now is give to someone you don't like very much, or m aybe chuck it and use it as an im pact explosive. But
if yo ur going to throw it you m i g h t w a n t t o g o a h e a d a n d s e a l t h e p e n o p e n i n g .
PYRO500 February 5th, 2007, 10:55 PM

This is stuff straight from the anarchist's cookbook/totse . If I were still a m oderator I would cut your ass down for posting this
idea , as a (EDIT: ANOTHER POINTLESS) new thread non e t h e l e s s
2ndamendment February 5th, 2007, 10:59 PM

Your right. In the orinigal 1989 ver. theres was something about it sticking a m atch inside a pen, but I couldn't find the rest.
My bad I have the 05 .

Had you actually added something partially interesting (and of your own) to the p en to m ake it less Kewl then you might have
stoo d a chan ce, but with NBK on the look out for people who com m it forum suicide, I might want to say good bye to you before
I m iss the chance to.

Not only that you posted it outside the watercooler, which if posted there you m ight still have a cha nce at survival. Too bad you
couldn't be b othered to pay m ore attention to the rules, I liked the nam e .
Asriel Novem ber 25th, 2007, 03:56 PM

I think you m ight have watched Goldeneye one too m any tim es there, but on a serious not I would look into a piezoelectric
ignition system like you can find in som e lighters, I think that' would be a useful way.
Killy Novem ber 26th, 2007, 12:27 AM

"My friend and I conceived this idea while we were sitting in Biology. "
LOL
T h e t h r e a d s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c a l l e d " t h e p e n m ine".
Mean and dirty idea, thuough
Charles Owlen Picket Novem ber 26th, 2007, 11:03 AM

Biology is a fascinating science. The ability to stick to a subject at hand will make for a m ore discip lined m ind. A disciplined
m ind is what is needed to conceptualize and (e specially) develop energetic materials.
Winston Bailey January 18th , 2008, 01:32 AM

U p o n r e a d i n g t h i s t h r e a d I t h o u g h t i t m i g h t b e a g o o d i d e a t o p o s t m y i d e a o n a m i n e m ade from a pen blasting cap which is
detonated by stepping on. Get a Hi-Liter brand highlighter clicker(it has a decently strong spring) and take the tip out. I
haven't fully com pleted this project as i just thought about it the other day.
Buy som e party poppers from the store($.99 store). Twelve of them come in one bag for a dollar. Take the confetti out and
remove the actual popper in them . Once this is done, rig the popper to the highlighter so that when clicked the spring will pull
the string out of the popper (which is either in the pen or outside in which case the highlighter is stuck into a small charge of
any sensitive HE (like AP)????
Of course before rigged up you would have to click the pen once so it is in the lower position. R ig it all up and stick the pen
into a sm all charge or the pen having the HE in itself and then p ut it into a booster. This is then placed in a secondary (ANFO).
All contained in a decently sized bottle, i.e. a grant's brand stum p rem over bottle.
W h e n s o m eone steps on the actual clicker part of the pen, BOOM!!!! Alth ough this is not what i would actua lly do. Just an idea
I c o n c e i v e d . I f a n y o n e h a s a n y s u g g e s t i o n s o r r e a s o n s w h y t h i s i s a b a d i d e a ( o t h e r t h a n t h e o b v i o u s ) p l e a s e l e t m e know.
I thought it might be interesting to post m y little spin on a pen grenade. I haven't yet rea d a b o u t a n y o n e u s i n g p a r t y p o p p e r
"popper" as an ignition source.
CHEERS
Thorald January 19th , 2008, 06:23 AM

T h e p e n " g r e n a d e " i s n o t a n e w i d e a a nd its pretty easy to m ake one, as the person who started this thread has shown.
All thats left to do now is give to someone you don't like very much
I h o p e y o u h ave an idea of how dangerous/stupid that is. It is a ll very well saying that but, how wo uld you feel if your
contraption blinded som e o n e o r d i d o t h e r s e r i o u s d a m a ge.

I would never do such a thing. I have no intentions of h u r t i n g m y s e l f n o r a n y o n e e l s e . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , e x p l o s i v e s a r e
"dangerous" it doesn't matter what kin d. Think what would happen if your own m other was given such a device?? NO T cool at
all.It would b e a f u n i d e a , N O T m e a n t t o h a r m , m aim , or kill for that m atter. OBVIOU SLY this is no new idea. :rolleyes: But,
could/can be fun none the less. :D
Killy January 23rd , 2 0 0 8 , 0 8 : 3 1 P M

I m a m azed how new threads are m ostly started by people havin g less th a n 1 0 p o s t s , a n d t h a n " m o r e e x p e r i e n c e d " m e m b e r s
discuss it.
Its like they got on forum , throw the bom b a n d get the hell away....

Yes, I hadn't noticed that tren d until you said something (killy). But in fa ct, that tends to be the case. Unusual, on topic, I
m ade a very sim ple tripwire pen blasting cap for novelty use. Go od for paintball, airsoft,good tim e, etc,....A waste of tim e but
n o n e t h e l e s s n o t a c o m plete waste if at the end of work you get to enjoy the time spent. =]]
CHEERS
TORCHed January 31st, 2008, 02:40 AM

W hat would be the general po int of a tiny pen grenade? Given the fact that somehow you have to push down the clicker would
only result in an unknowing person to either ge t hurt. I think the unm odified pen is probably m ore exciting than this little trick.
Swissdude February 28th, 2008, 04:45 PM

How about a pen with a cap. Y o u g l u e t h e s t r i n g e n d o f o n e o f t h o s e p a r t y p o p p e r s t o t h e c a p a n d t h e s m a l l c h a r g e i n s i d e t h e
p e n , a n d t h e n sim ply fill up the pen with the desired explosive and voil.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Where to get a taser {not online}
Log in
View Full Version : Where to get a taser {not online}
hammer February 25th, 2007, 02:22 AM

Where can you get a taser thats not online. I mean a store like sunny's {there going out of business}, sport's authority or dick's. i hear some fairs and flea markets have them.

Try telling us what country and state you live in and we might be able to help.
Oh, and proper sentences help with motivating people to bother with answers, since they'll know you're not some k3wL idiot who'll fuck off a potential source. ;)
droz February 25th, 2007, 03:25 AM

I'm assuming that since you said Sports Authority or Dicks you're in the United States.
I've found in my various travels across this country that gun stores and pawn shops are very likely to have tasers. Many of them will ask for ID however to purchase them. I
have also seen some Wal-Marts carrying tasers.

Only the M26 or X26 TASER, manufactured by TASER International (http://www.taser.com/law/product_info/index.htm), is worth having.
Anything you may find in a pawn shop or gunstore is HIGHLY unlikely to be functional, either from a mechanical or physiological standpoint.
I've seen many things called TAZER in such places, but those are for idiot mall-ninjas who know nothing about TASER's, other than the name, and so are easily fooled into
buying SHIT that sounds the same.
Also, if you're buying it used, how do you know it works properly? Sure, it might spark, but that doesn't mean shit. It could have been dropped by a cop into a lake during a
chase, and dried out afterwards, only to be discovered ineffectual the next time it was used, thus why it's in a pawnshop or gunstore.
ONLY if it is brand new and in the box at a retail seller, and actually IS a TASER, would it be worth buying.
And, again, just assuming he is in the US does shit-all in helping out, since some entire states ban civilian ownership of TASER's, so knowing what state Hammer is in would be
the only way to progress any further.
And there won't be any further progress unless that's the next thing I see Hammer posting, as otherwise the Beast will feed on him. :)
InfernoMDM February 25th, 2007, 05:09 AM

The X/M26 TASER has had a few issues. The biggest issue has been jackets, sweat shirts, and baggy clothes. Add that to the bad guy doing the one thing he will naturally do
when hes hit. Stop Drop Roll. It's not just for being set on fire anymore. It is by no means a bad product, but if you can carry a TASER you probably can carry mace, and mace
is far more effective in my opinion.

If I had the money, I'd get an animal TASER, since it has way more juice than the human TASER, and is considered lethal for human use. :)
hammer February 25th, 2007, 12:12 PM

Oh, and proper sentences help with motivating people to bother with answers, since they'll know you're not some k3wL idiot who'll fuck off a potential source. ;)
I know not talk u are about,formualted well they are.
And I live in PA, I've heard that fairgrounds where i live have small setup shops, that have tasers and other products ordered off the internet but i was wondering if any sport
shops have them. I've seen some of these setup shops having brass knuckles,batons,crossbows,swords and axes but no tasers.
droz February 25th, 2007, 01:37 PM

I've got a funny feeling you've just became the Beasts next meal. And I'm quite sure the Beast is hungry since he's not ate since 02/25/07.
tomu February 26th, 2007, 06:42 AM

Before I spent hard cash on an electrical gadget like a taser, I would get me a cap and ball gun, which in most states would be totaly legal.
Except from great BP revolvers like the Remington Pocket, there are also multi barreled desingns like the pepper box, the twister and other muzzleloader percussion guns
available which lent themselfes to be carried concealed.
E. g. look at this site http://www.thunder-ridge-muzzleloading.com/pistol2.htm
The Kits are costing below a hundred bucks and are more reliable manstoppers than tasers. Doesn't matter if the attacker wears a leather jacket or what ever garment, except
a bullet proof vest.
Unfortunately where I live multi barreld muzzleloader guns are only legal with flint locks and only flint locks don't require a CCL.

TASER's allow you to capture someone without serious injure, unlike firearms where you'd have to shoot someone (possibly killing them) if they refused to acknowledge the
guns threat.
An idea regarding flintlocks:
When I think of a flint, I'm thinking the kind found in lighters, not some chip of rock.
What defines a flintlock, legally? The ignition system?
If so, why not use modified cartridges that replace the primer with a steel forcing cone holding a lighter flint? Then, when impacted by the primer, the flint is forced through the
forcing cone, spraying sparks into the powder, firing the round.
Thus, you still have the benefit of centerfire arms, with the legal loophole of a flintlock. :p
I remember seeing (many years ago) a semi-automatic BP rifle someone had made that used a steel needle driving into a cartridge round that had flint chips held in the primer
pocket. So it is possible.
tomu February 26th, 2007, 12:29 PM

A few years ago your work around would be legal according to then valid old gun law. The term was spark initiated muzzleloading guns.
Unfortunately the new gun law says the lock and the muzzzleloading gun must have been developed before 1871. There are muzzleloading flintlock revolvers even double-
action flintlock revolvers which have been developed prior 1871 but none with an e. g. electrical firing system or a firing system you mentioned.

Ever done a thorough study of patents? I'm sure that, somewhere, there is a pre-1871 patent for electric firing or something similiar to what I described.
Whether or not it was commercially sucessful is irrelevant, as long as you can show that it was conceived of prior to 1871, making it legal for you to duplicate.
tomu February 27th, 2007, 05:59 PM

Well, I visited museums in Germany, Austria, France, Spain and the UK and talked to a lot of people being myself a member of the European Gun Collectors Federation.
There are electrical firing systems for guns invented and even produced prior to 1871. Unfortunately all were single shot or at max double barreled and almost all were long
arms only a very few were single shot pistols, no multishot desings, no multibarrels nor cylinders.
There is a flint lock revolver with an ingenious double-action mechanism which is now on display at french museum, but the mechanism is complicated and therefore expensive
to produce and the gun is unreliable. Also the old revolver is big, heavy and cumbersome, comparable in size and weight to a 6" .44 Magnum. Not much fun lugging it around.
The reloading mechanism for the pan to be charged with meal powder is awesome, the oldtimers were really great mechanics.
javainmycoffee November 14th, 2007, 05:04 AM

Why worry about buying a tazer when you can make one yourself?
The circut inside Kodak disposible flash camera can make an exellent tazer. I removed all the resistors on mine and attached leads to the capacitor and now it kills cats
instantly. You must remove the resistors, otherwise it just gives a little shock therapy.
Also I saw a guy on utube (I'm unable to find the video again) who simply soldered a few more capacitors on top of the existing one on the circut board.
Gammaray1981 November 18th, 2007, 06:21 PM

Firstly, this thread is months old. Secondly, I really REALLY hope you're joking about killing cats, because, quite aside from the fact that it's a useless quantitative test of power,
not to mention the differences in human and cat physiology, any abuse this forum advocates is of dumb PEOPLE and LAWS, not dumb ANIMALS.
Also, not everyone has any skill with electronics. I know that I, personally, would consider myself incapable of producing anything like this: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/
circ/hv/stungun/stungun.html
(second image on the page). So, buying something new, and guaranteed to work, is probably the first choice for everyone concerned.
ChippedHammer November 18th, 2007, 09:35 PM

Removing the resistors wont change anything, the capacitor still becomes fully charged.
Mauser December 9th, 2007, 11:39 PM

The circut inside Kodak disposible flash camera can make an exellent tazer.
Umm this is pointing out the obvious but the last time I checked, a flash circuit is nowhere near a Taser/stun gun. Stun guns can be used repeatedly whereas a the capacitors
on the flash circuit will require recharging, which takes at least a good 5 seconds. Plus, flash circuits are unable to incapacitate anyone for more than a second or two. I've
never read of anyone getting dropped to the floor by a flash circuit, although I've managed to mildly burn my fingers with one.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > SHERPA (Suicidal High Explosive Reactive Personal Armor)
Log in
View Full Version : SHERPA (Suicidal High Explosive Reactive Personal Armor)

The Natural Born Killers of the 21st century are individuals who engage in high-risk 'activities' and are not adverse to dying...as long as their enemies die w ith them
PBA (Personal Body Armor) is an integral part of the NBK's arsenal, but that only protects against enemy projectiles in a passive mode. NBK's prefer dynamic and offensive
methodologies.
Thus, the need to 'sex up' PBA from a passive defense, to an active offense.
The research being conducted on thixiotropic armor, w hich is kevlar PBA saturated with a viscous carrier fluid saturated w ith collodial particles which transfrom from a flexible to
solid state under shock loading, is the key to the idea.
Rather than an inert silicone oil and particulate loading, substitute IM explosives (liquid and solid) of similiar properties (if any exist) and design suitable fusing for it to blow on
command or if killed (after a short delay, anti-movement switching activates to kill the first enemy to move your body).
If suitable IM explosives don't exist to perform in a similar manner, then a layer of silicone rubber explosive, similiar to DET-FLEX, could be used as a anti-trauma backing for the
armor, allowing for improved defense against blunt trauma impact, and still providing for selective a suicide attack.
As a less extreme measure, a non-lethal (to you) defense could be based on the premise of having a low w eight of explosive propelling a payload, either smoke/tear gas/
fragment, from your armor, towards your enemies.
Based on the assumption of w earing PBA w ith hard-plates (front/back), the explosive is in a thin layer on the surface of your rear hard plate, with the payload on top of that,
with a switch mounted where it can be instantly reached w hen the piggies have you on your knees and they approach you from behind.
When they do, you press the switch or it automatically fires (after prior arming) w hen you are prone and on your chest (tilt+ pressure) with a piggie on your neck.
The explosive is of a low velocity, since it doesn't need velocity for range, and it's very near your body. There are very low velocity explosives that would w ork just fine, in the
1000m/s range, since the targets are literally within spitting distance.
When it goes boom, the piggies on your back are now off your back, and the chaotic event is your chance to attack or flee.
If the piggies are further away when you trigger it, the pain and surprise of the attack provide the same opportunity.
When dealing with explosives in such close proximity to your body, total explosive w eight and impulse are important factors, as it doesn't do you any good to have an explosion
rupture your lungs or contuse you into unconciousness.
Distance is your friend in this case.
Create the distance by interspersing an inflatable envelope (airbag) betw een your hardplate and the explosive sheet. The airbag is inflated in a few dozen milliseconds, creating
an airgap of an inch or two between the explosive and the vest, greatly reducing shock into your body.
Simple e-match ignited quickmatch w ith salvaged airbag azide pellets inline w ith the detonator provide the required inflation and timing.
By keeping the TEW low, and of a low VOD, blast would be low enough to be allow you to remain functional (though perhaps deafened).
The addition of titanium powder adds sufficient spark trails to blind night-adapted eyes. RP pellets, or FM absorbed on a carrier pow der, creates a dense screening smoke that
prevents covering piggies from getting an instant response shot off at you, since they couldn't see their comrades who w ere standing closer to you. :p
With either version, the armor must be able to take repeated hits and impacts w ithout unintentional functioning, so your S&A circuits and loadings would require to fail-safe,
rather than functioning.
As with anything, experimentatin w ould be required prior to deployment.
Hirudinea February 27th, 2007, 08:48 PM

and design suitable fusing for it to blow on command or if killed (after a short delay, anti-movement sw itching activates to kill the first enemy to move your body).
A simple pulse taking watch could probably be used as the heart of that circuit.
defiant February 28th, 2007, 12:42 AM

An airbag modified vest w ith a sw iss movement...? Too complicated. Besides, what's wrong w ith last years fashion?
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/4401/vestis7.jpg

What's 'Sw iss' about it?
A foot of quickmatch, burning at a foot every 10 milliseconds, would be ignited by a squid on one end, burn into the azide pellet, inflating the airbag as it continues to burn on
into the detonator.
If a car airbag can be completely inflated in 40 milliseconds, an airbag little over 100 cubic inches should be doable in a few milliseconds using a volume of pellets only a few
quarters in size.
Or use a CO2 inflator like this one:

http://ww w.w ebbikew orld.com/r3/motorcycle-air-bag/
Which, BTW, is what I got the idea of an inflatable PBA vest from.
And if that's too complicated, compressed polyethylene foam sheet w ith a mechanical stricker restrained by the compressed plates, the plates being released by a pull cord. In a
couple of seconds, the PE sheet expands sufficiently to release the stricker into the primer of the detonator and BOOM. :)
Or just say fuck it and mount it on a slab of styrofoam on your back. :p

Nice idea. I'd go about it a bit differently, though. The "Dragon scales" armour, and the ball bearing vest, both of which can stop AP ammo at rifle speeds up close, are the
perfect shrapnel materials. This goes over your explosive undercoat. It stops anything killing you, until you pop the fuse, or it fires due to later action.
I read that the "terrorists" in the UK subw ay bombing attempt were apparently using an explosive made from flour and hydrogen peroxide. The court w as told it w as amazing
that this hadn't exploded, since the prosecution claimed that it had exploded every time the police had tried it. If this were true (which it isn't, unless a source I can truct more
than a lawyer confirms it) then flour and water is thixoscopic, and would be great for an outer layer, over your dragon scales, as a smoke and explosive distraction that would
leave your vest underneath in fine condition.
FU TI February 28th, 2007, 04:55 PM

http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnDDsmRnNc
and also as a music to my ears :)
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=1A1hfdI28vY&mode= related&search=
so I guess water and flour can act funny but I consider H2O2 and flour explosive theory foolish. Can anyone estimate power of that mixture if possible?

According to the newspapers covering the court case, the prosecution claimed it should have destroyed the entire train carriage. I'm quite sure they were making things up. They
also claimed that the mix had eaten through 3 pairs of chemical gloves, but I figure if you are dumb enough to w ear latex for dodgy chemicals, even 30 layers isn't going to
help.
nbk2000 March 1st, 2007, 01:20 AM
The YouTube video 'Cornstarch Coolness', when I was watching it, I thought of the Holtzman Shield from Dune;
The slow blade penetrates the shield!
Or, in this case, the slow finger/airpuff.
The music video...if there was a way of making it so that the flid could be made to do that, but w ithout any audible sound, than it'd be an awesome kinetic sculpture, like
Lightning Globes. :)
And this is entirely OT.
Alexires March 1st, 2007, 06:45 AM

Or is it NBK? Instead of a body armour, w hy not maybe use something like the music/cornstarch experiment to create an instant barrier?
Maybe a stupid idea, but maybe not. There are other videos on there showing "Cornstarch lifeforms".
Imagine, if you w ill, piggies sprinting through your house, chasing you as you run. You've already fire on them, and they are out for your blood.
As you run through a door, you slap a button on the wall and behind you, a white mound rises from the seemingly solid flood. The pigs are stumped. They try blow ing it away,
but to no effect. Their rounds are absorbed. The sound from the mound is deafening and they can barely think. One tries to push it out of the way and finds his hands broken
and mangled from the force contained there in.
While making a wall of cornstarch rise from the ground would be hard, masquerading a 5x5 metre square of cornstarch as ground by putting the right vibrations through it w ould
be interesting and perhaps not so hard. When they step on it, you turn the vibrations off, and suddenly a 80kg piggy is stuck in the mud....ooops.
Otherw ise, you might be able to use this cornstarch stuff as a kind of shrapnel. Sort of like that bouncy silly putty when hit w ith a hammer. cornstarch shrapnel would hurt like a
mother fucker, and might eliminate problems of over penetration (if thats a problem) or perhaps bounce more than metal shrapnel would (less deformation).
FU TI March 1st, 2007, 02:20 PM

Well first thing that come to my mind is poor man's blow dampener made of starch-water (thixotropic?) solution inside the jacket bellow or above NBK air-bag system. Also I
wanted to add something constructive in discusion related to Alexires post. Second link is just for fun :).
I'm little buffled w ith NBK proposal since I still can't get into my head the idea of puting HE charge that close to my body and expecting to last after detonation. OK force w ill
diminish with distance from the body, but what about blast wounds? Also little to complex but...you never know can it be ussefull.
nbk2000 March 1st, 2007, 03:58 PM

...I still can't get into my head the idea of putting HE charge that close to my body and expecting to last after detonation.
Hence the S in SHERPA. :D
It's for use when your enemies are about to capture you at gunpoint, so you'll be able to get in one last blow at your enemies, and either succeed and escape, or die free.
It's like the poison-gas tooth from Dune. You die, but so do your enemies.
defiant March 2nd, 2007, 10:38 PM

OK, I'm convinved.
Lets see the demonstration video. :D:D:D
Defendu March 2nd, 2007, 11:21 PM

As you run through a door, you slap a button on the wall and behind you, a white mound rises from the seemingly solid flood.
Or you could get a door installed.
nbk2000 March 3rd, 2007, 12:21 PM

Alright, defiant, you asked, so here it is...a real-world poison gas tooth! :)
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=9ylnQ-T7oiA
Watch it and check yourself. ;)
The idea of a spikey floor reminds me of a scene from the movie Aeon Flux, where needle-sharp spikes extruded out from w hat looked like grass.
I've seen ferro-magnetic fluids take on very sharp (looking) spike shapes, but the magnetics aren't strong enough to make the fluid rigid enough to actually penetrate skin. :(
An airbag that's designed to pop like a ballon after being overpressurized by airbag pellets could be useful. Non-lethal and very simple to design. Make it so the gas from the
generator passes through an irritant powder or screening smoke composition (FM) and stirs it up for effective dispersal by the bags rupture.
defiant March 4th, 2007, 01:39 AM

Ha, ha.
To return the favor...:
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=YilPdQ2tVlE
nbk2000 March 4th, 2007, 05:57 AM

Dude, that was such a rip-off of the human claymore scene from Swordfish.
BTW, have you checked how many dental fillings you have yet? :D
megalomania March 4th, 2007, 01:38 PM

Ahhhhh, crap, no wonder I am going insane... :D
defiant March 4th, 2007, 02:11 PM

BTW, have you checked how many dental fillings you have yet?
I had fillings, but pulled those teeth shortly after they were filled. Its through the fillings that they track you (from 12 Monkeys) ;)
Jokes aside, your vest idea actually could work w ith R&D. It's not dissimilar to tank armor that explodes outw ard when hit to minimize damage to personnel.
FU TI March 5th, 2007, 04:39 PM

An airbag that's designed to pop like a ballon after being overpressurized by airbag pellets could be useful. Non-lethal and very simple to design. Make it so the gas from the
generator passes through an irritant powder or screening smoke composition (FM) and stirs it up for effective dispersal by the bags rupture.
If I may modify the design place some powdered clay like montmorilonite in those bags and you will get that smoke screen I guess. Use same montmorilonite mixed w ith water
for the second layer of bags instead of starch (I think it will w ork the same although it is not as cheap as the previous material). On the other hand if you add some dry starch
to those bags in the first layer you could get some kind of aerosolic explosion maybe.
I'm still baffled not with the idea "take someone with you on your way to eternity (wherever that is)", but with overengeneering concept of the weapon. Like someone already
said the vest they made today are just sufficient for the job.
I also start to think that air-bag idea start to look like it come from the mind of someone who has trouble to accept the death and cling desperately to that feeble chance to
survive the blast.
I hope you won't be insulted NBK I have read a lot of your posts to know that is not the case but this thread blocked my neural pathways with its inconsistency in logic (the way
I see it).
I must say that all added idea to this concept by you NBK are good one but its like building a Mech w arrior while tanks are still working to do the job. I have seen on youtube
those test with Dragonskin vest and hand granade....sure it won't be penetrated but if my internal organs are turned into bloody milkshake I don't give a shit about it.
nbk2000 March 5th, 2007, 05:38 PM

It's variations, that's all.
The first one is pure SHERPA. The airbags and such are SHERPA-Lite. ;)
First one is guaranteed to kill you and everyone near you. The others might kill you, might not. Same with those around you.
Depends on how good an engineer you are.
First one, very simple...BOOM! Not much can go w rong there.
Others, more so, if you w ant a second chance at things.
Choose your flavor according to taste.
defiant March 7th, 2007, 12:41 AM

I'm not enthralled by the idea either Futi.
What the hells wrong with death (if you can take more of them than they take you)?
On the other hand, I'll take a dozen units if this item can be produced at a reasonable cost. :D
tiac03 March 7th, 2007, 01:45 AM

This Is still the better of the Cornstarch experiments (getting back to NBK's sculpture Idea).
http://youtube.com/watch?v= vCHPo3EA7oE
As for The airbag Ideas. Is there sufficient pressure formed to sling out metal pieces using the modified airbag itsself? Same Idea as placing shrapnel over the airbag in the car is
and then ramming the intended victim causing the airbag to go off and deliver a face full of pointy metal objects.
If you could get an Airbag to fill up on your back quickly enough you can get metal projectiles "flung" as high enough speeds to be deadly for those on the recieving end but
give you more of a chance than strapping C4 to yourself no?
(Sure might not have the same radius but anything w ithin 10 feet would be unhappy.)
Gerbil March 9th, 2007, 02:18 PM

In regard to the H2O2 and flour "explosive", they were apparently using 6% hydrogen peroxide concentration :rolleyes: . I'm not entirely sure w hat they intended to happen.
Ironically, with the H2SO4 from the AP synthesis, they could have distilled to nitric acid, made RDX and actually done some damage. Still, I'm not complaining...
As for the vest, I can't help but feel that even if the airbag version worked, it'd be likely to injure the user (shrapnel in legs, etc) and cause their capture.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Non-MACE
Log in
View Full Version : Non-MACE
nbk2000 March 16th, 2007, 05:01 AM

We're all familiar with the effects and uses of tear-gas and pepperspray.
But what about when you need to drive someone back or out, without contaminating the area or yourself in the process?
Imagine the scenario of knocking on a door and spraying 'em with teargas when they open.
Great...they back away from the door, letting you do whatever you need to do, but the air is tainted now, and unless you're
wearing a gas mask, you could get dosed too. :(
But what if you could spray them with something that'll momentarily shock and repel/anger them, but is completely harmless
and, more importantly, won't affect you in the least as you pass through it?
I had the thought of something along the lines of a canned-air duster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_air), but that uses
a large-volume valve like that found on 1-pound pepperspray cans (http://gift2all.zoovy.com/product/SW20).
Obviously the inert units that spray only water could be used for this purpose too, but even that might not be desirable, from
an evidentiary standpoint. A blast of inert gas to the face would leave ZERO evidence of use, as well as being completely
harmless, though highly distracting/angering. :)
This would also likely be good for drawing people out of their cars so you can take their vehicle, without contaminating the
vehicle with tear gas.
sdjsdj March 16th, 2007, 07:18 AM

This sounds pretty good and somewhat analogous with the crowd control water cannon deployed by many police forces.
On the other hand, it's going to take one hell of an applied air pressure to really inhibit a person's ability to punch you in the
face - using it with care and the element of surprise may be the only way to exploit its full potential.
Even so, I thing this has possibilities!
Edit;
Wouldn't using a high-volume nozzle decrease applied pressure?
I think the aim here would have to be a very sudden, high pressure burst.
Bacon46 March 16th, 2007, 09:05 AM

I lean more towards the Why Bother.
Shielding your face or head would be the only defense necessary against such a weapon.
I think a Taser or Stun Gun would be more affective at keeping someone down or away long enough for you to accomplish
your Mission.
Its pretty hard to defend yourself against a Taser or Stun Gun, and the person would be less likely to come back at you after
being hit with 800,000V than with a blast of air/gas.
sparkchaser March 16th, 2007, 11:56 AM

On the other hand, it would work marvelously as an instantaneous distraction that would last for just long enough to slam the
door shut, force the door open etc. You could also use propane for the same thing if you didn't mind the blast danger, you
could even turn it upside down and spray it in the liquid form.
knowledgehungry March 16th, 2007, 12:22 PM

A water gun filled with water might even do the trick if the purpose was only momentary shock and anger. Getting shot in the
eyes with a water gun, while it is certainly not going to do any damage, will cause the person to stop for a second and wipe it
out of their faces giving you time to do whatever. Since water is present everywhere, from an evedentiary standpoint it should
be ok. I like the idea of high powered inert gas, maybe rig a CO2 powerlet to disburse all of it's CO2 at once?

I agree, using inert gas (nitrogen, CO2, argon) would be a neat trick, as it would be impossible to find residue, and the shock
would be even greater when they inhaled and found there was no air to breathe! Nothing panics like asphyxiation.
You would obviously have to time the blast for effect, and if you timed it so they were taking a deep breath... Maximum effect.
The other option as mentioned earlier in the thread, is propane. Heavy and cold and asphyxiating as above, but also
flammable if required as a back-up. Dual use - shocker or flamer.
Gerbil March 16th, 2007, 02:48 PM

Something based along the lines of a miniature CO2 fire extinguisher would be a great idea for both shocking and suffocating
the target individual without any long lasting effects. But it would need to be configured to release the maximum possible gas
in the shortest space of time.
WMD March 16th, 2007, 03:26 PM
If your sole concern is not endangering yourself, something very hot (eg nearly boiling water) or very cold (CO2 extinguisher)
might be useful. It'll hurt and disable them but a second later it's not dangerous anymore.
megalomania March 16th, 2007, 10:24 PM

I gather the intended effect is psychological: some stranger blasts you in the face with *something* and you are going to
recoil in fear and shock unless you are prepared/trained for trouble. A soccer mom in her brand new Escalade would freak, but
a Marine drill sargent may not.
The CO2 cylinder reminds me of my old BB gun. A cylinder powered Colt .45 that looked much like the real thing. A slight
modification of such a toy and it could deliver such a blast with the added fear component of having a weapon in your face.
Of course some people may recover from the shock of the unknown air blast faster if it is coming from a gun because they will
realize they are not shot. The shock of the unknown from a canister of who knows what could be evil terrorists and their
hideous (albeit mythical creation of the media) nerve gas.
Yes, yes, children there may be *better* options, but that depends on the tactical situation. Will you be carrying a stun gun
through some security checkpoint? Fear a possible police search? A can of compressed air can be hidden in plain sight... a
computer repair kit, in the trunk as fix a flat, shaving cream on an airplane, or hairspray in an overnight bag.
Adulterating the air with a small quantity of ethanol, acetic acid, or other organic solvent could add a stinging effect and still be
volatile enough to evaporate almost instantly leaving no trace.
nbk2000 March 17th, 2007, 05:50 AM

Adding a rapid dissipating stench would be excellent too.
A blast in the face with a foul smelling gas would startle anyone, I'd think.
Bacon46 March 17th, 2007, 06:11 PM

That has potential, as long as the person doing the spraying can tolerate the smell.
I personally find the smell of Ethanethiol [CH3CH2SH] more offensive than the smell of a skunk. Its readily available and
comes premixed with propane as a propellant.
Another advantage to Ethanethiol/Propane, is you could build in a flame thrower option just in case the smell and the shock of
the spray didnt have the desired affect:D
nbk2000 March 18th, 2007, 12:08 AM

What if you unintentionally 'flamethrower' someone?
You have your propane non-MACE in hand when the open the door and you blast them, only to have a fireball erupt because
they had a cigarette in their mouth. :o
Or you use it in proximity to an ignition source which sets the desired object on fire?
The ideal non-MACE would be:
Non-toxic (to you and target)

Non-flammable
Leave no detectable residue
It can stink, be irritating, gaseous or liquid, but it can't harm people or objects by it's properties (toxicity/flammability/solvent
action).
It would ideally have both physical and psychological factors to startle and terrify such as;
An unfamiliar form, though clearly recognizable as a weapon.

Visual cues ssociated with dangerous things, like skull and crossbones (poison), yellow/black stripes (wasps), or red/black
strips (snakes).
A sound such as a hiss, roar, or scream, that is psychologically unnerving.
A physcial impact, like a blast of compressed air or stream of liquid.
A visual aspect, such as a cloud of fog or steam, rather than entirely invisible.
Several OTC devices come to mind, such as HALON fire-extinguishers (if you can afford them) or CO2 extinguishers. Both of
these are almost ideal, except for the size and clearly recognizable form-factors of the devices.
Using a very large CO2 powerlet, like those used as disposable power for paintball markers, would be very doable, as the
dispenser would look like a club (recognizable weapon) but do the unexpected of a blast of cold suffocating vapor in the face.
Something like the OC sprayer in the attached picture would be very good.
in_flames March 18th, 2007, 06:52 AM

What about hydrogen gas? Storage may be an issue but after deployment it could have potential. Igniting would result in a
loud noise but no serious damage and have no residue, hydrogen gas would just float away as would water after ignition. I
suppose another issue would be the need for almost instant ignition or the gas would float away.
+++++++++
Given your username, I can see the appeal of flaming hydrogen, but the requirement of being Non-flammable isn't optional,
otherwise you'd always be risking unintentional ignition.
NBK
Hirudinea March 18th, 2007, 09:46 PM

Here is a link to a "weapon" that might be somthing like what your looking for.
http://www.millionaireplayboy.com/toys/stinkgun.php
I bought one yesterday at the Giant Tiger (a discount store in Canada) for $2, so they are obviously on sale, look around for
one.
nbk2000 March 19th, 2007, 06:04 PM

A stench carried by a high-pressure inert gas seems to be the way to go, I think.

A stench carried by a high-pressure inert gas seems to be the way to go, I think.
Well if thats the way you want to go than I think you should check out this link, with slight modification it should be perfect for
what you want. (You just need to decide on the stench.)
http://www.potchky.com/project.php?p=5
But of course if you just want to distract a person for a second or two with a minimum of equipment you could just take a bite/
sip of somthing with a slightly mucousy texture and spit it into the face of the person you want to distract, it fufills your
requirements and a loogie is pretty easy to carry. :p
Chaosmark March 19th, 2007, 09:06 PM

However, if the target is anywhere near smart, they'll wipe off the stuff on a napkin, which can then be used to figure out who
the attacker is.
nbk2000 March 19th, 2007, 11:42 PM

Leave no detectable residue
Spit leaves DNA, and you'll never find every little droplet of it, and that's all it takes to fuck you for life.
Alexires March 20th, 2007, 04:21 AM

What about n-butanoic acid?
While not strictly "non-toxic", in the quantity we might use it in it shouldn't be a problem. It is a strong acid, but if it were very
dilute in water or ethanol, it should cause too much damage, maybe some slight irritation around the eyes, mouth and nose.
Its a little hard for someone to block your path when they are busy vomiting everywhere from the smell.
Here (http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/n-butyric_acid.htm) is the MSDS for it.
Nasty stuff. Knock on the door, with a garden spray bottle full of ethanol/n-butanoic acid and hose the fucker in the face with it
when they open the door. They will recoil, and hopefully, you can pass through the door while they are still in shock from it.
nbk2000 March 20th, 2007, 05:27 AM

An associate of mine had a half-gallon of that stuff, for stinking up places he didn't like. I can attest to its gag-factor, but it's
not something to spray directly into someones face, nor dissolved in a carrier, as the stench lasts a loooong time.
Now, if a bit was absorbed into a solid matrix inside of the compressed air cylinder, than that would be good, as the air would
be saturated with the stench, but no liquid component would be dispensed to cause injury or leave a long-lasting stench that'd
prove to others that something had been used.
InfernoMDM March 20th, 2007, 03:31 PM

Ok let me see if I have this correctly. You want something that won't kill the guy, but you want to be able to get through the
door quickly? If so wouldn't it be far more effective to use something similar to the X26 taser? Hell I believe the actual module
itself isn't to expensive. In all honesty that has proven far more effective on drunks, crack heads etc then any other device.
I think your trying to over complicate a simple thing personally. I could have misunderstood your needs though.

Spit leaves DNA, and you'll never find every little droplet of it, and that's all it takes to fuck you for life.
Well what can I say but Check and mate. :)
megalomania March 21st, 2007, 01:59 AM

Using a tazer assumes you can actually reach the victim. What if the person is behind a barred door? A bank teller in her stall
just behind the counter? A car window rolled down just a few inches? Maybe even a "glory hole" in the bathroom stall?
What is with the obsession with the tazers anyway? That's not what the thread is about. No more fucking tazer talk!
(The post that has upset me has been deleted in case you are wondering where my ire is being directed)
Jacks Complete March 21st, 2007, 06:18 AM

I don't think it would be wise to use a blast like this unless you can overwhelm within a few seconds, as anyone behind a
barrier will recover quickly enough for it to be a lost cause. If they are holding the door part closed, for example. It reaches a
foot, perhaps, unlike a tazer, which reaches what, 3cm past your hand? It's for tactical use, it's just different tactics.
You could have a noise maker added to this device, too, something like a foghorn, with a toggle to jam the diaphram to turn
it off and on. 130dB+ would only add to the (defensive) effect.
nbk2000 March 21st, 2007, 08:47 AM

It's spelt TASER, not tazer, the Z is a k3wL misspelling.
Non-Mace is intended as a momentary distraction, much as flicking a cigarette or fingertips into someones face causes them
to flinch.
In that monent of distraction, you act.
You could throw objects or liquids to achieve the same effect, but those would leave a trace, as would any injury. Deniablility is
important too.
You use the distraction to either drive them back, or draw them out, where you can use others means if need be, but
sometimes all you need is an unexpected event to make it work.
wst50 March 21st, 2007, 05:24 PM

How about departing from this whole 'gas' thing? How about (say, if you wanted to deter people who were outside your houses
front door) puting 4 110dB Piezo sirens around the door (built into the frame, and concealed). As they are 110dB at one
metre, they would get the full blast of them, and then you just slam the door or whatever, as you would be expecting the
noise...
Or something, it's lacking in development but could be an interesting angle to the methods you've all been coming up with.
Like one of those airzooka toys, they could be effective, as they fire a vortex of air, and are more than powerful enough to
knock the hat off of a person at 10 feet. I think the answer is not in using sprayed gases, that's what I'm trying to get at, but
pressure waves...
Meawoppl March 21st, 2007, 06:43 PM

H2S has some potential, it is a metabolic inhibitor and only mildly toxic. There is research in the field for using it for
suspended animation sorts of application.
I am sure a large upfront dose could at least slow people down. H2S is probably stinky too. Perhaps it could be cut into
another weakish mace like concoction or hallucinogenic.
Hirudinea March 21st, 2007, 06:46 PM

You could use an air/ammonia mixture (just enough for the smell) a shot of that it the face will make someone pull back.
blackadder March 21st, 2007, 07:40 PM

NBK:
"Visual cues ssociated with dangerous things, like skull and crossbones ...."
If one was incorporating a fog/vapour aspect as well, a good visual cue could be a laser sight - could be a standard cheap
laser pointer or one of the more reliable ones used for firearms - some of them come with pressure pad switches which could
be put on the handle of the device. The average person must have seen the stuff on tv with SWAT clearing buildings with
lasers on their weapons. Possibly, upon sight of the laser beam made visible by the vapour, the person would get that nasty
idea/image of SWAT popping up in their mind and therefore might stay on the floor or at least keep back for a few seconds.
Hell you could even stick 4 of the lasers on it (at different angles) to give a more chaotic dangerous impression maybe
convincing them that there was more people.
Depends on situation/surroundings though.
amachinist March 21st, 2007, 08:59 PM

I think I am describing the same thing Jacks Complete has previously described. A compressed gas air horn with an atomizer
filled with some scent added and a small valve installed on the fluid feed line. This way you have a choice of either sound or
sound and scent.
nbk2000 March 22nd, 2007, 11:34 PM

You're doing something illegal and want to use an airhorn to draw attention?
It might have use, but I think it much better if only the victim heard it, and as such a 'sinister' sound, like the dreaded 'poison
gas hiss', as heard in countless movies. :)
And would people please stop bringing up TASER's? They've their uses too, but not in this discussion.
A vortex launcher, like the airzooka, would certainly add a physical impact to it, which is good, but size factors make it
unweildy.
Fourfifth May 9th, 2007, 06:26 PM

Are we talking about approaching other peoples door, or answering you own?
If it was for answering my own door, I would have a 20oz bottle feeding into 5mm macroline and run the line to BEHIND where
the people would be standing. 800-1200psi running through 5mm makes a very loud, and forceful noise.
At the paintball site I used to work at, we would put the bleedline up a tree to avoid getting blasted with gas, and when we
vented the lines people 30-40 foot away in the safety area would jump and look around, and on cold enough days, the gas
was practically invisible. Its also easy to set up with a cheap solenoid and circuit to fire it when needed. (I might try this next
halloween :D)
If it was for approaching a door, I'd use 2 12grm CO2 capsules, with 2 spikes like those found in 5-0's tyre popper. The
hollowed spikes would penetrate the capsules and immediatly vent both capsules. And this can be put together in a very
simple grip style setup.
Xenodius May 9th, 2007, 07:48 PM

Granted, this is likely more complicated than you might want to go, but I recently read an article on a ultra high frequency
MASER that only penetrated 1/64 of an inch (Assuming human target) on YouTube recently-- Essentially producing a
completely harmless, no-contact (projected) intense burning sensation all over the person it is aimed at, for crowd control.
They tested it on a volunteer and it made him jump almost a foot into the air and almost fall over. The unit looks somewhat
bulky, but it would be perfect for your applications by the sounds of it.
Downsides:
You might need a big, expensive capacitor.

You probably cant modify a microwave for this purpose, so you would probably have a hard time finding the proper equipment.
It is probably questionably legal if you actually used it on someone... :confused:
Upsides:
No trace.
Powerful, stunning effect.
Sustained bursts appeared to be almost paralyzing (Intense pain or most any sensation does that).
Costs less to use once you have it, since it would use batteries.
Just a thought, seems to fit perfectly.
nbk2000 May 10th, 2007, 03:48 AM

Electronic devices are too similar to a TASER, which is not what's being discussed here.
Also, that 'pain ray' has a lot of nasty side-effects that they don't mention in all the war-porn promos for it that you see in PM
magazine or Future Weapons. Things like pocket change setting clothes on fire, or eyeglass frames arcing on the face. :o
Gammaray1981 May 10th, 2007, 03:29 PM

Ouch. Electricity burns on damp eyeballs... Worth a thought for another time, prehaps. As for the topic, I'm not so sure it
would be useful if you're breaking INTO somewhere - you ideally shouldn't be in a situation where you need such a thing,
right? If you're answering your own door, then something like a cap gun might be useful. I'm sure any self-respecting forumite
could make a decently loud cap, and place it in a thick-walled cylinder. Result, a massive wave of sound, in a very short
amount of time.
No observable evidence, as long as the cylinder was disposed of, or recharged and hidden. Possible ruptured eardrums from
the guy on the other side of the door, but that's not your problem, right? The point is to stun them.
sdjsdj May 11th, 2007, 07:55 AM

This is just my opinion, but somehow I don't think the world is ready for what is - effectively - a stun grenade you hold while it
goes off.
Gammaray1981 May 11th, 2007, 01:45 PM

More like a literal stun gun, as I imagine it highly directional - otherwise, firstly, you'd lose your hand, and secondly, you'd be
deaf and blind for as long as the other guy.
lamazoid May 11th, 2007, 04:06 PM

How about this?
http://www.itwcp.de/contentcenter/content.php?action=details&rubrikid=498&ID=389&template=detail_tpl_produkte_en.html
Designed specially to leave no trace....
Alexires May 12th, 2007, 02:47 AM

lamazoid - Did you read the MSDS? propane and butane. Might as well just hit them with a lighter refill cartridge instead of
this.
Can't remember if it has been said but you could always use an upside down LPG cylinder if you are absolutely SURE that there
is no sources of ignition around. But I don't think flaming death is what NBK is looking for.
But, the idea stands. I heard a few years ago about liquid N2 in a can that people were spraying spiders with and shattering
them.
If you hit someone with this, the cells on their exposed skin will rupture (water expands when frozen). Most painful and
distracting too....
lucky13 May 13th, 2007, 08:59 AM

I think people are on to something with the CO2 capsules/bottles. There are several different mechanisms you can use right
out of the box, or modify others to suit.
The one that immediately comes to mind, is the device used in lifejackets. I was suprised the first time I pulled open the front
of a vest and found quite a compact little mechanism.
After removing it, you will be left with a small (~5-10mm) exit hole where the entire contents of the capsule will literally
explode out of there. CO2 can be changed rapidly too, as the one I had used 38g capsules with the screw thread, and simply
screwed onto a hollow spike.
I wouldn't imagine it would be difficult at all to modify the pull cord release into a trigger, and add a small vessel on top of the
exit tube that links into it with a very small hole. That way, whatever is in the vessel will be pulled out along with the gas.
The design I see in my head would be to fashion a trigger on the front, and fill empty CO2 cartridges with whatever irritant you
want (or keep a few different substances for different situations). Then you would simply screw these into the top of the exit
tube.
FUTI May 14th, 2007, 01:19 PM

why not airbag cartridge instead of CO2 cartridge? CO2 cartridge is easier to get (OTC), but I think airbag cartridge would allow
smaller design and can have electronic ignition.
lucky13 May 14th, 2007, 03:57 PM

why not airbag cartridge instead of CO2 cartridge? CO2 cartridge is easier to get (OTC), but I think airbag cartridge would allow
smaller design and can have electronic ignition.
I apologise if I'm wrong, but I would imagine airbag cartridges would be considerably larger than a CO2 bulb. Plus the stick
shape of a bulb lend it the perfect shape for such an application.
If you were so inclined to have electronic activation, a solenoid valve would be easy enough to incorporate. My feelings on this
though, would be to question why you would want to add extra bulk and more components that could possibly fail?
By keeping it simple, the size is usually smaller, and much more reliable. Apart from anything, If I had spent a fair amount of
cash in the construction, I would feel more reluctant to dump or destroy it, should the need arise.
nbk2000 May 14th, 2007, 05:24 PM

I think he's talking about using the pyrotechnic azide pellets from airbags, not any kind of compressed gas cylinder.
A blast of hot nitrogen gas from an azide pellet would also work, as long as it wasn't hot enough to burn. Problem is the
residual sodium salts that'd be physical proof of use.
plutobound May 14th, 2007, 10:57 PM

For the sake of accurate information, no US cars and very few European cars use airbags with Sodium Azide anymore. Too
many issues with toxicity of residue or waste disposal.
Of the three types of airbags in production:
Pyrotechnic: most of the companies use gas generants based on guanidine nitrate, basic copper nitrate, or ammonium nitrate.
All require high pressures to burn very well (>3500psi).
Stored Gas: a bottle of compressed gas (Helium or Argon or Nitrogen [usually a mixture]) at 7500-10,000 psi.
Hybrid: A combination airbag where part of the gas is compressed and the other part is generated by a pyrotechnic material.
teshilo May 19th, 2007, 11:44 AM

If use liquefied nitrogen or air? In old detective story by Walles victim murdered mean liquid air placed on his face.For shock
action can be used stream HIGH-compressed air from prepared container as thick walled tube.
lucky13 May 24th, 2007, 02:50 PM

http://www.rei.com/product/47896404.htm
How about something like this? Seems like an ideal base to modify, or use on its own.
I used to have a similar device for nitrous oxide capsules too. Maybe you can find something to add a substance into the
stream, or a capsule filled with a different gas?
I know from experience that if you unscrew the nozzle, the safety valve can be taken out, enabling the cartridge to be
completely emptied in a VERY short space of time.
mememe May 29th, 2007, 12:46 PM

Of all the mediums so far suggested , the only on e s that fit NBK s criteria of non-toxic, non-flammable and definitely devoid
of any lasting residue are air and the inert gases CO2, Nitrogen & Argon.
Unfortu nately air doesn t le nd itself to being compressed e nough to effect ma ny, if any, of the p revious suggestion s without
using a vessel ak in to the size of a large scuba tank, unless it s a t enormous pressu re and in reasonably high volume it will
have little or no effect on most people. The only exception being the suggested addition of a noxious smelling or tasting
agent or other irritant but then I think you would be highly likely to compromise the requirement of leaving no residue.
Each of the others h ave definite pro s a nd cons, but CO2 is sure ly th e way to go, it s readily available & d espite being highly
compressed, with very little experience it can still be easily handled & transferred to any suitable vessel. Its rapid evacuation
from a pressure vessel towards the intended target will give the desired effect of temporarily stunning and distracting them
from the sheer noise alone, but when you add to that the excruciatingly painful freezing effects, even through thin clothing
and as Jacks Complete poin ted out, the total panic that the feeling of asphyxiation cause s, you re on to a winner.
Somewhere b etween NBK s suggestion of a la rge powerlet & Gerbil s o f a sm all fire extinguisher is an ideal solution, most
typ es of water and AFFF or f o a m fire extin guis hers u s e C O 2 a s their propellant, th is is contained in a separate metal cylinder
housed inside the main body of the extinguisher, in the larger models these are re-usable & vary in size/volume from 45-50g
up to 200g+ they are baton like in appearance & of heavy metal construction & have a simple a high volume depression valve.
A simple rig made from one of these & the trigger/handle mechanism from the same or similar extinguisher would be easy/
cheap to obtain, small enough to conceal, double perfectly as a back-up cosh/baton, and in the event of any unwanted
Porky attention it wouldn t lo ok like a weapon & would b e completely legal to possess and own.
GNAB June 17th, 2007, 06:02 PM

Several years ago, I discharged a Halon extinguisher in a medium size electronics lab. A short burst directed at the base of
the fire just like in the training video. As Jack Complete said, unexpected suffocation will bring a gut wrenching panic. I was
only three steps from the door and didn't think I would make it. NBK, I'm unaware of the cost (it was company supplied) but I
promise you, you could drive someone back from the door. As for length of contamination, of that, I'm unsure. It was ten to
fifteen minutes before I had the balls to check the fire that started it all!!!
Bob The 1st July 26th, 2007, 02:23 AM

For the answering your own door scenario, a paintball marker with CO2 or Nitrogen (I don't remember specifically, but I want to
say it's NO2).
With a paintball marker, you've got something with a barrel that looks reasonably like a gun and makes a loud noise. You
open your door, stick the barrel out, and shoot a few times. They even sell "tactical" markers that look like very recognizable
guns such as AK-47's and M16's.
All this would require would be the marker itself and a tank containing the gas. The tanks are (Where I live, at least) free to
refill, and even a sub-par tank will give you at least 200-300 shots, so you wouldn't even have to refill it very often.
It also might be possible to somehow add a smell into it, for added effect.
It might be too bulky I guess, so I don't think it would work outside your own home.
But imagine this: you open someone's door, and suddenly you have what looks exactly like an assault rifle pointed at you. An
assault rifle that makes really loud noises.
I've actually used this myself once. Some idiots were trying to rob my house, but I actually saw them :)
Too bad I didn't have my shotgun at the time (Not that I would have shot them or anything, but I really think that would scare
the SHIT out of someone), nor any paintballs (or I would have just shot them), but I stuck it out my window and fired it a few
times and they ran off.
Smoking August 1st, 2007, 08:38 AM

You're moving away from the point. He's looking for a non-mace, a mace that's only harmful for the victim.
I would go with really fine sand or salt but you will have to go directly to the eyes otherwise it won't have full effect.
You have to construct a compact device which uses CO2 canisters for BB guns and another canister with fine salt make some
scetses (?) and try to construct it in theory...it should work (is it a low effort thing or are you willing to take the time?)
Good luck and let me now how it turned out.
hatal August 1st, 2007, 12:14 PM

By all posts I found the idea of chemical freezing good. If it could be sprayed with a high burst, and in larger quantities than in
those little "electronic spot freezers", it would certainly have a chilling effect on the victim. Who wants high pressure, ice cold
gas on their face, in their mouth/eye/nose (even in their lungs maybe)?
The ice melts, the residing chemicals evaporate. Maybe not undetectable but atleast you don't soil your surroundings, with
other nasty chemicals. The freeze could cause frostbite (to a degree), even more on the mucous-membrane. The marks would
leave quick, but certainly be evidence.
Unsunghero August 1st, 2007, 01:55 PM

Well that kind of reminds me of flipping a canned air duster upside down. If anyone has ever done this you know it is cold as
a womans heart, if someone sprayed a pound of that in my face at once, I think I'd be down. Not really sure for the chemical
reason of it being cold, it was something really irrelevant at the time since I was about 3 feet tall chasing my friends around
with it. But if you could put a high pressure valve with a decent sized supply, empty that in their face, they aren't going to
oppose you for a minute or 2.
A.C.E. August 3rd, 2007, 08:52 PM

The reason for it being cold is that when the can is turned upside down it sprays more or less liquid butane (or whatever gas it
contains, mine is powered by butane or some similar gas). When the butane evaporates the temperature drops radically.
It's a good idea, the only problem is that it's highly flammable. As someone (think NBK) stated before, you don't want to set
fire to your victims face. Now earlier today I was looking through some stuff in the workshop and found an old first aid kit with
a can of saline spray. As far as I could see it didn't contain anything but NaCl, water and propellant gas.
I can't tell exactly what gas it is but I tried setting it on fire by spraying it against a butane torch. Not only did it not catch fire,
it actually put the flame out if sprayed directly on it. Based on that I'd say it's safe to assume it won't catch fire from a
cigarette.
As for trace chemicals, sterile saltwater doesn't really prove very much. Mixed together with the sweat from a stressed person,
I don't even think they'd be able to prove it was there in the first place.
Kurosawa August 20th, 2007, 09:36 PM

How about spraying a large volume of Nitrous Oxide into someone's face?
It would not only distract them, but maybe get them a bit high, thus incapacitating them. I'm not aware of the volume of gas
required for a task such as this, or if it would be detectable in blood/urine. If the amount of NOS needed is low enough, it
might just work. I doubt the pigs would check for drugs.
Jacks Complete August 21st, 2007, 04:09 PM

That's quite a good idea. The only downside is that it reduces their pain response, and you need a lot of it to have an
incapacitating effect. Plus you might get done for having it on you, since you can get high from it, unlike an air duster.
Charles Owlen Picket August 21st, 2007, 09:37 PM

Are you all familiar with the "water cannon" used for "Disrupting" a bomb? A Disruptor is a device using water shot at extremely
high pressure to incapacitate an explosive device's mechanism, etc. It is extremely dangerous and could be effective as a
weapon in and of itself.
Kurosawa August 22nd, 2007, 12:50 AM

I doubt that a disruptor would be useful, as I assume it is large, like a pressure washer. Also, sprayed indoors, water
evaporates painfully slow. Lastly, a high pressure water jet would most likely leave bruises and soft tissue damage. I've heard
that pressure washers can tear skin. Imagine what one of those could do!
Barnacles August 22nd, 2007, 04:02 PM

I could see this working on some people but not on others, these days lots of people are taking martial arts and MMA and
have good reactions to things like this. UFC made this a popular thing to do.
If this was done on me it would most likely result in a swift sharp physical response, but I have over 10 years of martial arts
training. Example my friend was waiting in the bushes near my house, he jumped out after I walked by, and my reaction was
to move forward fast to put distance between us than I was in my defense posture faster than hell facing himFor his troubles
he almost got a high kick to the face followed by a combo of punches.
On a side note maybe there is a way to create a spray that deactivates itself upon contact with air, hopefully not so fast that it
is inactive before it hits the target. something analogous to this may be best. Maybe some sort of binary that renders the first
chemical useless, do the first spray than spray 2 to clean the area for you.
sorry if I skipped over someone who wrote this.
nbk2000 August 23rd, 2007, 01:38 AM

A bomb disruptor would certainly be one hell of a distraction, if not for the noise and recoil, and possible blindness or other
maiming.

ShadowXXXX, your friend was a fool, and should have waited for you to get close enough to really shock you. Then you'd have
frozen, just like everyone else, for just a moment, while the gears tried to turn.
Charles, since a water disruptor cuts through things just like a shotgun round does, I'd rather you tested it on a synthetic
target first. Being caught with the gun shaped article might also pose problems.
megalomania September 6th, 2007, 02:56 AM

I remember watching a documentary about the behavioral control of retards by spraying water onto their faces. The retards
would wear special helmets (not unlike the standard issue tard helmet to protect their already worthless brains) with water jets
that would squirt them rather painfully into the eyes and face when they didn't do what they were told, or they acted up. A
water jet need not be overpowering to be effective.
Remote controlled retards... maybe you can use those along with your sturmhuhn, nbk?
The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Im p r o v i s e d W e a p o n s > Thors Arm or
Log in
View Full Version : Thors Armor
Mr Science March 20th, 2007, 04:52 PM

I know this isn't weap ons, but this is the m ost relavent thread I could put it in. It this is new type of body arm or called Thor's
Shie ld, and it apparently can protect the wearer from an y stun-weapons up to 900,000v. These two links we re the m ost
informative I found:
'http://www.technovelgy.com /ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=615'
http://www.defensereview.com /m odules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=860
T h e s e a r e o n l y s o l d t o m i l i t a r y a n d g o v e r n m e n t e n t i t i e s ( h m m wonder why), but I am wondering how it can block bo th

electricity and microwave weaponry. My closest guess is that the fabric ha s s o m e k i n d o f h e a v y i n s u l a t o r , o r p e r h a p s s o m e
thickness of a layer o f lead for the microwave weapons. I m e a n , t h e s e v e s t s D O s e e m l i k e a h a n d y t h i n g t o h a v e . S o i f a n y o n e
h a s a n y i n p u t on perhaps the type of m aterials used I would find helpful and inte resting.

Quite the opposite, it's conductive, and simply shorts th e tazer. That means it doesn't go through you. Likewise, the skin effect
stop s the m icrowaves, a bit like wearing a partial farada y cage.
Easy to m ake one, line yourself with tinfoil under your clothes.

Am I the only one having issu es with the first link.
chemdude1999 March 20th, 2007, 09:05 PM

Am I the only one having issu es with the first link.
S e e m s to be acting up. They obviously don't allow rem ote linking. Try this:
http://www.technovelgy.com /ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum =615
nbk2000 March 20th, 2007, 09:08 PM

Our redirecto r doesn't play nice with URL's that contain certain characters, such as ?
The URL has been corrected, but people should always check that their U RL's work by click ing on them after they are posted, to
ensure proper functioning.
Mr Science March 20th, 2007, 11:12 PM

Sorry nbk I'll do that next time. So back to this armor, basically it m a k e s y o u g r o u n d e d ? J a c k s c o m p l e t e y o u s a y i t d o e s n ' t g o
through you; in this case does this gear som ehow have a conductive patch to the ground? This isn't something I know too
m uch about, but I do find it interesting on how stun weapons work, for instance the person who is being tazed can touch you
and you wont be affected whatsoever.
Jacks Complete March 21st, 2007, 06:12 AM

Tazers use two prongs to zap you. Two darts fire, and stick into you, with the Air Tazer. Vo ltage is applied through o n e , a n d
returns via the other. No need for grou n d i n g .
I read of a case where an air tazer failed partia lly, only one dart stuck, the other fell to the ground, and it still worked, as the
voltage was high enough to travel through the target and the ground to the return dart. This would be unlik ely, but could cause
your vest to not be 100%, as the volta ge would travel through you as well as the vest, to get to ground. The way around this
would be to add a wire on each leg, that it within a few mm of the earth/floor, which would connect to your vest's lower edge.
This would provide the path to earth should one be required. I'd also add a resistor each side at a few Kohm s, to limit current
surg e.
You wouldn't get static shocks from sweaters any m ore, but you would get shocke d by anything at all charged. Good for an ESD
free zone. The resistors would help slo w/lim it the curren t, so reducing any static shock effects.
Alexires March 21st, 2007, 06:19 AM

I'm sure this has bee n talked about in another thread.
In the other thread, experime nts were done using a stu n - g u n a n d t h e b a g s t h a t R A M , H D D a n d o t h e r s e n s i t i v e e q u i p t m ent
come in.
Can't find it for the life of m e t h o u g h .
nbk2000 March 21st, 2007, 06:56 AM

It's spelt TASER, not tazer, the Z is a k3wL m isspelling.
James March 22nd, 2007, 11:38 AM

I'm pretty su re I saw som e t h i n g v a u g e l y s i m m ilar. A vest for wom en(?) that was m ade with an outer layer of conductive fiber
based cloth. I can't remem ber where the heck I saw it though.
nbk2000 March 22nd, 2007, 08:25 PM

http://www.no-contact.com/ is the item you're referring to.

Just by watching the videos on no-contact m akes me wonder how effective the jacket is. W h e n y o u g e t n a i l e d y o u s h o u l d l o c k
u p a n d n o t b e able to m ove while bein g zapped. I don't think th ere will be a big line for the jacket but at least someone is
thinking.

TASER. Brand name, from "Th omas A. Swift's Electric Rifle". Arizona inventor Jack Cover designed it in 1969; nam ing it for the
science fiction teenag e inventor and adventurer character Tom Swift.
From wikipedia. You learn som ething new every day!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > improvised gun barrels
Log in
View Full Version : improvised gun barrels
209 April 2nd, 2007, 12:09 AM

I am working on a 9mm submachinegun and have the trigger mecanism,lower reciever and uper reciever complete. Now I am stumped on a barrel for a 9mm bullet. Any
ideas? I have heard that you can make the barrel out of a piece of hydraulic tubing, this tubing, convieniently is impossible for me to get. Is there other improvised barrels that
I can use?
nbk2000 April 2nd, 2007, 02:16 AM

DOM (Drawn Over Mandrel) AKA Seamless Steel tubing.
amachinist April 2nd, 2007, 11:53 PM

If you have access to a lathe a grade 8 bolt or metric equilavent could be bored and turned to final size, an axle shaft or torsion bar from an old VW beetle.
If you do not have access to a lathe,McMaster Carr carries 4130 0.374"id with 0.75"od stock #89955K55, I imagine a local industrial supply house will carry something similar.
209 April 3rd, 2007, 12:44 AM

Looks like I won't have to have to worry about building a barrel (though I do own a lathe) , I called KMS tools and they are ordering in a piece 9.01mm X 400 mm seamless
tubing. Now if it gets here before 2010 I will be impressed!

Subtle, that. A 40cm 9mm tube... Wonder what that's for?
You should have done it yourself if you have a lathe.
209 April 3rd, 2007, 07:45 PM

Yeah, I thought of that already. However, they don't know anything about me, who I am or what I want it for. If they do ask, I will think of something. Better bought, I can be
assured of the accuracy.
TORCHed April 7th, 2007, 05:15 AM

If you have access to a lathe a grade 8 bolt or metric equilavent could be bored and turned to final size, an axle shaft or torsion bar from an old VW beetle.
Very much agreed. If you are looking for a strengthened piece of steel, you might want to start looking in the local junk yards. You will easily find axal shafts that will
accommodates.
Now, I have always wondered about proper rifling of a barrel. That I would love to know about.
raptor1956 April 9th, 2007, 05:49 PM

There are a couple of books around that deal with rifling. IMO the most useful are "How to drill & rifle a barrel", & "Building the antique rifling machine".
Alexires April 9th, 2007, 09:08 PM

209 - Don't violate the RTPB. Remember the 7 P's - Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Think of your excuse now, and that saves you (at best) sounding like a fucking moron later when you um and ahhh in reply as to what you wanted it for.
akinrog May 17th, 2007, 03:12 PM

While searching over the net, I came across this (http://technology.calumet.purdue.edu/met/higley/index.htm), which has a few PDF files and HTML files describing in detail
the hammer forged rifling (hereinafter referred to as HFR) process.
Although HFR is not accessible to a single individual, I am of the opinion that if someone can improvise it (in relation to which I had such an impression), someone with a
crappily (sp?) bored blank barrel may not only rifle the barrel properly but also correct the incorrect drilling process.
HFR process produces very good inside finish and very durable barrels.
Actually I may post this in another thread (about barrels) which was a few years old, but I prefer this since I don't want to resurrect a dead thread. Enjoy.
Kaydon May 20th, 2007, 01:48 AM

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/BarrelMaking.asp

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > fighting adrenaline
Log in
View Full Version : fighting adrenaline
209 April 14th, 2007, 12:53 AM

This is a thread that would usually be posted in the WC. However, being that it's closed:mad: this seems to be a some-what-ok place to put it.
Today I got into a fight with a guy. He was pissing me off a shit load before hand and finally I went ape on him. If you've ever been in an unexpected fight (I'm sure most of
you have) You will be familiar with the adrenaline rush that comes. You don't think logically, you act purely on instinct.
Anyway, he came at me and I saw an open shot to his head and took it. I didn't hit him square though, I clipping the side of his face but came up with my right(I'm left
handed, a plus when fighting) to his chin an hit him real hard. He landed up on the ground I walked away, he didnt even get a solid shot at me.
Then I realized the adrenaline pumping through my system, you know what that feels like. Even when I look back, I have a hard time remembering exactly what happend.
How do you stop an adrenaline rush, or at least curb it?? I didn't command myself to swing, it just happend. You look at some of these movies and see guys doing crazy shit to
beat the crap out of their opponents - watch the first assassin scene from the Borne Identity:eek: .
I would imagine that if you could divert your adrenaline rush you would be able to think logically and you would be nearly unbeatable. I have been taking Krav Maga for nearly
two years now, but you could know every move in the world and it wouldn't mean anything if you couldn't control the adrenaline. I know there are "adrenaline junkies" But I
want to figure out how to stop the rush - any ideas?
Defendu April 14th, 2007, 01:15 AM

I would imagine that if you could divert your adrenaline rush you would be able to think logically and you would be nearly unbeatable. I have been taking Krav Maga for nearly
two years now, but you could know every move in the world and it wouldn't mean anything if you couldn't control the adrenaline. I know there are "adrenaline junkies" But I
want to figure out how to stop the rush - any ideas?
Stop the rush and you'll drop like a sack of shit the first time you get hit. Adrenaline is there for good reason, it makes you faster and less susceptible to pain, it's a survival
mecanism that's not compatible with martial arts bullshit.
Instead iof trying to counteract adrenaline, learn fighting methods that work in an adrenaline rush, stuff so simple it works even in a Berzerker like rage. Then train it until it's
reflexive, like these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7TwjgFzF6Q
PS: Drop the Krav and just learn to attack with frenzied strikes and gouging attacks, if the krav is not working for you.
nbk2000 April 14th, 2007, 06:35 AM

The L.A. Bankrobbers were using barbituates to keep their calm. Look what they did in such a calm state. :D
Valium or (for you health nuts) Valerian would do the same thing.
Guerilla April 14th, 2007, 10:01 AM

Actually, Defendu, most Krav Maga techniques are essentially designed to be applicable in adrenaline rush, ie. tunnel vision, lack of fine-motor coordination and other such
stress reactions are always taken into account. As for the real question, you can't quite ever simulate real combat and get used to the effects, nor like said, would it be wise to
try to artificially disable them altogether. Though your physical shape will have an influence on the degree at which they take place.
Better just try to reduce the effects indirectly by keeping on practicing and get some movements and routines deep into the muscle memory. You will then have a great
advantage over people that aren't familiar with their stress reactions.
It's hard business, especially if there are for example knives involved, it takes quite a long for one to learn defend himself against simple knife attacks somewhat reliably even
in training conditions not to mention in the chaos involved with live situations. It will soon become clear who still got guts, literally. Humbleness and ruthlessness pay I guess.
tmp April 14th, 2007, 02:56 PM

I won't try to suppress mine although it has landed me in trouble with law on
occasion. Just beat the shit out the motherfucker any way you can. My
temper has been pretty bad lately. An irritating room mate, soon to head
back to jail because he's a fuckup, causes my temper to flare up on almost a
daily basis. The same can be said for some of the idiots I work with. My
doctor is worried about my stress level. I'm reminded of saying when it comes
to the definition of stress:
Stress: That confusion created when the mind overrides the body's basic
desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole who desperately needs it !
That sums it up pretty well. :D
BTW, my room mate did 90 days in jail on his last charge. He has a backup
time of 9 months which he's asking for. He refuses to see his PO and has violated every condition of his probation. A hardcore drunk and drunk driver,
he snubs his nose at the system. When they throw his liberal ass back in the
joint I'm sure his smart mouth and shitty attitude will change when he goes
through his "bitchification" process. Serves the motherfucker right ! The
courts are tired of seeing his face and tired of his attitude !
James April 14th, 2007, 04:13 PM

I think I vaugely recall that there are two types of stress disstress and eustress. Distress is the typical bad stress. Whereas eustress is when you take advantage of it and do
*something*. see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress
tmp April 14th, 2007, 11:11 PM

It must be distress for me. The aggravation never seems to end between
work and home. I'm responding from a computer at work and already the
stress level is elevated. I'm tense and there's nothing I would like more than
to beat these motherfuckers within an inch of their life ! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Already, one of my coworkers had to be hospitalized Thursday. Like me, he's
overworked and tired. Upper management doesn't punish these slackers
because we're damn near a skeleton crew now so the motherfuckers get
away with the shit. For over 9 months I was working 7 days a week because
of these assholes ! The adrenaline surge is due to pure RAGE ! Right now,
my health is suffering as a result. If I did what I wanted to these assholes,
I'd end up in prison.
As I said before, I get no relief at home. The last 2 nights I screamed at the
asshole. That jerk wouldn't last 2 minues on this board.
Some people, including my own family, suggest I go see a psychiatrist.
BULLSHIT ! That accomplishes nothing ! If it wasn't for the law, I'd get more
done in a day with baseball bat than a shrink with their shit in a century !
Sorry for the rant but my nerves are shot. At least the courts will punish the
asshole at home.
nbk2000 April 15th, 2007, 12:10 AM

It's best not to make such rants from work as it could be recalled from the system logs and used as a pretext to fire you.
TreverSlyFox April 15th, 2007, 01:20 AM

One thing both the LEO and Military community have learned, is that when the Shit Hits the Fan and the adrenaline starts flowing your fine motor skills go out the window and
you revert to instinct. luckily repetitive training overrides instinct and develops "muscle memory", which is why that street cop can still hit the thumb break on his holster and
draw his weapon and still hit something with his heart racing at 100 mph most times.
If you've trained enough that's what you'll revert to when the Shit Hits the Fan. There have been times that I don't even remember drawing my weapon, it was just there in
my hand when I needed it. Of course it took spending time at the range and shooting 200 rounds every weekend to get there. I imagine I'm rusty now that I'm retired but I
bet the body remembers and that's what I'd do again if it came to that again.
knowledgehungry April 15th, 2007, 01:31 PM

I have been in a fight where the adrenaline didn't kick in with pretty bad results.
I really wasn't scared of my opponent or mad at him, what I didn't know before the fight was that, while he was a scrawny punk, he also was a boxer. I, while larger and
stronger than him was a smoker at the time and slighly overweight back then. I wasn't angry with him either, it was one of those fights where you're pissed off and say lets
take this outside, then by the time you get outside you don't really care anymore.
To make a long story short I decided I would just try to win this fight standing up no big deal, he being in better shape than me outlasted me in the boxing match, although I
did get some good shots in. By the time I realized I was going to have to overpower him rather than box him I was too tired. I rushed him got him down, hit him once or twice
than he flipped me got on top and proceeded to batter my face. We actually bolth ended up equally battered, as my hits had some more damage, but to all onlookers it was
obvious I lost.
If my adrenaline had been pumping in that fight I would have kicked at the legs, then thrown a hard punch at the face than rushed him and taken it from there. That is how I
normally fight someone who is weaker than me by instinct. If I would have fought that way he would have been done.
Adrenaline is a good thing in UNARMED fighting, in armed fighting it can be more of a problem as your bodies instincts were not developed with fine motor control or precise
use of weapons in mind.
Alexires April 15th, 2007, 11:01 PM

Having been in a few fights in my life (none of them life and death, but stressful none the less) I have found that it is the waiting that is the worst.
Where someone is in your face and you don't know if they are all talk, or if its the prelude to you breaking them in two. The one time where I have been in a kind gang fight I
was absolutely calm. I knew that I could smash almost anyone I meet and that if the fight was going to happen, it would. If it didn't, then that didn't matter either.
Breathing really helps with the adrenaline. As I understand it, think of it this way. When you get an adrenaline dump, your heart rate increases and your breathing becomes
short and shallow. This doesn't effect the rate at which the oxygen comes in, but since your heart is beating faster then it makes it more difficult to think. If you slow down
your breathing you
1) don't hit that brick wall that comes at about the 3-5min mark of full combat
2) increases the level of oxygen in your blood, making you faster and easier to think.
Instead of just panting, try breathing slowly, try breathing in a 5/3 style (5 counts in, 3 counts out). Work out whats best for you. It is difficult to simulate the adrenaline rush
of a fight, but put yourself in those situations. Do heavy sparring with your mates. After the first time you get hit, you will need to clamp down on the adrenaline and rage.
Training really matters. I one kicked a mate across the hallway before I even realized I had acted. One second he was coming at me (he had anger problems) the next he was
lying on the ground a few meters away and I was fairly calm thinking "what the fuck?".
There is no point in training if you don't get to apply it. Contact sparring is important. For out $100 for a pair of gloves and some shin guards and go at each other reasonably
hard. You will learn how to deal with being tired as fuck and having to keep going and also the adrenaline.
I know a lot of the forum members look down on the kind of samurai/ninja thing, but I like to try and act as a warrior would. I don't mean honor and all the other Christian
overlaid bullshit but living each moment as if it were my last one on earth, hence any moment after doesn't matter.
Some might frown upon this but I think these two texts sum up what I ultimately want to live my life like...
Here (http://www.judoinfo.com/warrior.htm)
and here is the other text.
In order to become a man of knowledge, one must be a warrior, not a whimpering child. One must strive without giving up, without complaint, without flinching.
One learns to act like a warrior by acting, not talking.
To be a warrior, a man has to be, first of all (and rightfully so) keenly aware of his own death. But to be concerned with death would force any of us to focus on the self, and
that would be debilitating. So the next thing one needs, to be a warrior, is detachment. The idea of imminent death, instead of becoming an obsession, becomes an
indifference.
Only the idea of death makes a man sufficiently detached so he is incapable of abandoning himself to anything. Only the idea of death makes a man sufficiently detached so
he can't deny himself anything. He knows his death is stalking him and won't give him time to cling to anything, so he tries, without craving, all of everything.
A detached man has only one thing to back himself with - the power of his decision. He has to be the master of his choices. He must fully understand that his choice is his
responsibility, and, once he makes it there is no longer time for regrets of recriminations. His decisions ares final, simply because his death does not permit him time to cling to
anything.
A warrior does not abandon himself to anything, not even to his death. A warrior is not a willing partner; a warrior is not available, and if he involves himself with something,
you can be sure that he is aware of what he is doing. For a warrior, there is nothing out of control. Life, for a warrior, is an exercise in strategy.
The spirit of a warrior is not geared to indulging or complaining, nor is it geared toward winning or losing. The spirit of a warrior is geared only to struggle, and every struggle is
a warriors last battle on earth. Thus the outcome matters very little to him. In his last battle on earth, a warrior lets his spirit flow free and clear. And as he wages his battle
knowing that he will be impeccable, a warrior laughs and laughs. - Dr Murdock

The warrior quote above is nice. It is, however, impractical for the majority of life. Even espousing that philosphy could see you detained indefinately in the UK.
However, when the SHTF, you, as a well prepared member of society, should already know what is about to happen. You will be in control of the situation, and leaving, or you
will be caught up too centrally, and taken along with it.
If you lose the control of the situation, you must keep control of yourself.
Adrenaline is a hell of a shock to the system. People get addicted to it, the suddeness of the rush, the raw roar of blood in the ears... then you hit them with a hook to the jaw
that they, in a tight focused tunnel-vision state, will never see unless they turn their head. Then you finish them with an uppercut that goes behind their defenses, again, well
out of the view of the adrenaline rush.
You then step back, and assess the situation again. That might be to check for witnesses, and then step in with a kick to the head so he doesn't get up, or it might be to use
your toes to just below his solar plexus, ensuring he doesn't get up for a few minutes.
To beat the "bum rush" attacks, go do some contact Aikido. Very handy. Do contact sparring, preferably the nasty kind of multiple attack you get in real life. Just the few
basics you will recall under duress and stress will be better than nothing.
If your oppo seems to have a clue, leave. It's not worth finding out they are better than you! (And if it is, come back armed)

True Jacks Complete, I understand its futility of such a thing, but still, it gives a certain grasp on life.
When you are in combat, there is no time for cognitive planning. Any planning that you do is ingrained; you know what to look for, you know how to think, act and react.
You should act as if every action will be your last.
*laugh* most of my training is so ingrained that I have DREAMS about using it on people. Actually, I had this one the other day where I was using it on children (think 15 year
old kewls). It left a rather satisfying taste in my mouth for some reason.
There is really only one decision you need to make in a fight. The decision is to fight or not to fight. If you decide not to, get away from the situation (if you can). If you can't
then you need to fight, so stop fucking around and get the first hit in. A real fight is life and death. If you lose, you may (probably) die.
Act like it.
Use everything you have. Elbows, knees, teeth, nails forehead. It doesn't matter. Go for the things in the centreline (nose, mouth, throat, solar plexus, stomach, testicles).
Knowing what you are going to do certainly helps to calm the adrenaline. Once you are in action, adrenaline doesn't bother you that much.
If you think too much, you lock up and get the shit kicked out of you.
Charles Owlen Picket April 27th, 2007, 11:21 AM

I feel compelled to reply to this thread in a strange way, with the understanding that my observations and the post itself may be deleted. I really AM an adrenaline junky. I
don't think I have ever admitted it and it almost sound like I am in a confessional. I am starting to smile at myself while I write this as well. :)
I have chosen a profession that demands that I get up for the interaction demanded of me. I engage in activities that also produce the adrenal response. If I cannot participate
in something that stimulates the adrenal response - after a few days I find I become quite depressed. :(
Personally I don't think that whether one should or should not attempt to "control" the adrenal response is the heart of the issue. As each situation is so vastly different, no one
answer seems appropriate. If a task involves the demand for fine motor control (flying an aircraft) it would behoove that person to attempt control. Whereas if the task
involved defending oneself, manual dexterity may not be affected to a greater extent.
The concept of "muscle memory" used to make me sort of laugh as muscles don't remember a damn thing, the brain does. And if that brain is not engaged often enough to be
familiar with the tunnel vision, the difficulty with fine motor skills, the pounding heart rate, the shakes, and the sick feeling in one's gut....well all the "training" in the world is
just entertainment, it seems. I want it understood that I am not putting anyone down here, it's just that the over-riding parameter for action is the brain engaging. It may be
blinding fast but the brain is still in control. That is human design. The act of professional boxing is an excellent example. In the beginning, the tunnel vision is obvious as the
majority of shots seem to be basic ones. As the bout wears on the contestants get used to the phenomenon and the technique becomes more deciding.
I have seen over and over again the effects of adrenaline help and hinder. To address the original question of if the adrenal response alters logical thinking I would have to say
absolutely not. Getting "up" for whatever has not affected my cognitive or intellectual abilities.
I honestly believe that many people DON'T enjoy the "rush" and that's the logical reason that they try to alter the response. But looking back, if that adrenaline was not
available to me I would have been dead a Hell of a long time back. It's just that somehow I got to like it.
I suppose that (being gut-level honest) I believe it saves my life and is somehow a familiar "friend". I would hate to NOT have that response to a given stress stimulus
Isotoxin April 27th, 2007, 12:06 PM

I believe the best way to get used to adrenaline is to fight. Sparring is not enough. So train up in boxing or BJJ or whatever and enter into a fighting contest in your area. This
also gives you something to use in argument against the whing chunners and ninjas.
bullshido.net is a helpful place for combat sports
Pb_Producer April 27th, 2007, 04:23 PM

I agree, the best way to get control over your adrenaline would be to just keep practicing getting that rush over and over again.
Im not a hardcore fighter but I have lots of experience with adrenaline and how to control it, as Im almost a pro freestyle skier (the ones you see getting 20ft out of
the half pipe). When Im finished a competition I get the greatest rush ever, and feel as though Im invincible and dont feel any pain (Ive had some large bails too). But
since Ive experienced it so many times I realize when I have it and can slow it down at will, although I dont because its pretty awesome.
BaronVonSchtupp April 28th, 2007, 07:14 AM

I also too remember a fight I had, story short, he quick punches me...and hits me, instantaneously after that, I barely remember what happened aka instant surge of
adrenaline from the stock in the adrenal glands. rofl, we each took swings, he hit me in the face like 3 times, but I was like. wtf....it doesnt hurt, to myself... I remember no
pain, and first part of the fight when he pulls a quicky on me out of no where, for like 10 seconds I have no clue what happened...
I also think the adrenaline saved me from getting knocked out...towards the end I had him in a head lock... and we were separated.. and I split ....next morning I had a minor
black eye, nothing major..almost unnoticeable, and a crunching nose....bitch hit me straight in the nose, it didn't break though. But it definitely would be awesome to be able
to control your adrenaline....I think it starts with staying calm at all times. You will still get that surge...just not enough to cause you to go into an analgesic state, (not
remembering what happened later).
Killian May 1st, 2007, 11:10 PM

One reply pointed to breathing. From a decent amount of experience I've learned the slow 5/3 breathing technic alone can be counter-productive. I personally use the 'breathe
deep through the nose+exhale through the mouth' technic. Although, could make you passout if used rapidly. So, I personally practice(+recommend) using this technic in
controlled spacing.
My opinion is: adrenaline is natural and should never be CONTROLLED, but slightly curbed. It's a blessing in the cut-throat situations. It's like riding a bike. Everything becomes
second nature once you become comfortable and experience it enough. I feel like I could elaborate, but I'm questioning the value of my insight.
dooda July 15th, 2007, 11:41 AM

You should not try to get rid of the adrenaline rush because you are in survival mode and it has saved from being knocked out about three times in my life.
anonymous411 July 16th, 2007, 05:32 AM

How do you stop an adrenaline rush, or at least curb it??
Ideally, if you cold take 20 mg of propranolol (or some other beta-adrenergic blocker) an hour before the crisis, you literally couldn't feel the effects of adrenaline if you tried.
The DoD has been sponsoring research on medicines that turn normal people into cold-blooded psychopaths, and beta-adrenergic blockers are quite promising. PubMed will
point you to some fascinating unclassified studies.
Just as repetition is the key to brainwashing, so it is with self-defense. Train yourself until your actions become instinctual and you'll never go wrong.
TMP: nevermind the shrink; you need some adrenal support. Prolonged adrenal stress depletes your B vitamins like no other: once that happens, your dopamine/serotonin
balance starts to go to hell and you see insults everywhere and get REAL aggressive real fast. Without B3 your body can't make serotonin at all...If the corners of your lips have
started to crack, that's the number one sign adrenal stress and B deficiency is taking its toll. Trust me as someone who's been there; it wasn't pretty.
I'd recommend 100mg B3 niacin (nicotinic acid, not that "flush free" shit) three times a day, and the most potent B complex you can find, twice a day. It will help you get your
mind together faster than any psychologist could ever dream of. Ditch all alcohol and pills for awhile too--they only make things worse.
Whatever you do, remember: we're all just one bad decision away from rotting in jail with a violent felony-- and it's a rare, rare motherfucker that's worth sacrificing your
freedom, the most precious thing on earth. Good luck!
nbk2000 July 16th, 2007, 09:56 AM

The L.A. Bank Robbers were using barbiturates to suppress anxiety during their crimes, and look how well it worked for them. :)
I've found that valerian is useful for daily stress reduction, and large amounts give you that 'God of War' calm.
Killian July 24th, 2007, 03:45 PM

Valerian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_(herb)) seems incredibly useful.
Few adverse events attributable to valerian have been reported. Large doses or chronic use may result in stomach ache, apathy, and a feeling of mental dullness or mild
depression.
liederhousen August 7th, 2007, 03:43 PM

The interesting thing about beta blockers (a prescription drug) is the how easy it can be to find.
Beta blockers are commonly used by people in high stress situations such as job interviews and driving licence tests (I have used it myself) as a quite safe way to block the
effects of adreneline which can lead to divided attention, unprofessional appearance, and mistakes.
The above mentioned fact makes pharmacists more willing to sell small quantity's without a prescription and/or doctors to write prescriptions for these uses. Just explain your
use eg. going for a interview/test.
Added bonuses are that generic beta blockers are very cheap and beta blockers have no effect on the brain (only physically blocks adrenaline).
But I agree adrenaline is there to help you in a fight or flight situation blocking it in a fight can have bad consequences.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Keychain Gun
Log in
View Full Version : Keychain Gun
lucky13 May 5th, 2007, 09:13 AM

Does anyone remember these being in the media spotlight some time ago? They were typically around 3" x 1", had two barrels and were supposedly made to fire "gas
cylinders".
Apparently, they could be bought in Southern Europe for as little as $20. Depending on where you read it, they fired two .32/.38 bullets by pulling on the keyring to cock the
action, and firing the barrels independently.
Does anyone know where blueprints, diagrams or detailed photo's can be found?
They certainly look very simple to build on a milling machine, but I would be interested in seeing the action and dimensions.
Thanks :)
209 May 6th, 2007, 02:48 AM

Yeah, I know the ones your talking about, not sure if they can be bought for a little as 25-30 dollars though.
This may be something similar to what your talking about:
http://www.bryanandac.com/images/JDobric1.jpg
If not, I was cruising Luty's website and I came across this link:
http://www.homebuiltfirearms.com/
Take a look at the single shot .22 that he made, you may be able to downscale it even furthur. I may be time for me to crack out the South Bend mill again!:)
tomu May 6th, 2007, 07:17 AM

Your description fits in part a swiss made self defence device which fired "gas cylinders" loaded with OC irritant, but these "guns" were much more costly and where a total flop
commercially. They were briefly sold by the Rhm company in Germany.
These devices were the size of a pack of cigarettes, the double action trigger was in the middle of the device and the two "barrels" arranged over and under the trigger.
The only other "gun" I know of which fired "gas cylinders" was a russian self defence device which looked just like a pistol grip with no barrel like the Heckler & Koch Air Force
emergency signaling device.
perrymk May 6th, 2007, 09:21 AM

I think something similar would be a simple zip gun. Certainly the design can be adapted to whatever you like.
Pipe Cannon http://www.instructables.com/id/EVBAU73EYFEV2Z666F/
Zip Gun design http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/ZipGun.pdf
Zip Gun general info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun
onemanriot May 6th, 2007, 02:37 PM

some years ago in the uk [and probably europe] there was a keyfob available that could be loaded with what us brits know as a brocock cartridge[small brass cartridge based
on .38 special that holds a charge of compressed air and a pellet/slug in a threaded cap on the front]. These are no longer available in the uk due to the ban on brocock
weapons. Interestingly they were illegal even before the ban as they were over the limet of 6ft/lb me for air pistols.
lucky13 May 6th, 2007, 06:11 PM

This may be something similar to what your talking about:
http://www.bryanandac.com/images/JDobric1.jpg
I wasn't really on about that, but that really is a stunning little piece. The more I look at it, the more I like its simplicity and elegance. I would be interested to know how the
whole chamber and barrel segment was joined, as it looks like a single piece.
some years ago in the uk [and probably europe] there was a keyfob available that could be loaded with what us brits know as a brocock cartridge[small brass cartridge based
on .38 special that holds a charge of compressed air and a pellet/slug in a threaded cap on the front]. These are no longer available in the uk due to the ban on brocock
weapons. Interestingly they were illegal even before the ban as they were over the limet of 6ft/lb me for air pistols.
That certainly sounds interesting! I'm suprised I've never heard of these, as I was a big fan of air cartridge back in the day!
I've actually found a short article on what I'm talking about, only it shows a very small picture. Sounds simple in theory, it's just the firing mechanism I can't work out
practically. .22 rimfire also sounds like a much more sensible, albeit less effective option. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/spies/spy.gadgets/weapons/
keychain.guns.html
onemanriot May 7th, 2007, 11:06 AM

I think that they were actually manufactured by brocock themselves but don't quote me on that one. They were certainly available in the midlands albeit for a short time due
to their power.
This was one of the underlying reasons for the brocock ban, in that it was very simple to up the power on almost any air cartridge weapon by sealing the deliberate gap
between the cylinder/chamber and the barrel.

I have one such a thing, it makes single shot and fits on keyring. Size can be compared with laser pointer, it's aimed for close combat distances less that 2m. I can make a
photo if anyone is interested.
I also have a "russian self defence device" - very good thing - a person who received a charge will fall down immediately and be !SILENT! for half an hour at least.
lucky13 May 8th, 2007, 03:39 PM

I have one such a thing, it makes single shot and fits on keyring. Size can be compared with laser pointer, it's aimed for close combat distances less that 2m. I can make a
photo if anyone is interested.
I also have a "russian self defence device" - very good thing - a person who received a charge will fall down immediately and be !SILENT! for half an hour at least.
I would very much like to see that :) Detailed photographs, and maybe even a drawing with measurements would be great!
Here. It's originally made from some kind of tripmine from possibly world war I, there is a date "1936" on its side. Interesting isnt it? And when it was first disassembled (after
it was digged out) the power of spring was enough to damage my hand with a hammer jumped out.
Well, going to how it works. The hammer is pressed inside of a long thing. Note small holes on its side. Then it's fixed by two small pieces inserted into holes (not present on
photo because i cant find them), and finally all this stuff is inserted into main embodiment, which blocks the pieces.
Operation is very simple: first the safety pin is removed then you pull out the ring, long thing will go down releasing "pieces" and hammer strikes the cap.
I have used this device with a bullet from .22LR cartridge, pressed inside. And some amount of gunpowder. It can shoot out 20mm wood from 2m.
I hope you will understand this explanation. Ask if something...
lucky13 May 13th, 2007, 08:07 AM

Maybe if you upload the images onto photobucket, you won't be taking up valuable space, and it will be easier for everyone to see them.

Sure, no problem.
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/5139/image14lu1.th.jpg (http://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image14lu1.jpg)
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9665/image13qn1.th.jpg (http://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image13qn1.jpg)
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3154/image15ht9.th.jpg (http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image15ht9.jpg)
Can you see them now? Should be 3 images.
nbk2000 May 14th, 2007, 07:45 PM

It looks like the tripwire firing mechanism for a jumping mine.
teshilo May 21st, 2007, 12:56 PM

In book "Pipes, Zips and Pens" by Truby also had image one-shot pen gun made from grenade fuze This wey-well design for disposable one- shot hand gun.
macgyver6868 May 23rd, 2007, 11:54 AM

the little "pistol" with the knob on the back is still avaliable.turning the knob in the back releases the ait and fires a .177 pellet..check out bbmachinegun.com.the maker has a
post on the forum

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > 66mm Practice Rocket
Log in
View Full Version : 66mm Practice Rocket
pythagoran May 19th, 2007, 06:51 PM

I recently acquired two expended M72 LAW tubes in fairly good condition. I started doing some research on using them to launch a model rocket. I obtained the book, "Law and
Disorder" and was coming up with some interesting designs utilizing an Estes model motor and a piezoelectric device in the LAW firing mechanism to initiate rocket motors. I
have some Vex robotics equipment and was in the process of designing a remote firing platform I could use to test fire the rocket. While doing some internet research on a
66mm rocket, however, I came across this interesting device:
http://www.ebang.com/prgs/item_display.cgi?itemnum=1080523
66 MM TRAINING ROCKET for M72A1 LAW Tube
The seller's description:
"Capable of 1.7/8's of a mile to 2 miles at 1500+ fps velocity. 66 mm training rocket for the M72A1 LAW tube. Solid brass primer fired housing to be used in conjunction with
the Primer Housing found on a M72A1 LAW tube. These rockets are few and far between, I have just a few left, they are OEM new/old surplus and are not commercially
available. I have 1 rocket up for Auction and the minium bid and BUY NOW PRICE for this item is $ 800.00 and winning bidder is to include $ 45.00 FedEx shipping & insurance.
Will not ship to CA., NY., or NH. or where considered illegal to own. Must be 21 years or older to purchase and include a photocopy of your drivers license and a written
noterized statement stating there are no Laws prohibiting your from purchasing this device. Payment by US Postal Money Order only accepted."
Now, $800 bucks is a little more than I care to spend to fire a LAW one time. The item, however, has me intrigued. I cannot find anything similar anywhere else and the seller
seems to be a bit enigmatic about his source. I sent him an email asking about it, but haven't heard back. I enlarged the photo and there is some writing on the side,
"AERODINE PROPULSION". I've done considerable searching on the net and have found a number of companies called Aerodine, but nothing on "AERODINE PROPULSION". I've
searched the forum for a similar device, but came up empty as well.
I fired a 35mm practice rocket when I was in Army basic a long time ago. I was under the impression that a LAW required the M190 insert to fire practice rockets. I was not
aware there were 66mm practice rockets available that negated the need for an M190.
Has anyone ever come across one of these practice rockets or heard of "AERODINE PROPULSION"?
mememe May 20th, 2007, 07:28 AM

Your problem is a simple spelling error !
Try doing the same searches but spelt 'AERODYNE PROPULSION' this time.
Hope this helps ?
pythagoran May 20th, 2007, 12:11 PM

I did consider the possibility the manufacturer misspelled their own name on the rocket, (given the current state of education in this country), and in fact tried researching
"AERODYNE PROPULSION". What returned (in entirety) were references to paranormal activity, remote viewing (of the psychic version), government cover-ups of UFO's and
references to a "University of Emmetsburg" whose ROTC program is being run by a former Soviet Security Officer. Apparently AERODYNE PROPULSION (with a Y) is a top secret
laboratory involved in researching and developing extra-terrestrial propulsion systems. I found no legitimate references to a company producing actual milspec material, let
alone conventional terrestrial systems. I could be mistaken, but I don't think they produced this 66mm rocket.
mememe May 21st, 2007, 06:56 AM

Pythagoran,
Sorry if you feel Ive sent you down the wrong road, but I knew Id seen the name elsewhere, quite recently, I actually came across Aerodyne Propulsion Labs in
passing, purely by chance a few weeks ago whilst doing searches for propulsion. I remember reading they were an R & D Laboratory specializing in propulsion, weapons and
weapons delivery systems for the US Air Force and thought that must be what you were looking for !
I have now also looked at the picture in detail and Im sorry to say, cant make out whether its spelt with an I or a Y .
The absence of any information relating to Aerodine Propulsion whatsoever, yet some, albeit rather dubious references pertaining to Aerodyne Propulsion lead me to
think that if anything its likely to be the later.
You refer to the sellers enigmatic attitude, whilst also stating that he hasnt actually replied to you yet, have you actually had any contact with him at all or not ? If so,
why hasnt he confirmed who the correct manufacturer is ?
My honest opinion is theres something amiss with this entire situation. Im truly amazed that, even in America, something of this magnitude is openly for sale to anyone,
especially considering the establishments current paranoia surrounding recent events. I also bring to your attention that, surprise, surprise, the seller has no feedback/
reputation/goodwill etc and will only accept a US Postal Money Order !
This possibly could be a genuine article, snuck out the backdoor of a secret research establishment, but is equally or more likely to be either a deception by an individual in
order to gain money or the bait in some kind of sting operation by the authorities.
Lastly, to try to determine the aforementioned spelling, I zoomed the picture to 550% and rotated 180deg and was surprised that a 1500fps projectile would have such poor
quality, uneven welding affixing one of the rear fins to the body ferrule, there also appears possibly to be rust on the same weld too.
Continue with caution !

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Improvised Weapons > Chechen Self-Made Weapons
Log in
View Full Version : Chechen Self-Made Weapons
secretsquirrel June 17th, 2007, 01:38 AM

Hi, my first post here, saw this link to a bunch of home made automatic weapons
and thought you all would enjoy. hope it hasn't been posted before. :)
http://englishrussia.com/?p=965

I'm pretty sure a lot of these haven't been "homemade", but a good link, nonetheless. They show some creativity, and there
are some strange choices as regards finishes and things that have been engraved and stamped, so I think most of those are
either repairs or re-used bits.
I like the Barrett knock-off. :-)
Xenodius June 25th, 2007, 03:08 PM

Yeah, I am with Jacks, I see what is clearly a Mosin Nagant in there, and what looks reminiscent of an early model of the AK-
47...
Still, interesting to look at... I laughed so hard when I saw the barret... thingy.
I saw a PTRS-41 anti tank cannon on GunBroker.com a while ago. Looked similar, MAN would I like one of those. 16 grand
though.
LibertyOrDeath June 25th, 2007, 06:20 PM

They certainly aren't all homemade, but most of them look to me like they're at least partially improvised.
The revolvers probably weren't homemade. Why make a revolver in your home/guerrilla workshop when it's almost certainly
easier to make a submachine gun?
As for the Mosin Nagant, that might be a homemade copy, but it could also be a real Mosin Nagant action with a homemade
stock. The barrel might have also been shortened a bit.
Some of those subguns definitely look homemade, although at least a couple of parts were probably scavenged from other
(presumably non-functional) guns.
By the way, does anyone know what the picture on the top of that page is supposed to be? My guess is some kind of grenade
launcher.
Incidentally, there's another article on guerrilla weapons (but not homemade) here for those who are interested:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_062405_Quigley,00.html
Jome skanish July 1st, 2007, 09:57 PM

Some of those SMGs looks very simple to build...
My guess is that the fat thing on the top picture was built in that way due to lack of material suitable for conventional barrels.
No chrome-moly steel or similar, only what-ever-that-is. Solution? -Build the barrel EXTREMELY thick.
Or is it a grenade launcher? Intriguing, since the barrel looks quite short for most grenade calibers, even 20mm.
Jacks Complete July 2nd, 2007, 07:51 PM

I bet it would lob a hand grenade quite a long way with a small BP charge, though.
It is more likely your first idea, though, of "let's make this really thick because that's all I've got handy, and I like my
fingers"!
hatal August 1st, 2007, 10:54 AM

These are nice improvised "firearms", especially when you look at the conditions in which they are manufactured, not to
mention the quality of materials.
Wonder how long they keep working? A long-term test for "scrapmetal weapons"?
Jacks Complete August 5th, 2007, 07:20 PM

That's the way, though, isn't it? If you can make yourself a quiet single shot gun, you can use it to get yourself another one
that isn't so quiet, and has far more than one shot.
Actually, I've been thinking about this, and any design like this needs to have 2 shots, and be silenced. Then it either needs
to be long range, or small for close work. Shotgun style is probably best for the shorter range deals.
Looking at the MO of the police, etc. they tend to go about in twos, with others nearby. Hence, take down two quickly and
quietly, and you have two MP5's, Glocks, etc. plus police radios, handcuffs, batons, CS spray, maybe a Taser, and so on.
Soldiers are harder targets, for obvious reasons. I'll leave that to you to work out.
macgyver6868 August 6th, 2007, 09:12 PM

some of theose look like the "borz" machine pistol.its supposed to be easy to make and maintain.but there isnt much
information about it.
SquirlHunterof09 August 13th, 2007, 02:46 PM

Hi, my first post here, saw this link to a bunch of home made automatic weapons
and thought you all would enjoy. hope it hasn't been posted before. :)
http://englishrussia.com/?p=965
Ya these are some really good homemade weapons. I'm likeing the home AK :cool:. I have been looking up on the belt fed
guns. I was wondering did you make that. If you did could you post the pictures of the design of the feed. Please that would
be so nice. :D I have some books on a few of these designs. I liked them alot. I pretty much have all of Bill Holmes's books
and a few of P. A. Luty's books ,luckly I got them before he wanted to have people buy them. ;)
Kurosawa August 20th, 2007, 09:05 PM

As it is relatively easy to make a gun (as I did back when I was fourteen, proving the futility of gun-control laws. If a teen with
a minimal engineering experience and a limited workshop could make a shotgun, anyone could.)
The belt-fed machine gun isn't home-made, of course, it just appears to be a Browning or the like in a state of sacreligious
disrepair. The guns that resemble Tec-9s may have been home-made, but most certainly not by the fools who made the
patchwork rifles.
Moral of the story? Get some fucking schematics.
nbk2000 August 20th, 2007, 09:45 PM

I thought I should point out that the Chechen's who were fighting the russians are muslim. That has some bearing I think. :)
Jacks Complete August 21st, 2007, 03:22 PM

At least they bothered to fight!
nbk2000 August 21st, 2007, 09:22 PM

Who, the russians or the chechens?

The Chechens.
I've a feeling the Brits would sit here and take almost anything. We haven't even argued about this freaking smoking ban,
which bans ALL smoking in even partially enclosed spaces, even in a smoking club or tobacconists. That means you can be
fined 50 for standing in a bus shelter and smoking!
No major outcry about anything over here, from the cold blood killing of people and framing by police, to billions of pounds
made by privatised monopolies, to the thousands of oppressive laws added to the books every week.
If the Russians invaded now, it would only be to send the Poles and Romanians back home, so they could take their jobs!
hatal August 23rd, 2007, 03:59 PM

In deed, they did fight back. Now the whole country (especially the capital, Groznij) looks like hell on earth. (Ruins everywhere,
no fortified central goverment, just emerging warlords and the russian deathsquads, bombings, shoot-outs, etc, every day - all
over)
This question may be a sidetracker. but I have to ask it. If a same situation would arise (in your country), would you fight
back just like them? Even knowing that the fight could last for decades, and turn the country into a shithole (for few
generations atleast)?
festergrump August 23rd, 2007, 04:07 PM

Fight to live free in a shithole or take it up the ass and be a slave in... well, much less of a shithole?
Absolutely, I would.
nbk2000 August 24th, 2007, 01:27 AM

Fester, you might want to clarify which of those two options you'd choose.
festergrump August 24th, 2007, 03:13 PM

It made more sense when I was thinking about the original question. :o I should have just quoted it rather than trying to
reword it. Guess I was just typing while thinking aloud.
...would you fight back just like them? Even knowing that the fight could last for decades, and turn the country into a shithole
(for few generations atleast)?
Absolutely, I would [fight]. It's easier for free men to rebuild than for slaves to emancipate themselves.
I'm curious as to who on the Forum wouldn't fight. Maybe that would be the better question for Hatal to ask.
megalomania August 26th, 2007, 04:06 AM

I thought there would be riots in the streets when they banned smoking in Ohio at the beginning of this year. Blighty may be
smoke free without a pep, but Hell, at least you can show naked titties on UK telly. This awsome freedom costs $10 a month
in the form of HBO or Showtime in the USA.
If we had more porn in the US perhaps we would not notice our freedoms being taken away as much? I know I wouldn't notice
the lack of cigarettes if I was waiting for a nude shot of Billie Piper...
Guerilla August 27th, 2007, 07:06 PM

Exactly, fester.
Chechens, even if partly fueled by radical islamist fervor, get my sympathy for standing up against the Russian aggression. As
objective and non-overpatriotic asshole as I try to be I can see very little positive sides Soviet/Russian presence especially has
brought to its occupied countries. Rather I become more and more thankful for my grandfather's generation to have enough
skills and will to hold them off despite the crushing odds, and later fill the country with secret weapon and explosives caches in
case of a run through. They did absolutely the right thing even if the price of independence was high. East Europe is not poorer
and more crime-ridden than the West for nothing, let alone what it was like during the occupation time. I'm not sure but I
believe many of those people, now looking back, would have rather risked their lives protecting their rights than to put up with
the shit they got on them for decades ever since. Being submissive and creating a military vacuum are one of the most anti-
pacifist things to do. Though todays crisises are more asymmetric and internal the old wisdom Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum still
holds. None of us can predict what the world is like after say 20 years, but by being skilled, educated and physically and
mentally as strong as possible we'll at least stand a better chance of survival if not prevent violence in the first place. Like
fester said, one would think most Forumites probably share the same view on this.
It's only too bad the Chechens weren't provided with better means for defending their homes and families, what's left of them
anyways.
simply RED September 1st, 2007, 09:56 AM

Eastern Europe is the same third world shithole as it has always been.
Fascism had changed to Communism and Communism changed to Capitalism. But in Eastern Europe nothing changed.
People here have their own understanding for life and culture. It is not called "The Orient" for nothing. If the time is reversed,
the people from the Balkan will do absolutely the same as they did... Give their ass for free to whoever conqueror comes! They
gave their ass to the Russians, then to the USA, now the ass slowly turns to China (Interesting to spot that during the CCCP ,
people in the CCCP lived much worse (no meet, no fuel) than the people in Bulgaria, Romania, Ugoslavia. The russians were
coming in Bulgaria to spend their holidays and were just amazed by the living standard)...
Anyway, every good idea in Eastern Europe finally drowns in a sea of corruption...
ccw8076 October 26th, 2007, 02:46 AM

The one in the middle, that looks reminiscent of an AK, I think is a German Sturmgeweher 44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sturmgewehr_44.jpg
Here is a picture of one for comparison. Look at the grip and the butt shape, almost identical. But it has been heavily modified
in the barrel and stock area.
somtec

Improvised Weapons PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improvised Weapons PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is not registered version of Total HTML Converter

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

1. Countermass Weapon (13 replies)

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

251. Automatic or semi auto Gas rifle (27 replies)

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum

User Nam e: Password:

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

nbk2000 January 20th, 2003, 05:44 PM

<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_40mm_Practice_Cutaway.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_40mm_Practice_Exterior.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://nbk2000.freeyellow.com/Grenade_40mm_Practice_Internal.jpg" alt=" - " />

Zyklon_B January 20th, 2003, 07:28 PM

<a href="http://www.okiebigbores.com/40mminst.htm" target="_blank">http://www.okiebigbores.com/40mminst.htm</a>

Kriegsminister January 21st, 2003, 07:05 AM

(Copy and paste the link!)

Zach January 21st, 2003, 09:19 PM

ossassin March 6th, 2003, 07:08 PM

blacktalon April 9th, 2003, 10:32 PM

<a href="http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html" target="_blank">http://www.autoweapons.com/products/

nbk2000 April 10th, 2003, 02:17 AM

HypersonicGamer April 10th, 2003, 08:19 PM

blacktalon April 10th, 2003, 08:27 PM

nbk2000 April 11th, 2003, 02:12 AM

DaRkDwArF April 11th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Flake2m April 11th, 2003, 09:34 AM

A-BOMB April 11th, 2003, 01:14 PM

blacktalon April 14th, 2003, 08:57 PM

540 Baltimore Pike

8205 Lakeshore Blvd.

Phone And Fax

Felonous Monk April 23rd, 2003, 02:52 AM

I_am_the_Black_one April 29th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Felonous Monk April 29th, 2003, 10:10 AM

So let's give this a try.

zaibatsu April 29th, 2003, 11:29 AM

nbk2000 April 29th, 2003, 01:58 PM

Felonous Monk April 29th, 2003, 04:24 PM

zaibatsu April 29th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Felonous Monk May 1st, 2003, 12:45 AM

hope to post some actual content soon.

nbk2000 May 1st, 2003, 02:10 AM

wrench352 December 18th, 2003, 03:04 AM

12Gauge December 26th, 2003, 01:47 AM

keith January 2nd, 2004, 02:15 PM

grendel23 January 2nd, 2004, 05:02 PM

xyz January 2nd, 2004, 10:31 PM

Pure NG may be suicide, but mixtures of NG and NC definitely aren't.

Blackhawk January 2nd, 2004, 11:57 PM

grendel23 January 3rd, 2004, 07:22 AM

Skyscraper January 3rd, 2004, 09:38 AM

keith January 3rd, 2004, 03:33 PM

kingspaz January 3rd, 2004, 06:00 PM

Anthony January 4th, 2004, 09:44 AM

keith January 4th, 2004, 01:18 PM

Anthony January 4th, 2004, 01:28 PM

keith January 4th, 2004, 10:08 PM

xyz January 4th, 2004, 11:14 PM

keith January 5th, 2004, 12:28 AM

xyz January 5th, 2004, 09:27 AM

PHAID January 5th, 2004, 10:23 AM