BobGreenwade Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Okay, it's not really stupid. To my mind, the only truly stupid questions are, "May I ask a stupid question?" and, "About how long was the Hundred Years' War?" But this is something I feel like I should know from good sense, or know where to look up in one of the published books, but don't. The question is: would a conventional firearm (pistol, rifle, whatever) work in a vacuum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Yes. The powder/whatever mixure has everything it needs, so air is not a problem. Cold might be, if the action freezes up, but that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question I think it would be safer to say it might - for a while. Lubricants will boil off or freeze and ammo may well warp under pressure and temperature changes. If you were designing a regular firearm for vaccuum, you could meet all these challenges, but a regular gun might fire safely at first. Leave it very long in vaccum and there's a good chance it wouldn't. Leave it in space - with all the temperature changes *and* vaccuum and it's pretty safe to say it'd be useless pretty fast. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question "About how long was the Hundred Years' War?" 116 years. The only stupid question, when it cocerns firearms, is: "Is it loaded?" Because, the answer is ALWAYS "Yes, it IS loaded," at least until you check the weapon yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted August 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Thanks, guys. 'Twas exactly what I needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actingkeith Posted August 8, 2006 Report Share Posted August 8, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question To my mind' date=' the only truly stupid questions are, "May I ask a stupid question?" and, "About how long was the Hundred Years' War?"[/quote'] This means that you've never worked in computer tech support... would a conventional firearm (pistol' date=' rifle, whatever) work in a vacuum?[/quote'] I agree with what the other pundits have said. Cartridges are basically hermetically sealed (though this is debatable) and they carry enough oxygen to burn their powder. liquid lubricants will evaporate, but dry lubes will be fine. I use a dry powder lubricant my pistol and shotgun... oh, a shotgun round would not likely function in vaccuum as its rounds are not sealed. As a matter of fact, as the pressure decreases, the wad would probably push the shot out... Temperatures in outer space might be a huge issue, but the vaccuum probably isn't except for non-sealed rounds. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdamnhero Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question While I agree the rounds themselves should operate just fine, I wonder how vacuum might affect the action of a semi-auto or auto weapon? I expect that with no air pressure to push against, the gun's action would be thrown off, possibly leading to jammed or partially-ejected rounds. But frankly I'm guessing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question I think it would be safer to say it might - for a while. Lubricants will boil off or freeze and ammo may well warp under pressure and temperature changes. If you were designing a regular firearm for vaccuum, you could meet all these challenges, but a regular gun might fire safely at first. Leave it very long in vaccum and there's a good chance it wouldn't. Leave it in space - with all the temperature changes *and* vaccuum and it's pretty safe to say it'd be useless pretty fast. cheers, Mark given how brittle most metals become at near absolute zero... i agree. It would almost certainly work at first, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted August 9, 2006 Report Share Posted August 9, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question This means that you've never worked in computer tech support... I agree with what the other pundits have said. Cartridges are basically hermetically sealed (though this is debatable) and they carry enough oxygen to burn their powder. liquid lubricants will evaporate, but dry lubes will be fine. I use a dry powder lubricant my pistol and shotgun... oh, a shotgun round would not likely function in vaccuum as its rounds are not sealed. As a matter of fact, as the pressure decreases, the wad would probably push the shot out... Temperatures in outer space might be a huge issue, but the vaccuum probably isn't except for non-sealed rounds. -k Unless the shotgun rounds were instantly exposed to vacuum, I doubt they would have the wads push out. Now an interesting issue would be the behaviour of the wad and shot column in a vacuum. The wad is stripped away from the shot by air resistance, allowing the shot column to spread into the characteristic pattern. No air resistance, the wad and shot should stay basically together. There would probably be a few shot leaking out, but basically the shot and wad should impact somewhat like a large prefragmented slug. NASTY on unarmored targets. Now an OLD shotgun round, with the cardboard washers over and under the shot, would probably still spread more or less normally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ephelides Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Okay' date=' it's not really [i']stupid[/i]. To my mind, the only truly stupid questions are, "May I ask a stupid question?" and, "About how long was the Hundred Years' War?" But this is something I feel like I should know from good sense, or know where to look up in one of the published books, but don't. The question is: would a conventional firearm (pistol, rifle, whatever) work in a vacuum? I think the propellent might burn, though I always thought air got the compounds to mix good when the burning started. I could be wrong. The projectile will travel faster and further with no air resistance. The "wad" pushing out could also happen with pistol/rifle rounds. An unseated (total or part) projectile would be Bad News®. Also, the round likely bulges from air-pressure inside. This is very bad for semi-/full-automati feeds. Could happen to shotgun rounds too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threnody Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Also' date=' the round likely [i']bulges[/i] from air-pressure inside. This is very bad for semi-/full-automati feeds. Could happen to shotgun rounds too. In a revolver, it'd go and make the bullets get stuck, so as you couldn't get 'em out. That wouldn't be good neither. Ya know, bulgin' bullets wouldn't be load-in-able at all, would they? Good catch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question I'm sure you know this already, but one thing to consider is that using a standard firearm is going to propel you in the opposite direction...As I said, I am sure you already thought of it but thought it should be mentioned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question If guns can fire under water (albeit, for a limited time) why not in space? I'd probably give them a jam roll, but you should still have enough for a shot or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gojira Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question The Russians kept a shotgun in their space modules, and still might. Shocked the heck out of the American astronauts when the saw the thing during a (iirc) docking with the International Space Station. But it's not for fighting in space. It's because the Russian modules land in the wilderness in central Russia, and they had a bear investigate one of the modules once, after it landed, trapping the cosmonauts inside. So now they carry a shotgun, just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question The Russians kept a shotgun in their space modules, and still might. Shocked the heck out of the American astronauts when the saw the thing during a (iirc) docking with the International Space Station. But it's not for fighting in space. It's because the Russian modules land in the wilderness in central Russia, and they had a bear investigate one of the modules once, after it landed, trapping the cosmonauts inside. So now they carry a shotgun, just in case. Well, that was what they SAID it was for! Remember that most spacecraft are basically thick tin cans... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassoom Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question given how brittle most metals become at near absolute zero... i agree. It would almost certainly work at first, but... I, too, would assume that any weapon that counts on structural containment of the round's explosive charge in order to direct and propel the bullet/shot would likely suffer a massive structural failure if it had been in the near absolute zero of space for any significant amount of time. I'm no metallurgist (nor do I play one on TV...) but I would certainly expect a metal and/or polymer gun to get very cold very quickly, and then quite literally explode in the face of the shooter unless it was somehow insulated from the extreme cold. If I were packin' heat for some good ol' fashioned zero-g space combat (heh), I would highly recommend a Gyrojet gun. - Vassoom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdamnhero Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question I'm sure you know this already' date=' but one thing to consider is that using a standard firearm is going to propel you in the opposite direction...As I said, I am sure you already thought of it but thought it should be mentioned[/quote'] Not terribly fast, tho. I don't have time to run actual numbers just now, but I don't think the KE produced by most firearms would provide much acceleration when applied to a 100kg mass. Shotgun maybe; pistol probably not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Not terribly fast' date=' tho. I don't have time to run actual numbers just now, but I don't think the KE produced by most firearms would provide much acceleration when applied to a 100kg mass. Shotgun maybe; pistol probably not much.[/quote'] Using figures from Guns! Guns! Guns! for a 9mm Para: projectile: 10.5g velocity: 337m/s Remember that while kinietic energy is not conserved (mass-energy is, any particular form of energy isn't necessarily) but that momentum is. Thus, we have to apply the above momentum to a 100,000g mass. This gives us a velocity of 0.035385m/s No, that isn't fast, is it? A .41 Magnum is 12.2g at 420m/s, which puts our 100kg person moving 0.05124m/s Even a 12.7 (.50) Browning is only 29.9g @ 1150m/s, giving a result of 0.34385/s (barely over a foot/sec). A 12ga. slug is given as 36.5g @ 353m/s, so it makes our 100kg person "fly" backwards at 0.128845m/s Looks like recoil in "0-g" is not going to be the problem most anticpate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchybits Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Actually recoil in zero G will be a different problem than most anticipate because the force imparted to the shooter is not applied to the shooters center of mass. Thus, instead of being pushed straight backward, the recoil will initiate a tumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGhee Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Rumor has it that NASA had an Astronaut try out a 45 to see if it work and the rumor was that it did Rumor many years later wispherd that the soviets had mounted a 30mm cannon on a capsul and tried it out (it worked) so that they had a polieted anti sat system. Lord Ghee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weylan Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Beat me to it. I could see space troops in 0g practicing shooting from mid torso or possibly along the body. Another option include some very advanced muzzle brakes. As mentioned earlier, a gyrojet (preferably one that leaves the muzzle before main ignition sets in) might be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenn Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question There are no stupid weapons. Weapon designers may be stupid, and the the weapon weilders may be stupid, but the weapons themselves are more just non-intelligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question Near-absolute zero would be one problem, but solar exposure would be much worse. I'm not sure just exactly how hot an exposed oblect would get in near-earth space, but if it's enough to gang-fire the shells... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yansuf Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question I think the propellent might burn' date=' though I always thought air got the compounds to mix good when the burning started. I could be wrong. [/quote'] Standard propellents for firearms (and also standard explosives) do not use air in the chemical reaction, they have their own oxidizer. That is why explosives work under water. Contrary to popular opinion, space is not "cold" in the sense that it will freeze items quickly. The weapon will only lose heat by ratiated heat transfer, and for a room temperature object that is negligible. If the weapon were left in sunlight it would heat up, pssibly enough to cause problems, but unless it was left in sunlight for a considerable time there won't be any trouble. The lubricant "boiling off" in vacuum is a potential problem, but solveable by using dry lubricants. So yes, regular firearms will work in space, with a little care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGhee Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Re: Stupid firearms question it is generally not the heat that fires shell. If I remember correct the primer need to be wacked to go off. in a fire the round expands which allows the powder to be contacted by the fire which sets off the bullets ect. this is one reason that the rounds go off at different times and some never go off in the fire. Now heat might cause the powder and the primer to become more unstable eaisier togo off with less force. Lord Ghee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.