Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
It's as much a hovercraft as a pancake is a waffle.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



No Toxic Primer Gun

No Primer, even
  [vote for,

Most guns fire ammunition which comes in a cartridge. The cartridge consists of a shell (to hold things together), a bullet, some propellant, and a primer. The primer ignites when struck by the gun's hammer, and in turn causes the propellant to ignite.

Most primer includes a lead compound, and older primers contained even more toxic chemicals.

Lead free primers (so called "green bullets") are being developed, but they don't yet fire reliably, as of the time I'm writing this idea.

This idea is to create a gun which can fire a bullet which has no primer at all.

Now, maybe you're reading this and thinking, "Oh, let's use something electrical, like a spark or a laser," but this idea is to go the other direction.

Instead, we will have a certain amount of gas (or air) behind the bullet, and our hammer will be a closely fitting piston.

When the gun is fired, the piston moves forward quickly, compressing the gas, and the gas will heat adiabaticly.

The hot gas then ignites the bullet's propellant, and everything afterwards happens similarly to how it works in a normal gun.

This idea is not new, but it is not widely known to exist.

The only gun I know of which used it was the Daisy V/L, who stopped making it a year after they started, it because the government classified it as a firearm, and Daisy Outdoor Products (who made lots of air guns) was not licenced as a firearms manufacturer and did not want get such a licence.

That is, the gun failed due to legal bullshit reasons, not technical reasons.

Note: The Daisy V/L happened to fire caseless ammo. I honestly don't care one way or the other about that. There are of course pros and cons for caseless, but they are beyond the scope of this idea.

goldbb, Jul 30 2016

http://www.ammogara...tion-100r22100.html interesting, surprising amount of ammo still about... [not_morrison_rm, Jul 30 2016]

Girandoni air rifle https://en.wikipedi...Girandoni_air_rifle
A highly advanced concept. [8th of 7, Jul 31 2016]


       So you're talking about a device that emits a lump of metal at supersonic velocities and lethal force, and you're fretting about minor residual heavy metal toxcicity ?   

       Bit of a loss of perspective, perhaps ?
8th of 7, Jul 31 2016

       I dunno, I mean not all things propelled like bullets are used to kill. If this innovation hadn't been squashed then the tools used to fire nails wouldn't contain any toxicity.
What's the Workers Compensation Boards' take on that... and do they even have one?

       Things that make you go hmmmm...   

       I just get a picture of a guy in a fox hole with a fancy air rifle. There is an air compressor next to him and electric generator next to that.   

       The machines would keep him warm, but give away his location.
popbottle, Jul 31 2016

       // an air compressor next to him and electric generator next to that. //   

       The engine could drive the compressor directly. Such devices already exist.   

       The Austrian army used exchangeable reservoirs on their 18th century military air rifles <link>.
8th of 7, Jul 31 2016

       Isn't "Green bullet" kind of oxymoronic? I wouldn't want to be killed by an environmentally challenged bullet. Just kidding, of course; I wouldn't want the owner of an automatic gun to suffer from a degenerating brain function due to lead poisoning.
Ling, Jul 31 2016

       Better ways of killing people are always needed, especially in the USA, where it is a type of popular hobby.
xenzag, Jul 31 2016

       Thing is, you'll get these things to market and then some Icelanding volcano with an unpronouncable name will go off and spew a gazillion tons of heavy metals into the atmosphere. Mother nature is a real bitch.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 31 2016

       It's the Sulphur and Fluorine that are the real killers, along with huge amounts of CO2. On modestly-sized volcano can emit more CO2 in a week or so than has been "saved" by all the cuts in emissions instituted after the Kyoto Protcol.
8th of 7, Jul 31 2016

       On the other hand, that particular volcano emitted less CO2 (though I don't know about the other pollutants) than the airplanes that it grounded would have emitted in the time they were grounded had they not been grounded.
notexactly, Aug 01 2016


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle