First, there just isn’t a ton of energy in that “round”. They’re claiming <16J - a .22LR, the smallest common caliber, comes in at around 275J. This thing is substantially less powerful than many BB guns.
Second, the disk shape of the projectile means that it’s going to be impossible to aim effectively. That thing is going to have significant vertical dispersion even at very short ranges.
It’s a toy.
Have you seen the demolition ranch video for it? On max settings it was going through a medium sized pumpkin. I would not want to be on the receiving end of it.
Edit: I do agree with you, I would only buy one for fun, in it's current state
An extremely dangerous toy.
I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter.
Semi-related, as I looked into drones here again a bit (my last adventure was a self-build from 2011, different times): The EU thought so too, it defines the difference between toys (that you do not need to register nor have any license for) are those which develop no more than 79 joules of impact energy when dropping, which couples it automatically to the weight of the drone and the ceiling height you can/want to fly with it. The law assumes that you need to calculate at minimum 30 m of ceiling height, to avoid shops being able to sell 2.5 kg drones when you ensure while winking that you fly it at 1 m at max.
So the most common variants are 250 gr. which works out at 30 m allowed ceiling height you can fly with it, at least if you're not in a restricted flight zone, like some cities and naturally airports are.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regul...
Human body has amazing resistance to blunt force and lacerations. Piercing damage - very little could fuck you up very badly. Arteries, kidneys, eyes.
Shape does matter, though! A dart might be lethal if it hit a major artery or the heart. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. Unsure, but I'd put money that it wouldn't.
This weapon looks to fire discs, not darts. No way that's going to be a lethal round at 16J.
Muzzle energy isn’t the only factor in lethality.
If the projectile was some kind of sharpened dart, 16J might be enough to be lethal in a headshot. Maybe. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. But a disc or a ball? Unlikely. Could take out an eye, sure, but that's about it.
Absolutely unsuitable as a weapon.
Also at least two of the weapons detailed was below 12 ftlbs which means it was definitely below 16J. Further when you get on to the discussion you will note it says all the weapons were within legal limits. So your reading of the article is incorrect.
The actual legal limit for “lethality” as it pertains to defining a firearm in the UK is 1.35J.
I re-read, and you are correct!
I'd still be surprised if this was a common occurrence with projectiles of such low power, but if ballistics against key targets (heart and brain through the skull) show consistent penetration at that power level with a steel ball, I'm happy to update my assumptions as to power and lethality.
(I'd be surprised if they did, but it'd definitely change my mind should the results be consistent)