9mm VS 45ACP for Shooting in Outer Space?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kind of Blued

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,676
Location
Rocky Mountains
:neener:

But no, really, I've never thought about shooting a gun in outer space until I made a joke about it. The barrel would have to be sealed to the muzzle and filled with air so that the powder can burn until the bullet exits the muzzle. I would think powder would not burn properly.

So you could get one shot off?

Also, recoil would send the shooter in the opposite direction... not too fast, but worth a mention.

Anyway, I'm not too worried about the practicality of it, as it, by nature, is not practical. I'm more interested in the ballistics side of things.

So you would need an oxygen fed breech... Said oxygen source would need to be relatively near which would be a target for enemy space combatants.

Things I wonder about:
The oxygen necessary for the primer to spark
Relative bullet velocities in a vacuum if it could work
What would happen with ft/lbs of energy?
What caliber was the big bang?
Is it best to just settle for the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?
 
Small and fast wins in space: you don't have to defeat the astronaut, just his suit. Also, priming compound and powder both contain oxidizing agents, so no air necessary, though there are other thermal considerations.
 
Moonraker laser carbine, dude!(goldeneye for n64...anyone?)
 
Last edited:
Much like really bad horror movie series, where the first one was good, but then it just sorta went progressively downhill from there, the only place left for the tired and overdone 9mm vs .45 ACP wars to go is Outer Space.

See: Jason X (Friday the 13th)
Leprechaun in Space (Leprechaun)
Hellraiser 9 or whatever in Space (Hellraiser)
etc. :neener:
 
I love the Leprechaun back 2 the hood film! I need to see the space one. I guess I need my "hollowtips" filed with 4 leaf clovers like the movie to defeat him!
 
Also, recoil would send the shooter in the opposite direction... not too fast, but worth a mention.
Click to expand...

Actually my understanding is that you would be sent at EQUAL speed in the OPPOSITE direction!!!!!!!
 
modern cartridge firearms would be a perfectly viable weapon in space, so long as the cartridges used were crimped nice and tight, and lacquered shut for good measure. The cartridge contains a small amount of air as well as powder, so combustion would not be a problem. In fact, you would achieve greater muzzle velocity in a vacuum than you would in air, because there is no opposing atmospheric pressure or aerodynamic drag pushing against the front of the bullet or slowing it down. Also, muzzle velocity would be constant velocity for... well, pretty much forever. .45ACP exits the barrel at, say, 1,000fps. It will stay at 1,000fps for hundreds, if not thousands of years (eventually eroding from ubiquitous particulate matter in the deep vacuum of space), or until it strikes something of substance to slow it down.



Also, as mentioned above, you'd really only need to puncture an enemy's suit to win the day. FN Five-seveN would rule the space gun fight, methinks.
 
does that really matter in space... (im sot sure, i just always assumed it didnt.)

t
 
Mass is a constant (neglecting velocity, per the theory of relativity). If you have a mass of 100kg on earth, you still have a mass of 100kg in space.


Weight is a measurement of the force of gravity. It is measured (typically) in avoirdupois pounds (imperial), or newtons (metric). Mass is a derived measurement by multiplying density by volume, and as such it stays the same regardless of prevailing gravitational forces.
 
I believe that, pulling random numbers, if you shot a projectile that weighs 1kg, and you weigh 100 kg, that you will travel in the opposite direction at 1/100th the speed of the projectile, correct?

if a gun can fire under water, then a gun can fire in a vacuum methinks
 
Well, the one gun you don't want in space is the Callahan Fullbore Autolock.

You would also have to worry about how the cold affects all the bits of your gun. You could fire the thing and have springs and pins and maybe a slide just crack or tear apart.
 
Forward thinking as the ATF is, space also requires the proper paperwork and $200 tax stamp. because, you know, its a silencer.
 
Last edited:
Geoff you were basically correct. Pound-force is the pound that everyone knows and deals with.

Standing on a spring scale on the moon your pounds will be less. On a balance (like at the doctors) your mass will be the same.

I was under the impression from my physics teacher that the Slug is the imperial measure of mass.
 
I really want to add something to this thread, however at the moment I am stupefied.:eek:
 
My mouth hung open with surprise at the title of the thread. 9mm versus .45 ACP in space?

Awe inspiring... simply awe inspiring...
 
Well to me it's more interesting and funny than those tired old zombie threads I refuse to respond to or read!
 
In all, um, seriousness, a barrett-style muzzle brake might go a long way in reducing reactionary movement. Also centering the cg of the recoiling slide/bolt on the grip axis.
 
See the Non Sequitur cartoon that Smoke posted at #14 of

Guns in Space: (et cetera)

By the way, THR has an excellent Search function. :neener:

Gunpowder contains its own oxidizers. No need for the cartridge to have air in it.

For all of the other parameters of the discussion, including weight, mass, velocity, acceleration, inertia, angular momentum, various orbital phenomena and so forth, below are a few quick samples of the threads available at THR.

Shooting in Space

Are firearms feasible in a war in space?

Firearms in science fiction novels

A different thread, also called "Guns in space"

Enjoy.
 
But no, really, I've never thought about shooting a gun in outer space until I made a joke about it. The barrel would have to be sealed to the muzzle and filled with air so that the powder can burn until the bullet exits the muzzle. I would think powder would not burn properly.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Like the metric system, the English system has two seperate scales differing in magnitude. The units of mass are the slug and the pound. The corresponding units of force are the pound force and the poundal. 1 lbf will accelerate a mass of 1 slug at 1 ft/s^2. A force of 1 poundal will accelerate a mass of 1 lb at 1 ft/s^2. Under a standard gravity a pound weighs 1 lbf while a slug weighs approximately 32.174 lbf.

Historically, the pound was a unit of force but it was redefined as a unit of mass some years back when the English system was rationalized.

The question of force vs mass always seems to cause trouble. Even in metric countries. My old DWM drawings for the Luger pistol specifiy the strength of the springs in kilograms which is incorrect usage as the kilogram is a unit of mass, not force. One assumes they mean a kilogram force which is a bastard unit, meaning the weight of a kilogram mass as opposed to the Newton or Dyne which are proper metric untis of force.
 
The Russians put a 20 or 40mm gun on a space station in the 70's, and it shot down a satellite. The problem with guns in space is there is no air to dissipate the heat from the barrel. Even though it is very cold in space with no way to transfer the heat of friction and combustion the gun would eventually fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
The Mysterious and exotic Carbon Fiber. What else can we make with it?
Replies
16
Views
1K
petrel800
P
T
  • Locked
Guns in Space; Not Such a Good Idea
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
PILMAN
P
P
  • Locked
Nitro vs BP
Replies
9
Views
650
Mike Irwin
M
S
  • Locked
Reloading in a Vacuum.....
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
MErl
M
R
  • Locked
Shooting causing brush fires?
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
MOSINS
M
Back
Top