PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
Smart bullets are possible today, just not economical... but I can't see a reason to couple them with gyrojet tech... it would only assist in the accuracy issue while the other issues still exist.
Why did the Gyro-Jet concept fail?
- Thread starter .cheese.
- Start date
- Status
roger505
Member
It failed mainly do to expense and that it was not really suited to civilian use. The rounds cost over $1.00 each in 1967 and had only one configuration, armor piercing solid. In todays money that would be about $9.00 to $10.00 each.
roger505
Member
The concept was developed to answer a joint CIA, NASA, Army contract calling for a recoilless side arm to be used in any environment, including space. Also as a replacement for the old liberator pistol. The pistol was two pieces of stamped metal welded together with only three moving parts. The caliber was in 13mm, and 9mm. There was also one loaded in a cigarette and a 20mm explosive round, looked like a cigar and fired from a shot gun. See the old Bond movie "You Only Live Twice", the Japanese commandos use them.
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
Pure unguided projectile ballistics are far more predictable and reliable than tiny, guided projectile ballistics.
roger505
Member
Project was a joint CIA, Army, NASA, contract. NASA wanted a weapon for space with no recoil and good penetration. The Army, ease of use and shock with penetration. The CIA cheep with ammo controlled by US, Also covert use [ the cigarette] and explosive against trucks [ the 20 mm]. Gyrojet answered with an all in one concept.
They did work, burn out was about 18 to 20 inches, accuracy so so. This was more of a proof of concept than any thing.
They did work, burn out was about 18 to 20 inches, accuracy so so. This was more of a proof of concept than any thing.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
We got hostile astronauts now?
Only one I heard about was the diaper lady, and I doubt a Gyrojet would have worked any better for her either.
rcmodel
Neo-Luddite
Member
Not commercially viable in today's political climate; if the military doesn't want it developed, what commercial manufacturer would take such a 'risk' for little return.
Plus, while I'm sure the tech is there to make a 'smart' gyro-jet type projectile, it is MUCH easier to make something that can be of use to the mass market.
Plus, while I'm sure the tech is there to make a 'smart' gyro-jet type projectile, it is MUCH easier to make something that can be of use to the mass market.
nwilliams
Member
For those interested all you need to know about the Gyrojet.....History Channel segment.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoffTmg9bxU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoffTmg9bxU&feature=related
Don't forget that the gyrojet rounds were also incredibly flammable.
I've been lucky enough to handle both pistol & rifle versions. Really "fun stuff" if you could get your hands on cheap rounds (years ago, they were $50 each, don't know what they cost now).
Biggest problem with the gyrojet is that it is a solution searching for a problem. Yes, you can get rifle velocities out of a recoilless pistol round. Is this really necessary if you don't have the accuracy to go with it?
Lastly, the 2-stage firing system really makes it pointless for a pistol. 1st stage just launches the round out of the pistol, IIRC it takes about 7-10 yards for the 2nd stage 'rocket' to fire, this makes it useless for use at standard SD ranges.
I've been lucky enough to handle both pistol & rifle versions. Really "fun stuff" if you could get your hands on cheap rounds (years ago, they were $50 each, don't know what they cost now).
Biggest problem with the gyrojet is that it is a solution searching for a problem. Yes, you can get rifle velocities out of a recoilless pistol round. Is this really necessary if you don't have the accuracy to go with it?
Lastly, the 2-stage firing system really makes it pointless for a pistol. 1st stage just launches the round out of the pistol, IIRC it takes about 7-10 yards for the 2nd stage 'rocket' to fire, this makes it useless for use at standard SD ranges.
roger505
Member
Hostile astronauts? Yes! The Russian space station had a 30mm gun for use against our shuttles. I have also heard, but can not confirm, that our shuttles were designed to be armed if needed. I do know that Russian recovery capsules are equipped with shotguns. This has to do more with the fact that there recovery accuracy is minute of Siberia and they may have to fight off wolves for a day or two.
Old Grump
Member
You got most of it
Expensive
Inaccurate
Lack of power, (if you held your hand in front of the barrel you could stop the bullet without harm. When I saw that demonstration I thought the guy was nuts)
Slow, (Lack of a fast follow up shot and a bullet you could duck if it looked like it might accidentally hit you.)
No market, (people could buy a 38 or 30-30 that was more powerful and more accurate)
Expensive
Inaccurate
Lack of power, (if you held your hand in front of the barrel you could stop the bullet without harm. When I saw that demonstration I thought the guy was nuts)
Slow, (Lack of a fast follow up shot and a bullet you could duck if it looked like it might accidentally hit you.)
No market, (people could buy a 38 or 30-30 that was more powerful and more accurate)
roger505
Member
Hell I was there. This was a proof of concept, not a finished product and was shelved until need.
Burn out was apx 20in, not yards, and, upon burn out, velocity was high. Energy about two to three times that of a 45.
It penetrated well on hard targets and tumbled on soft. Reliably was a problem.
Remember, any ammo you find today is forty years old and is loaded with a rocket fuel that did not have a long shelf life. Therefor any test today will not be valid.
With any new approach you must offer an marked advantage to the system in use or it will not be used, and apart from no recoil, there was none. Fire arms have a 500 year history and are vary, vary developed and any new system must overcome this.
Burn out was apx 20in, not yards, and, upon burn out, velocity was high. Energy about two to three times that of a 45.
It penetrated well on hard targets and tumbled on soft. Reliably was a problem.
Remember, any ammo you find today is forty years old and is loaded with a rocket fuel that did not have a long shelf life. Therefor any test today will not be valid.
With any new approach you must offer an marked advantage to the system in use or it will not be used, and apart from no recoil, there was none. Fire arms have a 500 year history and are vary, vary developed and any new system must overcome this.
Last edited:
Brian Dale
Member
I love the "Hell I was there" posts at THR. Thanks, roger505.
Last deer season, I toted a nine-pound, sporterized Springfield up and down the steep hillsides around here for a week and a half. It was worth it; nonetheless, the thing that jumped out at me from U.S.SFC_RET's museum display photograph was the line on the sign that reads,
Last deer season, I toted a nine-pound, sporterized Springfield up and down the steep hillsides around here for a week and a half. It was worth it; nonetheless, the thing that jumped out at me from U.S.SFC_RET's museum display photograph was the line on the sign that reads,
the Ordnance Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground said:
- Status
