"...has developed a robotised killing machine capable of firing more than one million rounds a minute - enough to shred an entire building in the blink of an eye"

Completely wrong. The technology allows bullets to be fired at the RATE of 1 million rounds a minute. This could be achieved by firing as many as 2 rounds. Hardly enough to shred a building.

Now think about this. A metal storm style weapon consists of barrels with bullets contained sequentially within. Say a bullet is 1cm in length (that's conservative, each "bullet" consists of projectile and propellant), how long does the barrel need to be to hold 1 million sequential bullets? Oh, just a modest 10 kilometres!

In actual fact they are putting only a few bullets in each barrel, say around 3-10, all of which can be fired in one ultra high rate burst. Multiple barrels allow for multiple bursts, but of course there is still a practical limitation on how many barrels one weapon can posess - the handgun prototypes have about 3 or 4 barrels

The author should have woken up when she herself pointed to an example that consisted of 16 rounds only. Looking at the picture of this device (have a look at this thing http://www.metalstorm.com/05_graphics_40mm.html, straight out of "Robocop") it appears to be a 4 barrel implimentation i.e. 4x4.

BTW, the real beauty of the Metalstorm technology is the stopping power. Despite what you'd think sometimes 1 or 2 bullets isn't enough to stop a person, often not enough to stop them pulling their own trigger if they have a weapon. That's why our police are told to basically empty their weapon into the offenders torso if they need to use it. Well a Metalstorm weapon can achieve the same result in an instant with one trigger pull. Yes it allows people to be killed easier but that's why it's good, you see guns are designed to kill people. If they were making cameras more lethal then we'd need to be worried.

"BTW, the real beauty of the Metalstorm technology is the stopping power. Despite what you'd think sometimes 1 or 2 bullets isn't enough to stop a person"

How beeee-utiful. Really warms my l'il cockles, HarryC, that you can get off on this attribute, but Metalstorm's 'beauty' is not what the topic is about you Gung Ho Freak. Flame me I really don't care I can't believe that someone could get so 'hot' for killing power. And people complain about Islam's penchant for violence.

I take your comments to mean that you're not too concerned about terror or death of innocents then.

I don't really care how many bullets/calibre/girth/length/rigidity or velocity these weapons can ejaculate ...... what I am concerned about (increasingly after reading your post HarryC) is the moral obligation of the military. Did that point somehow escpape you?

This is a reply from the author, Wanda Fish

I don't normally reply to comments on my articles but feel the need to clarify the facts for future readers. All research and statements in this article are verifiable, including the incredible velocity of this gun. Readers may like to check the company's own website where the same statement is made several times. In addition there have mainstream media reports about this invention dating back to twelve months ago. All research and statements were taken from the company's own website, from mainstream media reports, from Stock Exchange information and from the Defense Review. In fact, the company has signifcantly altered its website in the past six months, removing some detailed pages about the technology and its intention to use the weapon in Iraq. It is also a fact that ASIO and company agents now roam the alternative sites reqularly and attempt to discredit verifiable information about the truth regarding our "war on terror". Like most sensible and peace loving people, I hope this weapon is never used. Enough innocent people have died in a war that is more about American commercial interests than about freedom. Peace to you all. Wanda

You know Trinity, I was going to add something to the effect that I knew that comment would get up the goat of certain types, though the word limit prevented me. Must admit though that I'm glad to have riled you up.

You write as if you are unfamiliar with the usage of the term "beauty" in that kind of context, though I'm sure you are. How else do you feel one should describe the positive aspects of a device which has the express purpose of killing? Do I need to qualify myself and say "well this may sound callous, but..."? To me that's just emotive clap trap and adds nothing to the conversation.

Maybe one day you'll find yourself in a situation where you are a hostage to a madman and your life is at the mercy of the police and the weapons they posess, in such a scenario do you wish they be equipped with pepper spray or a device capable of ending the offenders life in an instant? It's not a pretty vision is it but this is not an unrealistic scenario hence our police are equipped with lethal weapons. And Metalstorm is very much being considered for civilian use where it's benefits are probably most applicable as the need for immediate threat nullification is most critical (I got an erection writing that).

As for that little robot thing, well that will take the place of a soldier/s who would otherwise be at risk of getting shot up themselves, I can't see how in the world you could have a problem with that, or would you rather "certain" forces did place themselves at such risk? It wouldn't suprise me coming from where you are.

And sorry I couldn't back up with links but the MS Tech FAQ is offline right now.

Its a sad thing Ms Fish that you are more afraid of weapons developed to fight our enemies than our enemies themselves. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the 'innocent civilians' being killed in Iraq are killed by Muslim extremists??

I must say you are one of the paranoid few who seem more afraid of our own Government than those who seek to eliminate us. You are thus our enemy's friend.

Wanda, I am quoting from your reply here:

"This is a reply from the author, Wanda Fish

I don't normally reply to comments on my articles but feel the need to clarify the facts for future readers. All research and statements in this article are verifiable, including the incredible velocity of this gun."

Wanda, you didn't mention the velocity of the projectiles in your article, you spoke of rate of fire, that is a million rounds a minute. This may seem like a small point, but it is vital, because it is the velocity, when taken in conjunction with the weight of each projectile that matters when it comes to destructive potential.

If I pick up a handful of sand and throw it at someone I will achieve the equvalent of about a million projectiles a second, but the energy delivered at the target would be very low.

So, if someone actually tried to fire even 100 rifle bullet sized projectiles in one second at a high enough velocity to do damage to a target, then the recoil would be far too high for a man portable weapon. To achieve a high enough velocity the barrel would have to be much longer than a normal gun barrel as well, as the rojectiles have to be able to fit into the barrel and still have sufficient barrel length for the projects to be acted upon by the propellant. lastly, each propellant charge would not only fire one projectile from the barrel, but compact the projectiles and propellant behind it, leading to the potential of misfire and distortion of projectiles.

If you are going to discuss firearms you could at least get the terminology right.

Get the idea? The Australian authorities looked at the system, recognised it as a waste of money and moved on. The USA, with more money to waste, decided to try to develop it.