I mean they aren't wrong using a shotgun against a drone is dangerous as fk
but you wanna know whats really dangerous , like super duper dangerous?
Thats letting a drone get anywhere near you and blowing your ass up because using a shottie is "stupid"
What else are you gonna do, dead eye the flight controller with a Red Ryder BB gun? Is it dangerous to take out with a shotgun? Maybe. But when a flying bomb is speeding towards you, I'd have to say... I think NOT serving it up a nice pellet surprise, and allowing it to continue on its merry way, may just have slightly fewer health benefits. But hey, that's just me. People that consider it too dangerous seem like the kind of people that would say you shouldn't punch a shark during an attack, because their scales are rough, and you might scratch your hand or break a nail.
I mean, shotgun seems like the default option, outside specialized anti-drone weaponry. I don't think detonation is an issue. I'd be more worried about the 10 other explosions beside me than a drone popping up in the sky. Actually, I think the drone detonation in the air away from me would be pretty low on my list of concerns, were I to be in this situation.
I agree that is seems a bit "basic", but sometimes basic gets the job done, instead of having some fancy, high tech, expensive, advanced denial device, named after some acronym of combined systems. Just hand out a few shotguns to a couple dudes, and "BAM!", problem solved. Not every problem requires a cutting edge, million dollar solution. This looked pretty damn efficient and functional from the video.
Im with you, I can't think of a better way. Matter of fact they have shotguns DESIGNED for such things! Skeet shotguns, trap shotguns, etc. perfect choice! Lol
Exactly, I came here to say this. There's B&W movies of shooting pellets out of break action shorties at flying birds and handing them off to loaders who are like squires handing them fresh loaded guns to hit the next one.
I think this is due to people thinking shot spread is bigger than it is. I think you’re better off with your regular weapon, AR, AK, whatever; easier to aim, control, longer range and with better follow up targeting.
I would say shooting an AR at a drone, would be more dangerous than a shotgun as the projectile is gonna go much further if you miss. Also, there's a reason they use shotguns for trap shooting, skeet, etc... Its MULTIPLE times harder to hit something that small, airborne, and moving, with a rifle vs a shotgun....
I’m talking about what I’ve seen in combat footage. Skeet shooting is more a tradition and sport based on bird hunting rather than the best tool to shoot something down with. And yes, much safer. But again “combat zone” and most shotguns in combat zones are going to be short with open chokes, not like a Trap gun.
I mean...its still easier to hit a drone with multiple projectiles such as birdshot or buckshot, than a single small bullet... That's just common sense I think regardless of whether the shotgun is short, choked, etc... there's a reason birds are hunted with shotguns and not rifles lol
Bro y’all have never hunted doves on a crowed field or duck hunted crowded water. Falling pellets? Getting “peppered” is a thing and not dangerous if you’re shooting a damn drone. People risk it for a dove… to save my life or team mates life I am ripping 3 1/2” tss #7 and # 9 by the tube full no sweat
i'm trying to imagine how that would work with a traditional shotgun lol
The shot would still be relatively safe unless you get one in the eye or something, but the weights on the perimeter or corners of the net would probably hurt on the way down
that being said, it'll probably hurt less than a drone exploding in your face, so who am I to complain
Just less shot and some solid ASF nett in the shell id assume? By no means am I willing to try it just a random idea 😂
But it's good to know it'd hurt less
But would it hurt the drone more or just be less effective in general?
I'm not sure if a net by itself would be very effective, as you're kinda just *hoping* it expands enough and stops being just a ball of string flying through the wind (also, wind resistance against a light object = poor range)
Most nets of this type use weighs of some kind on the corners, so that there's some *encouragement* for the net to open as the weights disperse in whichever direction, as it gives the net some mass (and therefore momentum) to keep on flying
I'm not sure which would be more effective, but they both have their place
I feel like a net would be more forgiving to a shooter's aim, but it's also a highly specific load and i'm not sure how rational it would be to keep your shotgun loaded with net when *people* are also a hazard
give and take
Because you could still detonate the munition attached to the drone if you’re unlucky. Personally, I’d rather take shrapnel and mild hearing loss compared to what I already have than an entire PG-7V warhead to anywhere on my body.
> and mild hearing loss
This is solvable via hearing protection. It's not like you aren't literally shooting weapons already. Each shot without protection is immediate, permanent hearing loss.
Not quite sorry, been hunting for a while and there is no ringing of any sort. I will say in a war zone yea the frequency of shooting would lead to severe and rapid hearing deterioration
> Not quite sorry,
You say this as if your personal opinion trumps the objective science of how human ears work, and the sound pressure levels they are being exposed to here.
Absolutely insane that people like you breathe among us.
Modern earpro has microphones and blocks out sound over a certain db, I’ve listened to many conversations on ranges because my hearing is better with the earpro on. Given idk how well those are in an actual combat situation but I’ve seen dudes using them.
It’s possible it would help. I don’t know how much I’d trust the electronic ear pro in the environment we see here. Inside a structure trying to listen for a drone outside.
Military active ear pro is pretty badass. When I was in I could hear better with my peltors on than I could without them. They aren’t like your bass pro electronic ear muffs. They’re a lot more sophisticated.
I’ll say even outside they increase your hearing much like hearing aids it’s a decent bit with it also being adjustable. I haven’t even used super expensive military grade ones and imagine those pretty impressive. Tho I do agree and have no idea how much hearing a drone slight faster would do for your hypothetical survival. Plus if turned up really high those ear pro suffer from the negative effect of amplifying all noise in the “safe” db range so you hear lots of background noise, esp on a war zone where I bet I’d amplify distant gunfire and explosions to a annoying degree.
> Modern earpro has microphones and blocks out sound over a certain db,
Rather, they block all sounds, but repeat via microphone and speakers the sounds at non-damaging levels.
I take it you've never used active hearing protection before in your life.
I also don't understand the implication that hearing protection isn't an established thing for the military.
I have. That’s why I say I don’t think I’d trust it to pick up a drone sound outside of a structure while im inside of it.
I also don’t understand your implication that fpv drone warfare is an established thing for the military and not new.
I don’t see how anything short of an EMP/anti drone gun (which I’d imagine aren’t common) would be better than a shotgun?
People shoot drones with them all the time already. Remember, birds aren’t real.
A huge benefit is shotguns like this dont cost 70k each, or whatever those radio signal blocking guns cost. I imagine we are going to see anti drone systems in the near future employing multibarrel shotguns. Automated belt-fed 12ga on tripods?
This, but in a Mk19 grenade launcher.
[https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/40mm-counter-drone-net-munition-with-hand-settable-fuze/fc1ff278-95ae-4177-ab31-c7862c4f7835](https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/40mm-counter-drone-net-munition-with-hand-settable-fuze/fc1ff278-95ae-4177-ab31-c7862c4f7835)
This but AI assisted targeting, laser rangefinding with automated fuse length setting. As soon as a foreign radio signal is detected, these should come online and lock in on the source, determine distance, and launch a grenade set to detonate within range to destroy the drone.
I was watching a podcast with a us special ops member and he was saying the us military already has an anti drone rifle that the trigger mechanism is linked to a targeting scope and the soldier pulls the trigger but until the targeting system knows it's aimed at the right spot it won't fire. So I'm guessing you just hold the trigger down and aim at and around the done. They said it's really effective and already in use.
I mean…my buddies and I have been working up the designs for a belt-fed shotgun that can use either proprietary Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds or standard shot shells with an adjustable gas block to cycle through them all.
The promotional commercial for it is gonna be us using the sabot rounds at about 200m to nail a plywood barn wall we have stood up.
Directed energy weapons are out there and they're starting to come down in price. you could probably backyard engineer something together by borrowing a power source and parts from a microwave, but when you're dealing with microwave energy you're also fucking around with the possibility of giving yourself cancer or cooking yourself.
3" turket loads are best for drones, for grenades I wouldn't know. r/no4buck might be a good option, more pellets, but not individually small enough to lack penetration in a soft target or to transfer energy to an explosive. Like shooting 41\~ .22 LR bullets all at once. Nothing to sleep on.
[Mythbusters actually did a test on this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpNkqlbNE) and they found out shotguns can deliver enough power to disable a grenade by destroying the casing before it explodes.
The same cannot be applied to rifles, which causes the grenade to detonate due to high velocity.
But on the other hand, they performed the test at close-range, idk what the result would be if they tested at mid range or throwable range.
But then again, the story of trench shotguns vs grenades in WWI is still around to this day, so I'd say there might be some merit to it.
Honestly penetration probably wouldn't matter because if it's struck with a non penetrating load it would probably send it backwards or at least stop it's forward momentum I would think?
That's why I would prefer a higher pellet count like No4 buck. higher chance to hit and transfer that energy to stop the forward momentum of the grenade.
Not saying the stories are true, there is no actual evidence of it ever happening. But I do want to clarify, the stories are that skeet shooters would be stationed in allied trenches to shoot grenades flying into their trench from the enemy, not to storm enemy trenches while shooting grenades down too. Additionally the goal is not to redirect the grenade but to set it off by shooting it. Shooting a container full of high explosives that is primed to detonate tends to detonate that high explosive. That much isn't fudd lore. It is a proven fact that shooting a live grenade can detonate it. It has happened multiple times through history and there is plenty of evidence to support it.
Hey you remember that giant paragraph that you posted, rambling on trying to sound like some kind of explosives/grenade expert? You were confidently pointing out how idiotic the other poster was, and that he makes no sense, and was just talking fuddlore. Do you recall that? Well just a heads up, the guy posted a couple videos of that exact impossible thing happening, with just a quick YouTube search and he made you look like an idiot. Just wanted to point that out since you seem to be clueless. Youre welcome for clearing this up. Another example of a redditor being SOOOOOOO confidently incorrect. What a douche
Edit: I'm glad to see you edited your entire comment from being a huge paragraph of telling someone how ignorant and idiotic they were, and how what they were claiming is impossible, to "i stand corrected". Next time you don't have a clue, don't be such a dickhead.
Because his original comment was a giant paragraph just being a giant dickhead, telling someone how idiotic they were, etc. He admitted he was wrong about the information, but no mention of being wrong or apologizing for telling the guy how ignorant he was over and over when in fact he was right all along lol
So he tells someone how stupid they are, they're idiotic, and that what they're claiming is nonsense, and then deletes all that and edits it to "I stand corrected". Sorry that I don't really excuse that. He's still an asshole, regardless of whether he admitted he was wrong about the information or not.
He could have said "damn, I really apologize for talking outta my ass, that was uncalled for thanks for not calling me out" anything of the sort really... But no. Just "I stand corrected"
You might excuse that behavior of being a huge asshole, and then when you're proven wrong just delete it and pretend it never happened. But If calling someone out for being a giant asshole makes me a douche bag, I'll take being a douche bag all day. Hope that clears it up
I can accept new information. If that makes me a douche so be it. Can you accept new information? Like me withdrawing my comments and admitting I was wrong?
DAMN you even deleted your comment instead of just adding that you stand corrected? Lol that's hysterical man.
Accepting new information obviously doesn't make you a douche. Posting a whole paragraph telling someone how ignorsnt they are, when in fact you were confidently wrong the whole time is what makes you a douche. You didn't just provide info on why you thought he was wrong. You told him what he was claiming was ignorant, and idiotic, fudd lore, nonsense, crazy, etc... and after all that, you were factually wrong about everything you said. THATS what makes you a douchebag. Being wrong doesn't make you an asshole. I'm wrong all the time. But telling someone how ignorant they are, WHILE you're wrong DOES make you an asshole.
But to answer your question about can I accept new information, There's no new information for me... I knew you were being an asshole when you posted your comment. Now you might have deleted it, but you still didn't apologize for being an asshole, you just admitted your information was wrong, in 3 words. So, no new info for me. You're still a douchebag, you're just a douchebag that got embarrassed and deleted his comment. Lol Next time, if you don't actually know, try not to be so confidently wrong. You can make your point on why you don't think it makes sense, but you were rude as hell, telling the guy how dumb he was, when in fact, you were the moron. Don't be so confidently arrogant, when you don't actually have a clue...
Maybe I'm a douchebag for calling you out this way. But... I'd rather be a douchebag for calling you out for being an asshole then be a douchebag for telling someone how dumb they are, when in fact you were the dumb one.
>Where can I see a live grenade being detonated with a bullet?
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpNkqlbNE)
The goal is not to detonate the grenade, just destroy the casing and prevent a large scale detonation, but if a concussive grenade (fielded by germans in WWI and WWII) gets to be detonated mid-air, then it would have little effect in troops on trenches.
Frag grenades on the other hand, I'm not so sure, but Germans didn't use those at the time.
I was under the impression the goal was not to redirect the 'nade, but just destroy/damage the casing enough before the fuse could trigger a strong enough explosion.
Also germans were using concussive grenades (pure explosive force) up to WWII, instead of fragmentary grenades (in which the explosion launches shrapnel in every direction), which could further explain things.
people used to joke about shooting a shotgun at a drone when Amazon was looking at drone delivery, but it also really depends on application. For these FPV drones they can move really fast, they make a bit of noise, but they also tend to operate on a flight level that puts them in range. For other quad copters that are up higher there's less chance of detecting or being able to hit it with normal birdshot.
It takes very little damage to a single motor to disable a quad copter. Even a drone at a distance is worth the ammo considering. What is needed is alertness to the drone.
And/or maybe a handheld jammer too. It's a cycle we can see in real time now.
Infantry war breaks out --> new tech makes infantry unusable --> new methods to counter new tech --> becomes an Infantry war.
Ever since the catapult.
EW tech is already being add to some russian tanks.
of course, the soldier that russia values at a $3 Bluetooth speaker and a sack of onions don't get jammers.
I brought this up during EWS and again to my BN commander who introduced the idea to the Combat Engineer leader's conference, mainly because we already have shotguns.
Seems like theyre getting ready to test the effectiveness at the schoolhouse.
I now have wet dreams of my Marines carrying their Benelli shotguns loaded with #6 turkey magnum loads picking off dones like skeet.
If it wasnt for the extreme anti drone laws in the USA I would have done some drone skeet shooting. I imagine it would be a very fun and popular sport for many people. The very small and cheap drones flying around in erratic patterns. They could be set up with pre programmed patterns and speeds. Heck you could even armor the drone so the pellets dont damage it except for the props. Then replace the 5 dollar props after they are shot down.
Drone warfare and all considered, how hard would it be to have an unmaned ground-drone-thing that locks onto a drone eletric field and fires a salvo at it?
If the iron dome can do it with missiles, surely rigging a shotgun/several rifles to a specialized/rudimentary drone dectetion system would be easier.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I makes more sense than sending a guy to shoot down said drones.
They’ll keep drones out of range for vehicles, but they are clearly hunting legs here, and that’s probably not super portable. That said, eventually we’ll have an unmanned ground vehicle that fulfills this eventually.
A drone electric field has got to be tiny and probably undetectable at any distance. Now the noise and movement? I wouldn't think that would be too difficult with multiple detectors for triangulation.
At this point in tech, anything that emits an eletricfield besides your regular Gameboy can be detected by proper equipment, otherwise Israel would not be able to defend against home-made missiles.
While they can definitely be detected, being meaningfully sounded out of the noise of the world is a different thing. Air systems pop threats via various measurements and detection methods, speed, heat, radar, OtH forward deployed systems, operational distances, the radar profile of a drone is realistically meaningless, the electronics signature is operating in bandwidths used by thousands of devices, from its radio signature, to its actual EM signature, they move relatively slowly, and are capable of running under the horizon line (many systems currently in use have safeties so you don’t detect and fire below horizon)
Audio and Visual recognition is a viable option, but that’s telling you it’s present and requires distribution into areas of operation, powering and manning that distribution, protection of the detector units. And still you need a system capable of running ID software to you don’t drop non combatants being stupid in war zones.
I’m sure there are plenty of systems in development to detect and fire on drones. I’m sure they’re also prohibitively expensive or impractical to be employed in a meaningful quantity. This will probably change in the coming years, but shotguns in infantry hands are the most cost efficient method to deal with these suicide quadcopters.
This is true, but the noise/interference from other devices would be immense. Not sure that you'd be able to differentiate it well enough to use it for targeting at any distance.
Iron dome uses radar to detect and track missiles. Nothing to do with any "electric fields". An anti drone system for armored vehicles would do the same.
Cheese and rice bro, that seems extreme. Not saying I don't want one, just pointing out the maybe not so obvious. Probably extreme, but possibly also not entirely unreasonable...at that same time? Would look sweet mounted atop my lil 4x4 either way. I've always wanted a technical.
The video game *Escape from Tarkov*
Russian post apocalyptic wasteland extraction shooter. One life per raid, you die in a raid and you lose everything carried and looted(generally, there are some exceptions).
It approximates the video by scenery, language, and the stress of dying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Tarkov
A search for a ribbed shotgun receiver returns the beretta a400 upland that looks right. It's a higher end model and it looks fancier than the bit of the gun we see, a bit surprising if that's it, I don't see that feature on any of their other guns.
I don't think anyone's cloning that particular sku of a400.
Sure could be something else, that was just the only gun on the image search for a ribbed receiver shotgun (ignoring all the ribbed barrels and a browning automatic that doesn't have those cuts). It's not a izzy 153/155 and that's where my knowledge of eastern european auto shotguns begins and ends.
edit: I am a liar, they do(or have) offered the 153 with similar cuts, never seen one like that before. http://www.encheres-nantes-labaule.com/vente-aux-encheres/303-militaria/98522-fusil-baikal-mp-153-n-0815343134-cat-c1a-cal-12x89-semi-automatique-magasin-canon-lisse-76-cm-capaci
I was reading an article a few weeks ago about shotguns being a necessity In Ukraine right now because of the drones. Bird shot or buck shot drops them right out of the air, blows the munition, is easy to use, and is super cheep for the gun and ammo.
A shotgun with a choke barrel is what I would want in this drone heavy new age war. Set it to 4 or 5 to take out drones. Then back to 1 or 2 for infantry.
Appears to be Ukraine using those drones more often, and then they like to film them killing Russian soldiers and then post it on the internet... just like how ISIL would post videos of themselves murdering people. Seems like terrorists all have a similar MO.
Dont worry r/Shotguns told me shotguns against drones is really stupid and no one is using shotguns against drones... bunch of dumb fudds in that sub.
I mean they aren't wrong using a shotgun against a drone is dangerous as fk but you wanna know whats really dangerous , like super duper dangerous? Thats letting a drone get anywhere near you and blowing your ass up because using a shottie is "stupid"
I must be missing something... Why is using a shotgun against a drone dangerous as fuck?
It's not. It's not the best, but if it's all you have, boom!
I mean, what exactly could be any better? I don't think falling pellets is even an issue in this case, as there is much worse things falling.
You have a drone with a bomb trying to kill you, and it's dangerous as fuck to take it out with a shotgun? What world do I live in...
What else are you gonna do, dead eye the flight controller with a Red Ryder BB gun? Is it dangerous to take out with a shotgun? Maybe. But when a flying bomb is speeding towards you, I'd have to say... I think NOT serving it up a nice pellet surprise, and allowing it to continue on its merry way, may just have slightly fewer health benefits. But hey, that's just me. People that consider it too dangerous seem like the kind of people that would say you shouldn't punch a shark during an attack, because their scales are rough, and you might scratch your hand or break a nail. I mean, shotgun seems like the default option, outside specialized anti-drone weaponry. I don't think detonation is an issue. I'd be more worried about the 10 other explosions beside me than a drone popping up in the sky. Actually, I think the drone detonation in the air away from me would be pretty low on my list of concerns, were I to be in this situation. I agree that is seems a bit "basic", but sometimes basic gets the job done, instead of having some fancy, high tech, expensive, advanced denial device, named after some acronym of combined systems. Just hand out a few shotguns to a couple dudes, and "BAM!", problem solved. Not every problem requires a cutting edge, million dollar solution. This looked pretty damn efficient and functional from the video.
Right? I’d think a shotgun would be the IDEAL method to take out a bomb drone?
Im with you, I can't think of a better way. Matter of fact they have shotguns DESIGNED for such things! Skeet shotguns, trap shotguns, etc. perfect choice! Lol
Pretty sure this solider is on to something, using a shotty to shoot a moving target in the air Its almost as if, shotguns accel in such situations...
WWI and 1897 Trench Gun enter the chat…
Exactly, I came here to say this. There's B&W movies of shooting pellets out of break action shorties at flying birds and handing them off to loaders who are like squires handing them fresh loaded guns to hit the next one.
Drone guns are better. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2KM-Range-6-Band-Drone-Device_1601154219664.html
The right weapon is a stick. Just throw a stick at it. I’m joking of course.
I mean, when in Rome right? I'd be throwing whatever the hell I had at it tbf lol
True. Critical is to ensure that thing don’t come close.
I think this is due to people thinking shot spread is bigger than it is. I think you’re better off with your regular weapon, AR, AK, whatever; easier to aim, control, longer range and with better follow up targeting.
I would say shooting an AR at a drone, would be more dangerous than a shotgun as the projectile is gonna go much further if you miss. Also, there's a reason they use shotguns for trap shooting, skeet, etc... Its MULTIPLE times harder to hit something that small, airborne, and moving, with a rifle vs a shotgun....
I’m talking about what I’ve seen in combat footage. Skeet shooting is more a tradition and sport based on bird hunting rather than the best tool to shoot something down with. And yes, much safer. But again “combat zone” and most shotguns in combat zones are going to be short with open chokes, not like a Trap gun.
I mean...its still easier to hit a drone with multiple projectiles such as birdshot or buckshot, than a single small bullet... That's just common sense I think regardless of whether the shotgun is short, choked, etc... there's a reason birds are hunted with shotguns and not rifles lol
[удалено]
if birdshot, not really unsafe buck probably not ideal
Bro y’all have never hunted doves on a crowed field or duck hunted crowded water. Falling pellets? Getting “peppered” is a thing and not dangerous if you’re shooting a damn drone. People risk it for a dove… to save my life or team mates life I am ripping 3 1/2” tss #7 and # 9 by the tube full no sweat
clay shooting as well so many trap & skeet fields have shooters facing each other across some distance it’s like dry rain
What if some sort of homemade net/shot mix?
i'm trying to imagine how that would work with a traditional shotgun lol The shot would still be relatively safe unless you get one in the eye or something, but the weights on the perimeter or corners of the net would probably hurt on the way down that being said, it'll probably hurt less than a drone exploding in your face, so who am I to complain
Just less shot and some solid ASF nett in the shell id assume? By no means am I willing to try it just a random idea 😂 But it's good to know it'd hurt less But would it hurt the drone more or just be less effective in general?
I'm not sure if a net by itself would be very effective, as you're kinda just *hoping* it expands enough and stops being just a ball of string flying through the wind (also, wind resistance against a light object = poor range) Most nets of this type use weighs of some kind on the corners, so that there's some *encouragement* for the net to open as the weights disperse in whichever direction, as it gives the net some mass (and therefore momentum) to keep on flying I'm not sure which would be more effective, but they both have their place I feel like a net would be more forgiving to a shooter's aim, but it's also a highly specific load and i'm not sure how rational it would be to keep your shotgun loaded with net when *people* are also a hazard give and take
Anything but using everything you have is more dangerous than it could be.
Why is using a shotgun against a drone dangerous as fuck? As opposed to using what other weapon?
Because you could still detonate the munition attached to the drone if you’re unlucky. Personally, I’d rather take shrapnel and mild hearing loss compared to what I already have than an entire PG-7V warhead to anywhere on my body.
> and mild hearing loss This is solvable via hearing protection. It's not like you aren't literally shooting weapons already. Each shot without protection is immediate, permanent hearing loss.
What?
What?!
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee for the rest of your life
Mawp, mawp…. MAWP! What?!
What. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
If you don’t shoot it down, the rest of your life is only going to be seconds long.
Not quite sorry, been hunting for a while and there is no ringing of any sort. I will say in a war zone yea the frequency of shooting would lead to severe and rapid hearing deterioration
Dawg, even if you can't hear the ringing or notice the damage, it's still there. It adds up over time.
Guess I’ll find out in 30 years 🤷♂️
3-5
Nah
> Not quite sorry, You say this as if your personal opinion trumps the objective science of how human ears work, and the sound pressure levels they are being exposed to here. Absolutely insane that people like you breathe among us.
Who?
Not unless you shoot suppressed..
Hearing protection… while trying to hear where the drone is coming from? If you don’t hear it early enough, you’re probably dead.
Modern earpro has microphones and blocks out sound over a certain db, I’ve listened to many conversations on ranges because my hearing is better with the earpro on. Given idk how well those are in an actual combat situation but I’ve seen dudes using them.
It’s possible it would help. I don’t know how much I’d trust the electronic ear pro in the environment we see here. Inside a structure trying to listen for a drone outside.
Military active ear pro is pretty badass. When I was in I could hear better with my peltors on than I could without them. They aren’t like your bass pro electronic ear muffs. They’re a lot more sophisticated.
I’ll say even outside they increase your hearing much like hearing aids it’s a decent bit with it also being adjustable. I haven’t even used super expensive military grade ones and imagine those pretty impressive. Tho I do agree and have no idea how much hearing a drone slight faster would do for your hypothetical survival. Plus if turned up really high those ear pro suffer from the negative effect of amplifying all noise in the “safe” db range so you hear lots of background noise, esp on a war zone where I bet I’d amplify distant gunfire and explosions to a annoying degree.
> Modern earpro has microphones and blocks out sound over a certain db, Rather, they block all sounds, but repeat via microphone and speakers the sounds at non-damaging levels.
I hear better with my earmuffs on than without them.
My electronic muffs block out gunshots while still letting me hear a leaf crunching 50 yards away.
I take it you've never used active hearing protection before in your life. I also don't understand the implication that hearing protection isn't an established thing for the military.
I have. That’s why I say I don’t think I’d trust it to pick up a drone sound outside of a structure while im inside of it. I also don’t understand your implication that fpv drone warfare is an established thing for the military and not new.
Its not a good solution, but its all we got right now
I don’t see how anything short of an EMP/anti drone gun (which I’d imagine aren’t common) would be better than a shotgun? People shoot drones with them all the time already. Remember, birds aren’t real.
A huge benefit is shotguns like this dont cost 70k each, or whatever those radio signal blocking guns cost. I imagine we are going to see anti drone systems in the near future employing multibarrel shotguns. Automated belt-fed 12ga on tripods?
This, but in a Mk19 grenade launcher. [https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/40mm-counter-drone-net-munition-with-hand-settable-fuze/fc1ff278-95ae-4177-ab31-c7862c4f7835](https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/40mm-counter-drone-net-munition-with-hand-settable-fuze/fc1ff278-95ae-4177-ab31-c7862c4f7835)
This but AI assisted targeting, laser rangefinding with automated fuse length setting. As soon as a foreign radio signal is detected, these should come online and lock in on the source, determine distance, and launch a grenade set to detonate within range to destroy the drone.
We're back to 70k and climbing. Reissue the shotguns
I was watching a podcast with a us special ops member and he was saying the us military already has an anti drone rifle that the trigger mechanism is linked to a targeting scope and the soldier pulls the trigger but until the targeting system knows it's aimed at the right spot it won't fire. So I'm guessing you just hold the trigger down and aim at and around the done. They said it's really effective and already in use.
I mean…my buddies and I have been working up the designs for a belt-fed shotgun that can use either proprietary Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds or standard shot shells with an adjustable gas block to cycle through them all. The promotional commercial for it is gonna be us using the sabot rounds at about 200m to nail a plywood barn wall we have stood up.
I hope you have your SOT in order.
I never said it was automatic
If it swoops, it snoops.
The one sitting on my head would disagree.
Directed energy weapons are out there and they're starting to come down in price. you could probably backyard engineer something together by borrowing a power source and parts from a microwave, but when you're dealing with microwave energy you're also fucking around with the possibility of giving yourself cancer or cooking yourself.
Meanwhile: your granddads duck gun with bird shot is the new meta in trenches in Ukraine, on both sides.
In WW1 US troops who grew up shooting clay pigeons would shoot grenades out of the air with shotguns.
Back to the basics and the birds of war. Pretty soon we'll train dogs to alert troops to drones when they hear them.
That's actually a pretty good idea.
C&Rsenal tried it and found that buckshot spread wasn't consistent enough to knock down the grenades
3" turket loads are best for drones, for grenades I wouldn't know. r/no4buck might be a good option, more pellets, but not individually small enough to lack penetration in a soft target or to transfer energy to an explosive. Like shooting 41\~ .22 LR bullets all at once. Nothing to sleep on.
[Mythbusters actually did a test on this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpNkqlbNE) and they found out shotguns can deliver enough power to disable a grenade by destroying the casing before it explodes. The same cannot be applied to rifles, which causes the grenade to detonate due to high velocity. But on the other hand, they performed the test at close-range, idk what the result would be if they tested at mid range or throwable range. But then again, the story of trench shotguns vs grenades in WWI is still around to this day, so I'd say there might be some merit to it.
Honestly penetration probably wouldn't matter because if it's struck with a non penetrating load it would probably send it backwards or at least stop it's forward momentum I would think?
That's why I would prefer a higher pellet count like No4 buck. higher chance to hit and transfer that energy to stop the forward momentum of the grenade.
No. No they did not. This is just made up nonsense that's been passed around as fact for a century at this point.
I stand corrected
Not saying the stories are true, there is no actual evidence of it ever happening. But I do want to clarify, the stories are that skeet shooters would be stationed in allied trenches to shoot grenades flying into their trench from the enemy, not to storm enemy trenches while shooting grenades down too. Additionally the goal is not to redirect the grenade but to set it off by shooting it. Shooting a container full of high explosives that is primed to detonate tends to detonate that high explosive. That much isn't fudd lore. It is a proven fact that shooting a live grenade can detonate it. It has happened multiple times through history and there is plenty of evidence to support it.
I stand corrected
https://youtu.be/0MwpNkqlbNE?si=rtvawaYbZMmnqNky https://youtu.be/3Aifp_eGdX4?si=clb6Hq_8Qa9k8R-j Literally the first two search results.
Hey you remember that giant paragraph that you posted, rambling on trying to sound like some kind of explosives/grenade expert? You were confidently pointing out how idiotic the other poster was, and that he makes no sense, and was just talking fuddlore. Do you recall that? Well just a heads up, the guy posted a couple videos of that exact impossible thing happening, with just a quick YouTube search and he made you look like an idiot. Just wanted to point that out since you seem to be clueless. Youre welcome for clearing this up. Another example of a redditor being SOOOOOOO confidently incorrect. What a douche Edit: I'm glad to see you edited your entire comment from being a huge paragraph of telling someone how ignorant and idiotic they were, and how what they were claiming is impossible, to "i stand corrected". Next time you don't have a clue, don't be such a dickhead.
Why did it take so many words to call someone who admitted he was a wrong a douche? That's pretty douche bag behavior tbh
Because his original comment was a giant paragraph just being a giant dickhead, telling someone how idiotic they were, etc. He admitted he was wrong about the information, but no mention of being wrong or apologizing for telling the guy how ignorant he was over and over when in fact he was right all along lol So he tells someone how stupid they are, they're idiotic, and that what they're claiming is nonsense, and then deletes all that and edits it to "I stand corrected". Sorry that I don't really excuse that. He's still an asshole, regardless of whether he admitted he was wrong about the information or not. He could have said "damn, I really apologize for talking outta my ass, that was uncalled for thanks for not calling me out" anything of the sort really... But no. Just "I stand corrected" You might excuse that behavior of being a huge asshole, and then when you're proven wrong just delete it and pretend it never happened. But If calling someone out for being a giant asshole makes me a douche bag, I'll take being a douche bag all day. Hope that clears it up
I can accept new information. If that makes me a douche so be it. Can you accept new information? Like me withdrawing my comments and admitting I was wrong?
DAMN you even deleted your comment instead of just adding that you stand corrected? Lol that's hysterical man. Accepting new information obviously doesn't make you a douche. Posting a whole paragraph telling someone how ignorsnt they are, when in fact you were confidently wrong the whole time is what makes you a douche. You didn't just provide info on why you thought he was wrong. You told him what he was claiming was ignorant, and idiotic, fudd lore, nonsense, crazy, etc... and after all that, you were factually wrong about everything you said. THATS what makes you a douchebag. Being wrong doesn't make you an asshole. I'm wrong all the time. But telling someone how ignorant they are, WHILE you're wrong DOES make you an asshole. But to answer your question about can I accept new information, There's no new information for me... I knew you were being an asshole when you posted your comment. Now you might have deleted it, but you still didn't apologize for being an asshole, you just admitted your information was wrong, in 3 words. So, no new info for me. You're still a douchebag, you're just a douchebag that got embarrassed and deleted his comment. Lol Next time, if you don't actually know, try not to be so confidently wrong. You can make your point on why you don't think it makes sense, but you were rude as hell, telling the guy how dumb he was, when in fact, you were the moron. Don't be so confidently arrogant, when you don't actually have a clue... Maybe I'm a douchebag for calling you out this way. But... I'd rather be a douchebag for calling you out for being an asshole then be a douchebag for telling someone how dumb they are, when in fact you were the dumb one.
RBH
>Where can I see a live grenade being detonated with a bullet? [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MwpNkqlbNE) The goal is not to detonate the grenade, just destroy the casing and prevent a large scale detonation, but if a concussive grenade (fielded by germans in WWI and WWII) gets to be detonated mid-air, then it would have little effect in troops on trenches. Frag grenades on the other hand, I'm not so sure, but Germans didn't use those at the time.
I was under the impression the goal was not to redirect the 'nade, but just destroy/damage the casing enough before the fuse could trigger a strong enough explosion. Also germans were using concussive grenades (pure explosive force) up to WWII, instead of fragmentary grenades (in which the explosion launches shrapnel in every direction), which could further explain things.
That one doesn’t seem to actually be true from my understanding.
One of the fuddest subs out there imo
people used to joke about shooting a shotgun at a drone when Amazon was looking at drone delivery, but it also really depends on application. For these FPV drones they can move really fast, they make a bit of noise, but they also tend to operate on a flight level that puts them in range. For other quad copters that are up higher there's less chance of detecting or being able to hit it with normal birdshot.
It takes very little damage to a single motor to disable a quad copter. Even a drone at a distance is worth the ammo considering. What is needed is alertness to the drone.
If a 1911 took down a fighter plane then a shotgun can take down a drone
I just looked in there and saw someone complaining that everything Magpul makes looks like something Magpul would make. Like whut?
Uuummm, there is discussion on adding shotguns to BII for Armor vehicles genius. Suggest you get your hot pockets and head back down to the basement.
Hear me out, hear me out! Shotguns against drones with time-fused ammo!
I said grenades with timed fuses... r/etarded
Is satire such a difficult thing?
looks like baikal mp153
Pretty sure it is. I have one, it will become tarkov like very soon..... I gotta do punisher quests
Imported to the US as the Remington Spartan 453 until 2008. It still says Baikal on the side, says Remington on the other.
Wouldn’t it be a 155?
hard to really see if its a 155 or 153 since they are very similar but juding by the lack of attachments i would put my money on a mp153.
Skeet shooters just skeeted themselves 🥵
But actually yeah I just did. Spicy trap!
Old tech meets new tech. Our next war will have someone with a shotgun in every infantry squad.
And/or maybe a handheld jammer too. It's a cycle we can see in real time now. Infantry war breaks out --> new tech makes infantry unusable --> new methods to counter new tech --> becomes an Infantry war. Ever since the catapult.
Boots on the ground.
It's also the cycle that the tank has been going through for 106 years now.
EW tech is already being add to some russian tanks. of course, the soldier that russia values at a $3 Bluetooth speaker and a sack of onions don't get jammers.
Those guys are gunna be kicking ass at skeet shooting if they get back home
the DOD is going to have to stand up a wingshooting school in one or all of the branches before WW3 breaks out
Trap and skeet schoolhouses sounds pretty sick not gonna lie
I brought this up during EWS and again to my BN commander who introduced the idea to the Combat Engineer leader's conference, mainly because we already have shotguns. Seems like theyre getting ready to test the effectiveness at the schoolhouse. I now have wet dreams of my Marines carrying their Benelli shotguns loaded with #6 turkey magnum loads picking off dones like skeet.
As a former combat engineer, it’s wild thinking about dealing with drones like that.
To be fair, Im reserve now and my company is in the South... lots of duck hunting 1371s
If it wasnt for the extreme anti drone laws in the USA I would have done some drone skeet shooting. I imagine it would be a very fun and popular sport for many people. The very small and cheap drones flying around in erratic patterns. They could be set up with pre programmed patterns and speeds. Heck you could even armor the drone so the pellets dont damage it except for the props. Then replace the 5 dollar props after they are shot down.
Fucking terrifying to hear a drone out there.
Is he shooting a drone?
Yup.
A kami-kaze drone that has explosives onboard for suicide-bombing soldiers it finds *while* flying around.
Somme Skeet Club moment
Baikal MP/153
Drone warfare and all considered, how hard would it be to have an unmaned ground-drone-thing that locks onto a drone eletric field and fires a salvo at it? If the iron dome can do it with missiles, surely rigging a shotgun/several rifles to a specialized/rudimentary drone dectetion system would be easier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I makes more sense than sending a guy to shoot down said drones.
They’ll keep drones out of range for vehicles, but they are clearly hunting legs here, and that’s probably not super portable. That said, eventually we’ll have an unmanned ground vehicle that fulfills this eventually.
A drone electric field has got to be tiny and probably undetectable at any distance. Now the noise and movement? I wouldn't think that would be too difficult with multiple detectors for triangulation.
At this point in tech, anything that emits an eletricfield besides your regular Gameboy can be detected by proper equipment, otherwise Israel would not be able to defend against home-made missiles.
While they can definitely be detected, being meaningfully sounded out of the noise of the world is a different thing. Air systems pop threats via various measurements and detection methods, speed, heat, radar, OtH forward deployed systems, operational distances, the radar profile of a drone is realistically meaningless, the electronics signature is operating in bandwidths used by thousands of devices, from its radio signature, to its actual EM signature, they move relatively slowly, and are capable of running under the horizon line (many systems currently in use have safeties so you don’t detect and fire below horizon) Audio and Visual recognition is a viable option, but that’s telling you it’s present and requires distribution into areas of operation, powering and manning that distribution, protection of the detector units. And still you need a system capable of running ID software to you don’t drop non combatants being stupid in war zones.
I’m sure there are plenty of systems in development to detect and fire on drones. I’m sure they’re also prohibitively expensive or impractical to be employed in a meaningful quantity. This will probably change in the coming years, but shotguns in infantry hands are the most cost efficient method to deal with these suicide quadcopters.
This is true, but the noise/interference from other devices would be immense. Not sure that you'd be able to differentiate it well enough to use it for targeting at any distance.
Well if airports can do it despite 747's taking off every 15 minutes or so, it shouldn't be hard to adapt the existing tech.
Iron dome uses radar to detect and track missiles. Nothing to do with any "electric fields". An anti drone system for armored vehicles would do the same.
I stand corrected. Anyway they should send one of those instead of a dude with a shotgun.
A dude with a shotgun is better than nothing, which is the alternative at this point.
What side of the conflict is this from?
Cheese and rice bro, that seems extreme. Not saying I don't want one, just pointing out the maybe not so obvious. Probably extreme, but possibly also not entirely unreasonable...at that same time? Would look sweet mounted atop my lil 4x4 either way. I've always wanted a technical.
I'm really happy about the shotgun comeback tour
Something something pump action with bird shot.
Probably a 155.
The new fallout season looks awesome.
The vibe was more Tarkov than Fallout.
What a tarkov?
The video game *Escape from Tarkov* Russian post apocalyptic wasteland extraction shooter. One life per raid, you die in a raid and you lose everything carried and looted(generally, there are some exceptions). It approximates the video by scenery, language, and the stress of dying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Tarkov
A search for a ribbed shotgun receiver returns the beretta a400 upland that looks right. It's a higher end model and it looks fancier than the bit of the gun we see, a bit surprising if that's it, I don't see that feature on any of their other guns.
Hmmm, could it be a clone of some type or some type not sold in western markets?
I don't think anyone's cloning that particular sku of a400. Sure could be something else, that was just the only gun on the image search for a ribbed receiver shotgun (ignoring all the ribbed barrels and a browning automatic that doesn't have those cuts). It's not a izzy 153/155 and that's where my knowledge of eastern european auto shotguns begins and ends. edit: I am a liar, they do(or have) offered the 153 with similar cuts, never seen one like that before. http://www.encheres-nantes-labaule.com/vente-aux-encheres/303-militaria/98522-fusil-baikal-mp-153-n-0815343134-cat-c1a-cal-12x89-semi-automatique-magasin-canon-lisse-76-cm-capaci
Anybody told this man the make and model of a shotgun yet
Is this that new Bodycam game?
yeah its called ukraine 2024 no respawn
I said hawt damm 😮😮
This guy could win any skeet championship, I bet.
I was reading an article a few weeks ago about shotguns being a necessity In Ukraine right now because of the drones. Bird shot or buck shot drops them right out of the air, blows the munition, is easy to use, and is super cheep for the gun and ammo.
what a lovely home!
Clay shooting but more high stakes
I'm a horrible trap and skeet shooter. Now I have motivation to get better and not be a shit shot.
A shotgun with a choke barrel is what I would want in this drone heavy new age war. Set it to 4 or 5 to take out drones. Then back to 1 or 2 for infantry.
Return of the poly choke I see
Seeing so many videos with older gear I figure it'd fit right in.
Is it just me, or does this vid look 'edited'?
*snorts* yeet skeet skeet the war has be a shotgun trap meet.
Shotgun for a drone is way better then the US Army’s new drone sight that costs a shit load. Shotguns work just fine.
55yo men that hang out at the skeet shooting range are now the most valuable soldiers.
Maverick 88
Russia's gonna dominate trap and skeet the next time they get to compete in the Olympics.
Yikes that does add a whole new level to Sporting Clays. Go Ukraine! F@#$ Russia, Donald and MTG!
What's wrong with Magic The Gathering?
I think that’s a Russian soldier.
Appears to be Ukraine using those drones more often, and then they like to film them killing Russian soldiers and then post it on the internet... just like how ISIL would post videos of themselves murdering people. Seems like terrorists all have a similar MO.
No one likes a tankie.
You’re being downvoted for no fucking reason. Lol
lets go down the check list - - "Yikes" - "orangeman bad" - "russia bad" - "MTG bad" - "Ukraine flag pfp" Almost a bingo right there.
The reddit up vote recipe
You're in a gun subreddit and you don't know why he's being downvoted for being anti trump and the rest?
Considering trump is anti-2a, yeah?
Vote for Bobby jr. then. He is decidedly pro 2a.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/Firearms/comments/1dm5s41/so_what_model_of_shotgun_is_that/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/Firearms/comments/1dm5s41/so_what_model_of_shotgun_is_that/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
If I had to guess it is either something Russian or Turkish