Talk:Metal Storm

Cleanup
This article has poor structure, and is laced with opinion. It sounds extremely informal, as well. Please help to clean it up. Ryan Salisbury 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Much of the opinion was added recently, and is tantamount to vandalism. I have reverted it to an older version. Ben@liddicott.com 17:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While acknowledging the possibility that the wholesale changes I have just introduced might be reversed, I hope that it is apparent that it is largely consistent with what has gone before. My intention was to concentrate on the technology which has some continuing (if currently obscure) interest in the field of ballistics, rather than on the details of the 'capabilities' or the various attempts (so far) to commercialise the technology through specific weapons or non-military applications. I'll add references to the patents. I'll also include a specific reference to the 'skirted projectile' patent, as this was potentially a major shift in the technology. Tban 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am currently adding in links within the text and have included links to international patents. Tban 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I now need to add some more NPOV facets, including technical and development impediments, and competitors such as rail guns and non-ballistic crowd control technologies (along with links). And I note an absence of time-line type information, such as when the company was created, when the US office was opened, and when some of the technical or application innovations were announced. I am also checking whether Wiki has a standard caveat about investing or seeking investment advice on pages that describe companies. Tban 13 January 2006

Further 'tidying up' of the 'features' area, which is beginning (as it expands)to overtake the requirement of the 'applications' section (which I see disappearing shortly). Having added more detail in the features area (and assertions) now need to link those to references. And still building information on the company history for insertion later. Tban 13 January 2006

People just don’t understand the metal storm is not a practical weapon. Most articles are bias and made by people that work for metal storm, or people that don’t know much about weapons and tactics. The metal storm is not a practical weapon and its design renders it too heavy the reloading takes forever and the earlier shots use less barrel length and are less accurate. The firing rate is to hard to control not to mention overheating, advance computers aren’t reliable in the field of battle, the way the shells must be made longer for sufficient power, and the cost speed and effectiveness of a rain of bullets verse basic fire support canons rockets and missiles. However I do believe the metal storm should be better in anti missile defense than the Gating gun. Still it won’t proved an effective missile defense cause even the Gatling gun is considered a feeble attempt to defend missiles. The though of such a fast machine gun often excites people and they forget all about its practical use in military. carl 3/22/2006

I agree with Carl that there should be some more 'negatives' and 'limitations'. Getting back to the purpose of the article, my understanding is that it should not be an attempt at investment advise (I think we all agree on that). Because Metal Storm are not currently manufacturing weapons, my view is that the focus should be on the 'technological concept', which should include (I agree) 'limitations' in the concept. Metal Storm (the company) complicate the issue by developing different technology 'streams' concurrently. The differences between each 'stream' flows through to different 'limitations', and this may need to be drawn out further in the main article. While it is appropriate to discuss limitations, it would be my view that to put an 'opinion' as to the 'practicability' of the technology in the main article would run foul of POV protocols. It should be sufficient to note that the technology has been demonstrated but not sold and let the reader draw their own conclusions from that 'fact' and from their reading of the 'features' and 'limitations'. While it might be valid to include 'quotes' from military sources regarding their view of the practicability of the technology I couldn't point to a consistent theme coming from there. What is consistent (so far) and verifiable is that Metal Storm have not made sales. In light of all of this I'd propose to do some small edits in the next 12 hours or so, retaining (I hope) most of the sense of Carl's contribution.Tban 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it was actually me (an aol user named max) who made the limitations points, and removed a lot of the unqualified benefits which seemed to me to have no supporting theoretical or practical evidence. I added the limitations factors due to the fact that there are several very simple and valid reasons which really do explain the lack of sales. I did not go into too much detail in order that the points were simple, made practical sense, and were supported by basic physical reality, which can of course be verified.

Max- 2am GMT 29/03/06

Hello Max, apologies all round for the mis-attribution! I have just worked through the limitations and (I hope you agree) retained your points. Part of the 'problem' in talking about Metal Storm is that the technology has 'split' into different streams, and some of the 'theoretical capacities' (eg the throw away ammo box/gun) have apparently been 'abandoned' but nobody has definitively said so. Even saying what they (the company) are doing now (mostly in the 40mm field) is difficult. Hence my suggestion to keep the entry more about the 'theory' of the technology rather than the performance of the company (which is a subject some feel rather strongly about..) Hence the slightly 'can do' nature of the description of the tech, as opposed to the 'can/can't sell' nature of the business. But the 'can do' did need to be balanced by limitations and I certainly give you credit for doing that. There's some references I will dig up to back some of the assertions I've added to the text, but I hope there's nothing indigestibly controversial in there. Regards, Tban 04:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i entirely agree with the edits you've made, it is now a very balanced response explaining theoretical limitations and areas which have not clearly been proven in any public way- Without suggesting that these are impossible to resolve or indeed, indirectly suggesting that these make the technology impractical- excellent- also, i'm still new to 'writing' in the passive, formal style that is appropriate to an encyclopedia, thanks for the help on that! -I think it helps balance the article a lot. I do not believe there could be any accusations of the article being opinionated any longer. (although i know that there will be.. but that's why wikipedia rocks!)

Regards, Max 21:00 GMT 30/03/06

I have posted a note to Ryan regarding the original 'Cleanup' notice on this page. My intention was to remove the notice - not on the basis that the page is 'perfect' but that it has achieved a reasonable state of 'balanced reporting'. Ryan has Ok'd it, so I'll pull it down now. Tban 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just done a 'job' on the features section. It seemed that some of the dot points were simply repeating points made in the narrative introduction, and there was a need for a bit of an update (air burst ammunition and the focus on 40mm). After reviewing the change I don't believe that any of the points have been 'dropped' in the change-over. I have used the word 'advantage' more cautiously ('the company sees an advantage'). The reference to other non-lethal technologies and the 'state of play' in each of those fields is better made with a link (yet to be put in there) than a narrative text (as previously done). I have some trouble with the last para of the previous section (a little too upbeat), but will get to that when I can - we do need to make mention of the transition from 'distorting shells providing the seal' to the 'skirt providing the seal' technology. Some of the text that existed a year ago might be brought back. Tban 02:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just redone (redid?) the Limitations section to re-include barrel wear - particularly now tha Metal Storm appear to have introduced a 'solution' (the muzzle microchip). Also put some words around the publicity to explain why it was relevant to the 'failure to fully appreciate the difficulties in implementation' that has been apparent in some quarters at vs times. Tban 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Redid the last para of the technology section, about the skirts, inductive ignition and clip together to form tubes innovations. The previous was more conversational than narrative and a bit difficult to follow technically. (although I concede it may have been more technically precise). I still have one last issue with the section about 3GL and Redback, and particularly the para that concludes that section which talks about successful tests of shells up to and including 60mm. The 60mm technology (Mach 5) is so wrapped in secrecy that it would be difficult to say categorically that it was 'successful', although it can be said that such shells 'were fired'. 'Successful firing' usually however includes achieving the weapon effect 'targets' (speed, accuracy etc) and not disabling the gun, or creating dangerous conditions, and not requiring that the gun is only fired in circumstances that prevent its deployment in the field (or wherever it is intended to be used). Given that the secrecy means that we can't establish whether any of these issues 'arose'; and given that the company focus is on 40mm it may not be worth introducing these other calibers to the discussion, at least in such terms that indicate (seemingly) unqualified success.Tban 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought from the outside. Has anyone reconsidered a disambiguation of the technology from the company? This, while requiring more information on both to constitute a full page, would essentially eliminate the confusion and conflict in the article. Nullpersona (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Staff profile
I say this article needs more staff profiles with pictures. Addition of James D MacDonald was very interesting. Munkey 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

'Interesting' is scarcely the word.. I wonder if staff profiles in this Wiki entry aren't simply redundant. The info is on the Metal Storm webpage (which we've linked to). All we are looking at is a 'lift' straight from those pages - unless of course we get more 'interesting' asides regarding staff's former careers and private lives. Which is a direction I suspect we don't want to go. Noting that the whovever made the assertions in relation to Mr McDonald has not supported them with sources I recommend we pull that entry. If the contributer wants Mr McDonalds story known perhaps he/she could add an entry in Wiki under McDonald and 'go for their life' there (with referenced sources). PS Munkey - I took the liberty of dragging your entry from the top of the page to 'down here'. We seem to be following a 'latest at the bottom' protocol here. Cheers, Tban 12:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article isnt the best place to hold personal info about staff, e.g. James Donald MacDonald, but I would also like to see a history of the management staff so the reader can see who has been driving this project.


 * Do you have some references about David Smith resigning?Jayvdb 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jay, I take your point - a company is essentially 'its people' and there have been some larger than life characters associated with Metal Storm over the years. I guess it gets back to (in part) the fact that we have co-existing in the same article 'the technology called Metal Storm' and the 'company called Metal Storm', and that historically this article tended more towards the explanation of the tech, rather than the company. That said, just because we've done things one way in the past doesn't mean that we need to stay with that approach.Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep them on the same page for a while. If this page undergoes a lot of expansion, more wikipedians will contribute to a single page.Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thinking.. Most of the Directors have careers that encompass much more than Metal Storm. Therefore to create a 'profile' of each of them within the Metal Storm article is in a sense to 'bury' their 'larger stories' within the Wiki Metal Storm article (a researcher would have to know that they were 'within' the Metal Storm entry or else they'd be invisible). So my thought is that we should create separate Wiki entries for each 'character', and then reference those entries from within Metal Storm (eg from a list of current and former Directors and CEO's within the Metal Storm article). The entries on each person could contain links to external sources (company reports, media profiles, etc) - and a photo if you can find a non-copyright one. It sounds like more work (it is), than simply putting the text straight into the Metal Storm article, but it looks more professional. Of course then one has to 'mind one's language' in those entries.. So rather than talking about someone being responsible for a company's poor performance you either quote articles that said that, or you note that 'concurrent with X's tenure, the company's share price reached all time lows' - although the latter might still rattle some windows. I can get to some of it (the work) in a couple of weeks, but of course you're welcome to 'jump in'.Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with splitting the persons onto their own page, but I think it would be a good idea to allow snippets of info about the people to reside in this article until enough knowledge about the person has been built up to warrent another page to manage. We can work out this balance over time. Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On a final note re David Smith.. I can only refer (recommend might be too strong a word)you to the yahoo-finance-MTSX message board, or to the message board on www.sharescene.com (free sign-up and no spam). You'll find discussions and links to media articles there. Case in point though, DS had a career before Metal Storm (and now has one 'after'), and it's probably worth having a separate Wiki entry in order to tell his 'whole' story.Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I questioned this was that David Smith is still listed on the website as a Director. I'm registering with sharescene now so I can help out with the fact finding.Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally finally, as to who's been driving metal storm? Well how many people with differing interests can you fit behind a single steering wheel? A remarkably large number it seems... And apologies if any of this seems heavy handed. Cheers, Tban 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I had expected this technology/company to have done more with itself since I first heard about it.  This stagnation makes more sense now that I can see how the management has been churning over.Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the staff section, and started some lists. There's a few 'ex's' still to be added - Chuck Vehlow amongst them. I'd propose that we add dates, ie 1992-1998 to each. And then start building the entries for each (or at least for the 'significant' ones) in Wiki. Tban 21:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the copyright status of these biogs would be? i.e. Can those blocks of text be re-used as the basis of new articles? Jayvdb 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting the lists of staff/ex staff. I suspect Metal Storm own the copyright to the photos (and text) in their annual reports, and while most companies wouldn't object to their re-use, you might find that if Metal Storm don't like something about the entry they'll make their displeasure known. Ultimately Wiki seems to take a very conservative view of re-use. Look up Wiki's section on copyright. As to 'put it in here' vs 'create new entries', I'd argue that it's not so much a matter of volume or 'effort', but simply 'heirarchical organisation'. It costs virtually no effort to create a new entry, and there is no 'minimum limit' for material you can put in there. There is a v small cost in creating the link from the Metal Storm page to the new entry, but it pays back in time. A very minimum biography might (though) be justified on the Metal Storm page. We talked about 'dates' (which would show if the person was 'current'), we could add (US/Aus) to indicate where they are from, possibly age. After that I'd argue we are looking at clutter rather than information 'for MOST readers'. The 'researchers' would have a rich vein of material in the separate articles on each staff.Tban 06:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the heck would this article need a profile on Mr Macdonald anyway? The "profile" that was in there was opinionated and in a way it was also (minorly) derogotary... Also, what does his past work have to do with Metal storm? Absolutely nothing. Good to see that was removed, lol. -josh 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC +10)

VLe
There's no mention of the VLe? --Mdwyer 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well not 'as such', but 9mm handguns with handgrip recognition are mentioned under 'Features' at dot points 6 (9mm) and 8 (handgrip recognition), and under 'Potential' (handguns). I'm very happy to put a link to New Jersey Institute of Tech if they have a page dedicated to that technology (because of course it's very interesting technology) - I'll have a 'look-see' over the weekend.  Perhaps - however - you have found one of my prejudices.  I've tried to emphasise the company background and the technology principles - so as to lead folk to appreciate the concepts before introducing the products.  I'm trying to avoid the situation where we highlight the prototype products which gets (well some) folk over-excited and then confused why they aren't on the market 'now'.  So I talk about 9mm technology etc (and agree we should emphasise the potential of handgrip recognition a bit more than I've done so far) rather than talk about 'products' (which is why the features section is much larger than the Application section). Bottom line is that I'm reluctant to use the name 'VLE gun'.  Perhaps it'd be fairer to talk about the VLE gun development program (and I'm avoiding that subject because I don't have any news on it (but always hopeful expectations!)).  Hope this doesn't seem negative, the feedback - from my perspective - has been great, and very productive (and keep it coming).  Cheers, and regards, Tban 10:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to the story since it seems to be the closest thing to a product that everyday people might have seen. I can see your 'prejudices', and personally, I think they have contributed positivly to this article.  The VLe could be a bad example, especially since I think they spun it as an 'all electronic talking gun' and glossed over the technology.  Still, it is the 'product' that people have most likely seen, and so it should probably be at least mentioned. I'm leaving it entirely up to you, though, since you have FAR more knowledge about it that I do.  --Mdwyer 23:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC) (No relation to O'Dwyer)

Let's not leap to conclusion (knowledgability). Your point is very good. While an encyclopaedia might aspire to be give the objective and complete explanation of everything it is there to serve a purpose, and that is to respond to what people come looking for - and (here's where we get back to your excellent point) if they've seen something called the VLE gun that's what they are going to come-a-searching for - my prejudices notwithstanding. So it should have it's own little place in the sun, I will attend to the 'elevation' in the next 24 hours. Regards, Tban 03:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV CITE
This article is in desperate need of Citing_sources work. I'm willing to help you find citable sources and a way to reference them.

"Please have a look at 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which is a well-cited article. Check out the text after the introduction section, or look at the infobox. The little numbers by various facts, which link to lines in the references section, are citations.  Specifically, they are done in the footnote style, but you can use one of the other citation methods on WP:CITE if you like; as your quote states, it's up to you.  Note that nowhere on WP:CITE will you find the 'list a bunch of links at the bottom of the page' method, because that is not citation."

It also reads like a sales pitch and clearly violates Neutral_point_of_view. The part of the article that sets off an alarm for me is the "Limitations" section. The article would be much more neutral if actual limitations were listed, instead of debunking of unsourced claims.

I'm not just dropping by to point out faults and then leave, You know this article better then I do, I'm willing to help you get "wikified." This article is now on my watch list, i'm here to help.Defraggler 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gday Defraggler, I've been away for a while. I note that T2599 made significant changes to the Limitations area on 11 Sep.  He/she seems a bit one-eyed in relation to the tech and has (to my mind) taken us a long way away from NPOV.  It was my intention with the previous text (prior to Sep 11) to use far more neutral language, knowing that I hadn't had time to cite sources (although I've read just about everything available over the last six years on this).  I will probably revert after giving the T2599 changes a bit more of a look (in fairness).  Thanks for the assistance offer, just a matter of finding time for me.  Cheers, Tban 11:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Terrible article. Reads like a publicity brochure. If this were the ultimate weapon -- as described -- it would be in production. According to this article, it has NO drawbacks whatsoever.
 * Just looking at it:
 * 1. What happens in the case of a misfire? What does the round behind do?
 * 2. The trainable part would seen to be heavier than that of a gatling gun. How do you track moving targets (which :::would appear to be the only point of a gun like this).
 * In going through the history, it looks like someone keeps replacing balanced articles with corporate propaganda.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigjimslade (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2006 September 18 (UTC)


 * What are the drawbacks of the technology? I have no idea, but wikipedia is no place for speculation or original research, so unless there is a verifiable and reliable source about the faults of the tech, it has no place in this article. Same goes for the advantages of the system, if it cannot be verified, it should not be here. —Asatruer 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about sources for a moment. Most are patents, approved or pending. They can be cited and linked. The rest of the sources are company press releases, company reports, and Australian and US DoD reports on the tech, along with references from the US Congress and Australian Parliament. There are interviews published with senior management. There are a couple of press articles on the tech, but they (generally) don't illuminate anything tech-wise. I can (will) cite them all. I have them all (I believe) on file.

I don't agree with the text post Sep 11 2006 and propose to revert shortly. But the 'simple view' is worth looking at because it reflects widely held 'beliefs', and it suggests that if I do revert I should make some effort to add commentary to 'debunk' some of the misconceptions. Previous texts only claimed 'theoretical advantages' which basically says 'yet to be proved practically', and highlighted limitations and discussed them.

Just quickly on a couple of concerns raised above and T2599's comments. The gun HAS moving parts - the ammunition moves. It can jam (according to the company), and barrel wear was an issue. Neither are significant issues now. In the case of a misfire the 'following round' simply pushes the round (in front) out of the barrel. Tracking of the unit is not affected by weight (electro-hydraulic systems don't particularly care about weight), and the weight of the unit may be increased by the ammunition in the barrel but is offset by the absence of trigger, feed and eject mechanisms.

The importance of the technology is not in it's superiority (because that's unproven), but in it's uniqueness. Enthusiasts for the tech should settle for that for the moment, and if written up in that sense the article should serve their needs, and the needs of folk who are looking for information about curious and alternative ballistic systems.Tban 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a few edits to simplify the opening paras. This article is about a company and a technology, and unless we separate them (at some stage) we may need to 'compromise' and accommodate the needs to explain the company, and the technology (without confusing people).  Best thing to do is explain the relationship between the company and the tech up front, and leave the discussion of the company and the tech for the detailed paras that follow (to my mind).  I'd argue that we don't need to clutter the opening para with 'flags' what's below.  Folks will read if they want to know more, and if they can see the contents list they'll get an idea of what follows.


 * I have made a few changes, explanations follow:.The company did not create the technology. M.O'Dwyer did that, then incorporated the company. The company has had income - approx $30million according to other statements in this article. A high pressure gun was built by DSTO in Australia, and according to DARPA high pressure firing was done (but current status is unknown - the fact that no prototype has been developed from it proves nothing either way). The Roman Candle analogy is excellent, but applies to the technology BEFORE Metal Storm, and highlights the KEY improvement of Metal Storm - selectable and controlled firing of the propellant charges.  I am mindful that the press about the Chineses interest will send a fair few people to Wiki looking for answers.  Tban 22:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Links from inappropriate articles
I pulled 3 links pointing to MS from articles where the mention seemed most like advertisements. These were Muzzleloader, Point-defence, and Grenade launcher. While there is some relation between these things and metal storm, metal storm is not representative of any of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCerul (talk • contribs) 28 September 2006

Controversy
The contraversial aspect of this article is lacking. Metal Storm were given more sh.t than I've ever seen an entity get in Australia due to the fascist firearms regulations to the point where they packed up shop and left for the US where suddenly they were lauded as geniuses and eventually were wooed back to Australia to work with the defence force. It's worth pointing out the hypocracy of the Australian government on this topic, not to mention the fact that they opress any scientific development dealing with projectiles as a whole due to their infatuation with only allowing the government to possess firearms (or anything mildly pointy for that matter (no sh.t, knives are illegal)). Jachin 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * POV much? Learn 2 neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.37.128 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

What has this got to do with anyhthing? Keep your opinions to yourself and learn to spell before embarassing yourself in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.31.120 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

as an aussie with a rather large knife/sword display i would like to see where this POV complaints come from. yes australia is strict on gun safety compared to the USA however its not anywhere near as nazi as people believe. weapon development and research is still legal. owning display pieces does not need a permit (exception victoria) and normal weapons just needs a license with just cause to own. even in the countires capital there is no penalty if i create a spud gun for research and proof of concept testing. back on topic though. Wikipedia is not against adding controversy but like any encyclopedia no proof/sources then it did not happen.152.91.9.153 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Terence James O'Dwyer
I am trying to track down the roles and dates of each position that Terence James O'Dwyer has held in the company. The best link I have found is: which states: That Mr. Terence James O'Dwyer, who retires by rotation in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Company's constitution and, being eligible, be elected as a director of the Company. John Vandenberg 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture censorship edit
In december of last year, I added the following to the Popular Culture section:


 * The CSI: Miami episode "Guerrillas In The Mist" featured a weapon called the DX4 "vaporizer" that bore a striking resemblance to (and was probably based on) the metal storm system.

In April, Asams10 removed this addition, labeling it "crap" in his edit comment. I cannot object to this removal and his characterization of my contribution strongly enough. Nsayer (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though this was a while ago, I fully support his removal of your contribution. It is not based on any fact, only conjecture, and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --67.165.58.233 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

1000000 rounds per minute?
Where did the prototype 1000000 rounds per minute figure come from? The prototype test video only claims 3000 rounds per minute. o.O --67.165.58.233 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This weapon was featured on the history channel's segment about future weapons. 1,000,000 rounds per minute is the correct rate of fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is presently a Youtube video clip of a similar demonstration, indeed claiming 1,000,000 rounds per minute as the rate of fire. Note however that the weapon system in question only holds 180 rounds total (in 36 barrels), making the sustained rate of fire something of a moot point, as the entire "combat load" is expended in under one hundredth of a second.-68.154.25.135 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This presumably refers to the rig firing 180 rounds at 1,000,000 RPM from 36 barrels, meaning each barrel fires 5 rounds at 27,777 RPM; this means the single-barrel RoF still comfortably exceeds any conventional firearm's maximum rate of fire. It doesn't really matter that it can't fire for a whole minute, any more than it matters if Usain Bolt can run at 27.79 miles per hour for an hour. Regardless, the 36-barrel gun was a PR piece and proof of concept demonstrator; it was designed to get attention for the company and the technology with its "impossible" rate of fire, not to represent a practical weapon system. The same is true of the Metal Storm pistol, which was intended to show how much the technology can be miniturised. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Just read through this article again and managed to spot "On November 23, 2009 vultures at Harmony Investments continued their planned orchestration of the destruction of Metal Storm so they can take control of the company and sell it to American parasites." hidden in the Financials and funding section. Now I hate Americans as much as the rest of the world but that seems a little um ... biased. I would correct it myself but frankly I don't know what it is supposed to say (as I assume that there is actually some factual information that was originally put across in regards to harmony investments and metal storm) and I don't know how "reverting" works. Just my 2 'insert local currency here'. :) 82.152.175.50 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Documentries
Is it just me or do all the American documentries (Future Weapons etc.) avoid mentioning Australia? Is there a reason for that or is just because the producers are overly patriotic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.88.90 (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Financials
this section is questionable at best. It,s clearly written by an investor or related party. I,ve yet to see any other company page on Wikipedia that has this much of the article devoted to funding and financials. Additionally most of it lacks citations. I'd question UNDUE and NPOV for this info.207.216.253.134 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The financial section should be removed from the article. It does not make sense. And most of the content in this section is without citations. [23-Nov-2011] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paksoldier (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I am removing it. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This company is filing for bankrupcy. If you want to keep the article current then this needs to be concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.114.129 (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two and a half years later, this company apears to be defunct. While their website is still up, they haven't filed any financial reports since 2012. For all intents and purposes, it's out of business. The article should be re-written in the past tense. Rezin (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These are the most recent articles I can find: http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/metal-storm-looks-to-lock-and-load-new-debt-restructure/story-fnefl294-1226511776060 http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/city-beat-linc-to-russian/story-fnfli675-1226512554760 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezin (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The company has now filled for chapter 7 bankruptcy, meaning it will be liquidated. Rezin (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metal Storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124205023/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281426.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281426.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture
The "Axis of Time"-trilogy by John Birmingham mentions a "Metal Storm" weapon. Though not being described closer there seem to to some semblances between the real world and the novel weapon. 2A02:560:594B:BE00:A14E:A8EE:7AE:36E4 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)