A different way to see guns

[rhouston8]

I've been a gun lover for years and have worked in medical imaging for a while as well. It took me way too long to figure out how to combine the two.

No, this wasn't done at a hospital and yes, I own the equipment.

I'm in the process of creating an online gallery of scanned weapons. Probably will be much improved after the holidays as this is a hectic time for all.

This is my HK23E beltfed. Actually one built by Michael's Machines. .223 cal, 900 rnds/min with a registered sear. It's a beast and one of my favorite CAT scans.

-Houston

Moderator Note: It has been verified that Houston is for real, the equipment is for real and the images are real and really really interesting!

 

[Action_Can_Do]

You just happen to own both a HK23E and a CAT scan machine? Ok then. I like the second pic. It's the kind of beauty that only a gunnie could understand.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I guess CAT scan is different from an MRI.

 

[kingpin008]

Something doesn't smell right to me about these images.

Look at the position of the linked rounds in the photograph, then look at the position of the rounds in the CAT scan image.

In the photo, the rounds are trailing more or less straight down from the receiever, then back behind the gun, flat against the table. In the scan, the linked rounds curve disctinctly forward, and the entire belt is much shorter than the one shown in the photo.

Also, there are three protrusions on the top of the rifle in the scan. The front sight in front, then something almost as tall and similarly shaped towards the middle, and finally the rear sight at the end. Yet in the photo, there doesn't seem to be a corresponding middle protrusion.

I'll readily admit I'm no expert, but until I see more, I'm not convinced.

 

[Balrog]

Wow, you must be rich. CT scan machines cost about a million dollars (for an obsolete used one) and up to 3 or 4 million dollars for a new one. Why do you own a CT? I don't think its legal for a private individual to own a CT because of the radiation issues. How did you get around that?

Also, CT scan machines generate cross sectional images, and what you are showing in your picture is not a cross section of the gun, but a side view. It is possible to recreate a sagittal view like that from a CT machine, if you have reconstruction capability, but the image will not be that crisp, and your machine looks a little old for that anyway.

Care to tell us what the photo really is?

 

[Yosemite Sam]

He could be a researcher and his lab owns the machine, bought with grant dollars.

Cool photos. Any more?

Also, there are three protrusions on the top of the rifle in the scan. The front sight in front, then something almost as tall and similarly shaped towards the middle, and finally the rear sight at the end. Yet in the photo, there doesn't seem to be a corresponding protrusion.

They're not as clear, but all three protrusions are in the CT image. They're just not as "white."

 

[brandon_mcg]

pretty neat. loaded guns plus a ct machine.

 

[kingpin008]

They're not as clear, but all three protrusions are in the CT image. They're just not as "white."

Yes, I know they're in the scan. My point was that they're not all in the photo. Front sight, yes - rear sight, yes. Middle protrusion? Nope. The scan doesn't match the photo.

 

[CZsp01]

ALl his posts are threads on this same thing, maybe hes trying to get his name out there lol

 

[il_10]

The middle protrusion is indeed there, it's just cut off halfway because it's a sideways-view CT scan. It looks like a round, hollow tube.

 

[mcdonl]

I like the third picture, the one with the glock.

 

[ArmedLiberal]

Wow, you must be rich. CT scan machines cost about a million dollars (for an obsolete used one) and up to 3 or 4 million dollars for a new one. Why do you own a CT? I don't think its legal for a private individual to own a CT because of the radiation issues. How did you get around that?

Also, CT scan machines generate cross sectional images, and what you are showing in your picture is not a cross section of the gun, but a side view. It is possible to recreate a sagittal view like that from a CT machine, if you have reconstruction capability, but the image will not be that crisp, and your machine looks a little old for that anyway.

Care to tell us what the photo really is?

This.

CAT scans show slices. Just like you would see slicing up a salami. These are flat images like you would see in a standard x-ray machine.

Could these be Computer Generated Images? Like from schematic drawings or blue prints?

 

[kingpin008]

The middle protrusion is indeed there, it's just cut off halfway because it's a sideways-view CT scan. It looks like a round, hollow tube.

For the love of Mike, please read my comment carefully before posting. You're the second person to comment that all three protrusions are indeed on the scan.

I KNOW they are! My point is that there's no corresponding protrusion on the PHOTO.

Cripes almighty. Reading is fundamental, ya know?

 

[rhouston8]

A few points.

1. the scanned images are "real" but kingpin is correct in that the pic of the 23e on the scanner table wasn't taken the same day as the actual "scan" of said gun. I decided to take a regular pic of the gun on the table just to demonstrate what I was doing. It doesnt match up exactly with that 23e scan image though. As far as bumps and what not...I dont know. Maybe the charging handle wasn't pulled back or something. Who knows.

2. Millionaire, etc? nope. I'm "an owner" , not "the owner". It's a Philips scanner. List price four yrs ago when we bought it was $700k I believe. Might be worth $50 now. hah. They do depreciate like crazy. MRIs are the expensive stuff.

3. Axial images. I am workign on that now. They are very, very difficult to acquire due to metallic streak artifact. That was the original intent...to salami cut image the guns. Technically though I doubt I'll be able to pull that one off. Work in progress.

4. Showing off the images,etc. Yep. I think they kick butt. I've never seen anything like them. Google for it. Nothing touches the quality of what I'm getting. Yes, I do want folks to know about it. Post has a few purposes. 1. Bragging rights on cool new gun images. 2. Tickle other gun folks brains in hopes that they either one-up me and make even better stuff. 3. Have folks provide me suggestions for improvement, novel ideas, and stuff to scan. You just never know who'll read the post and what will happen.

-HH

 

[kingpin008]

R - thanks for the explanation. For the record, they're definitely cool images - just seemed a little "off" at first.

 

[Matt018]

Alright this seems wierd or fake or both, You clear your weapon when you handle it period unles you are shooting or holstering. nobdy would do this and this guy must be rich if it is true.... I need to see more if we are expected to believe....

 

[kingpin008]

You clear your weapon when you handle it period unles you are shooting or holstering.

Who said the rounds were live? You can buy all kinds of inert ammo in linked belts at gunshows. And even if the rounds are live, there's no indication that there's a round in the chamber.

I need to see more if we are expected to believe....

Search the OP's username. He's posted a few other examples in other sub-forums.

I thought it was a little hinky too, but now that he's weighed in and answered a few things, I can see how this is for real.

 

[General Geoff]

I don't consider a weapon sitting on a table to be "handling"

No safety violations in taking images (CT or otherwise) of a loaded firearm. It's an inanimate object, it's not going to get up and fire on its own during the imaging process, unless of course it's in an MRI...

 

[Odd Job]

Nice to see another X-ray technologist/radiographer on site, welcome.

Indeed that side view is from the scout image (also called a topogram or plan by some folks) and doesn't rely on the computerised reconstruction associated with axial/coronal/sagittal slices. Those slices won't be very valuable for metallic components because of artefact but nice recons can be had of synthetic/wood stocks and other components if they can be imaged separate from the metal.

MRI is a no-go unless you are testing ferrous projectiles but then you don't do any imaging and you need a safe enclosure in which to place the items before going near the scanner.

I'll add some stuff later, on holiday at the moment.

 

[c919]

MORE MORE MORE!!!

I've worked as a Rad. Tech. and always dreamed of letting loose some photons on everything I could get my hands on.

 

[chihuahuatn]

Did you send the CT files of to a Radiologist for a reading and assessment? There may some undiagnosed pathology. Maybe a missed fracture some where in the frame.


What software did you use to minimize metal diffraction artifacts?

 

[bunker]

Looks like a Philips Ct scanner, so it would be called a "surview" not a scout... i work on one also. Bunker

 

[hso]

I need to see more if we are expected to believe....

Staff have verified they're legit so be assured the images are real, he's real, the equipment used is real.

 

[Oyeboten]

Looks like a Heavy X-Ray...not a Cat Scan, which is cross sectional.

 

[taliv]

good grief people. we can't take you anywhere!