Mute Fox
24th November 2010, 07:23
Okay, I hope you geeks can help me out with this, because my limited knowledge of math and physics lends me no help in forming my own opinions on projectile ballistics, yet I find myself fascinated with the subject from a scientific point of view. I need the use of your powerful brains, if I may XD
It's been a while since I posted anything on RevLeft, but my mentally unstable roommate has once again forced me to come here asking questions. He's the type of guy who is unmistakably intelligent one moment, and then batshit insane the next. In other words, I have no idea when to take what he says seriously, and when to call bullshit. We've been having an on-and-off, drawn-out discussion/argument over the relative merits of firearms versus airguns. To make a long story short, he believes that not only are airguns potentially just as lethal as firearms, but that they have many other advantages, and the fact that they are never discussed as serious weapons is because of "capitalist propaganda" (his words). Between what he tells me and what I was able to research on my own, I have no idea what to think. Some of what he says makes sense, and there's stuff that I've researched that is contrary to it that also makes sense. Then there's the fact that there seems to be NO serious discussion of airgun ballistics ANYWHERE...so I decided to create my own. I hope you comrades can help me out. Here's a basic rundown of his views:
1. Pneumatic weapons operate on the same basic principle as firearms; the expansion of pressurized gases behind a projectile in a closed barrel. The only difference is that with firearms, the gases come from a chemical reaction in a casing, while in pneumatic weapons the gases come straight from a reservoir. Therefore, it is theoretically possible to achieve the same velocity, range, accuracy, and joules of energy with air-power as with gunpowder, without the weight and resource expenditure of casings and powder.
2. Since pneumatic weapons require no chemical reaction, they generate no significant heat. They also have no bolt (depending on the make) and fewer moving parts. These combined factors mean that airguns have negligible recoil (only the “true” Newtonian recoil) and put less stress on the barrel and internals, making them able to achieve and maintain higher rates of fire with much more accuracy than firearms.
3. As mentioned before, pneumatic weapon projectiles require no casings or propellants, so more ammunition may be loaded and carried, resulting in a larger possible volume of fire and less time devoted to reloading.
4. Pneumatic weapons operate on the same principles as any other pneumatic systems, which means finding or manufacturing parts is simple and cheap compared to firearms. He claims that you can find everything you need to make or repair a sophisticated, lethal airgun at a hardware store.
This is what I call “set one” of his beliefs about airguns – the ones that actually seem to make sense and could be reliably proven by someone who knew enough about math and physics and stuff. I’d love to know if they are true or not. But then comes “set two” of his beliefs, which are the crazier ones that I am even MORE eager to get a second opinion on:
5. He says that even conventional airsoft guns or paintball markers for sporting purposes are not only able to be “dialed up” to lethal velocities (assuming the use of large caliber metallic BB’s rather than paintballs or plastic pellets) *but* that they can be perfectly lethal even at low velocities and with small-caliber ammunition. He says that, for example, his .177 caliber, max -415 fps-velocity air pistol can penetrate human skin with a lead BB and even the bones of the skull, *reliably*. When I countered with the simple argument that the basic lethality of any projectile is based on its ability to penetrate *vital organs* and/or cause *massive hemorrhaging*, rather than just pierce skin or get a headshot (which in handguns particularly is based mostly on luck), he merely said that “with an airgun, I have a shitload of shots if the first one doesn’t bring the target down.” I don’t think he realizes that human skin is equivalent to about 2 inches of muscle on the entry side and 4 inches on the exit, and that the average male human torso is 7-plus inches thick…and that at low velocities, even thick clothing can retard the penetration of small-caliber projectiles. Or, that bullets wound by crushing and destroying a volume of tissue, which is more likely to be a vital spot when using a larger caliber due to sheer size. Or that a wound that has an entrance and an exit (what he would call “overkill” or “over-penetration”) is more likely to incapacitate and kill, due to rapid loss of blood, than one which merely creates a nasty flesh wound….and a lot of other stuff. Then again, I may be wrong.
6. His love of small-caliber and low-velocity projectiles continues; he argues that the decrease in effective range and power that is experienced with low velocity and small-caliber projectiles is not a cause for concern, because most self-defense engagements occur under 100 yards. He says that it only takes around 200 fps for a projectile to pierce skin (he doesn’t mention how far it penetrates or whether it’s important) and that the comparatively extreme range and power of firearms ammunition is “overkill”. He even claims that over-penetration of a target is “dangerous” to allies and bystanders. Again, I don’t think he understands that to kill or incapacitate reliably, shots must be able to penetrate a significant amount of tissue. Some shots that have to be taken in self-defense are less than ideal, and may have to go through an arm or leg or enter at an angle, increasing the amount of tissue in the way of vital organs. They may also need to penetrate thick or protective clothing, body armor, or environmental cover. As for “dangers” of overpenetration, he says nothing about the large number of shots that can be expected to *miss the target entirely* and are just as dangerous as ones that blow through a target. Again, I may be wrong.
7. He says that the reason that airguns are not considered to be serious weapons (at least in the U.S.) is because you can’t make as much money off of them as you can from chemical-based, cased-ammo firearms. He says that the view of airguns as “toys” or “varmint killers” at best, is capitalist propaganda, which he admonished me for believing in because it made me a hypocrite XD
So, in conclusion, I’d like your opinions on pneumatic weapons as a viable weapons platform. I have not been able to find any serious discussion of the subject ANYWHERE, and would really appreciate your input. I think this subject is one that we all need to be more informed about, as there is a lot of misinformation out there…and also it’s just fun to talk about. Discuss!
It's been a while since I posted anything on RevLeft, but my mentally unstable roommate has once again forced me to come here asking questions. He's the type of guy who is unmistakably intelligent one moment, and then batshit insane the next. In other words, I have no idea when to take what he says seriously, and when to call bullshit. We've been having an on-and-off, drawn-out discussion/argument over the relative merits of firearms versus airguns. To make a long story short, he believes that not only are airguns potentially just as lethal as firearms, but that they have many other advantages, and the fact that they are never discussed as serious weapons is because of "capitalist propaganda" (his words). Between what he tells me and what I was able to research on my own, I have no idea what to think. Some of what he says makes sense, and there's stuff that I've researched that is contrary to it that also makes sense. Then there's the fact that there seems to be NO serious discussion of airgun ballistics ANYWHERE...so I decided to create my own. I hope you comrades can help me out. Here's a basic rundown of his views:
1. Pneumatic weapons operate on the same basic principle as firearms; the expansion of pressurized gases behind a projectile in a closed barrel. The only difference is that with firearms, the gases come from a chemical reaction in a casing, while in pneumatic weapons the gases come straight from a reservoir. Therefore, it is theoretically possible to achieve the same velocity, range, accuracy, and joules of energy with air-power as with gunpowder, without the weight and resource expenditure of casings and powder.
2. Since pneumatic weapons require no chemical reaction, they generate no significant heat. They also have no bolt (depending on the make) and fewer moving parts. These combined factors mean that airguns have negligible recoil (only the “true” Newtonian recoil) and put less stress on the barrel and internals, making them able to achieve and maintain higher rates of fire with much more accuracy than firearms.
3. As mentioned before, pneumatic weapon projectiles require no casings or propellants, so more ammunition may be loaded and carried, resulting in a larger possible volume of fire and less time devoted to reloading.
4. Pneumatic weapons operate on the same principles as any other pneumatic systems, which means finding or manufacturing parts is simple and cheap compared to firearms. He claims that you can find everything you need to make or repair a sophisticated, lethal airgun at a hardware store.
This is what I call “set one” of his beliefs about airguns – the ones that actually seem to make sense and could be reliably proven by someone who knew enough about math and physics and stuff. I’d love to know if they are true or not. But then comes “set two” of his beliefs, which are the crazier ones that I am even MORE eager to get a second opinion on:
5. He says that even conventional airsoft guns or paintball markers for sporting purposes are not only able to be “dialed up” to lethal velocities (assuming the use of large caliber metallic BB’s rather than paintballs or plastic pellets) *but* that they can be perfectly lethal even at low velocities and with small-caliber ammunition. He says that, for example, his .177 caliber, max -415 fps-velocity air pistol can penetrate human skin with a lead BB and even the bones of the skull, *reliably*. When I countered with the simple argument that the basic lethality of any projectile is based on its ability to penetrate *vital organs* and/or cause *massive hemorrhaging*, rather than just pierce skin or get a headshot (which in handguns particularly is based mostly on luck), he merely said that “with an airgun, I have a shitload of shots if the first one doesn’t bring the target down.” I don’t think he realizes that human skin is equivalent to about 2 inches of muscle on the entry side and 4 inches on the exit, and that the average male human torso is 7-plus inches thick…and that at low velocities, even thick clothing can retard the penetration of small-caliber projectiles. Or, that bullets wound by crushing and destroying a volume of tissue, which is more likely to be a vital spot when using a larger caliber due to sheer size. Or that a wound that has an entrance and an exit (what he would call “overkill” or “over-penetration”) is more likely to incapacitate and kill, due to rapid loss of blood, than one which merely creates a nasty flesh wound….and a lot of other stuff. Then again, I may be wrong.
6. His love of small-caliber and low-velocity projectiles continues; he argues that the decrease in effective range and power that is experienced with low velocity and small-caliber projectiles is not a cause for concern, because most self-defense engagements occur under 100 yards. He says that it only takes around 200 fps for a projectile to pierce skin (he doesn’t mention how far it penetrates or whether it’s important) and that the comparatively extreme range and power of firearms ammunition is “overkill”. He even claims that over-penetration of a target is “dangerous” to allies and bystanders. Again, I don’t think he understands that to kill or incapacitate reliably, shots must be able to penetrate a significant amount of tissue. Some shots that have to be taken in self-defense are less than ideal, and may have to go through an arm or leg or enter at an angle, increasing the amount of tissue in the way of vital organs. They may also need to penetrate thick or protective clothing, body armor, or environmental cover. As for “dangers” of overpenetration, he says nothing about the large number of shots that can be expected to *miss the target entirely* and are just as dangerous as ones that blow through a target. Again, I may be wrong.
7. He says that the reason that airguns are not considered to be serious weapons (at least in the U.S.) is because you can’t make as much money off of them as you can from chemical-based, cased-ammo firearms. He says that the view of airguns as “toys” or “varmint killers” at best, is capitalist propaganda, which he admonished me for believing in because it made me a hypocrite XD
So, in conclusion, I’d like your opinions on pneumatic weapons as a viable weapons platform. I have not been able to find any serious discussion of the subject ANYWHERE, and would really appreciate your input. I think this subject is one that we all need to be more informed about, as there is a lot of misinformation out there…and also it’s just fun to talk about. Discuss!