The CIA Explains to US Senate What a 'Heart Attack Gun' Is (1975)
The CIA Explains to US Senate What a 'Heart Attack Gun' Is (1975)
This clandestine pistol is modified to:
-be electrically fired
-be extremely quiet
-shoot a deadly poison that emulates a heart attack and doesn't show up on autopsies
-be capable of shooting a target without them realizing they've been shot
-work at 100 yards
Video of the hearing: [3:57] https://youtu.be/4m6dldvNECI?si=
You're viewing a single thread.
Is this something that's actually been demonstrated as real and functional or is this just what they said while waving around a prop?
How did they keep the dart from melting? A 100m range for a frozen dart? I'm not an expert and welcome correction, but this seems very implausible to me. This is the sort of problem the Mythbusters would be great at tackling.
I just have trouble believing anything the CIA claims. This seems like the sort of item you trot out to justify your obscene budget.
I don't think there is any video of it firing, I'd be interested if anyone does find some. I suppose you could have a cooler that contains frozen ammo which an agent would carry to their firing location.
They sound like extraordinary claims but I don't think it was in the CIA's interest to announce they had something that poisons people and makes it look like a heart attack.
This was well after the theory that they killed JFK and that information could be used to support claims that they've killed other people (truly or not) which might put negative political pressure on the agency.
At the time congress was trying to reign in the CIA which had been operating under effectively zero supervision for three decades.
You don't need a cooler, just a vial of liquid nitrogen or dry ice. If the gun was air powered rather than fired with gunpowder the heat issue would be substantially reduced. Also the dirt didn't need to be fully solid at time of impact to effectively poison the target, as all that was needed was liquid contact with the skin.
Also everyone here seems to be pretending that flachette rounds aren't a thing and weren't proposed to replace bullets as the primary rounds for the standard issue rifle for the us military as recently as the Advanced Combat Rifle program to replace the M16. AAI's flachette rifle went all the way to final testing and consideration, and was easily accurate at 100m and beyond. This weapon shot single darts aka flachettes and would have no problem with achieving accuracy at 30m with a shorter barrel.
A small dart like bullet seems implausible, it might be too fragile. Here is an example of a more massive "bullet". The results are a bit more than "undetectable" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2lJRQCRfik
What's not plausible about this? It's perfectly possible to simulate a heart attack with certain drugs, and ti put that drug into a dart, and shoot that from a gun. Nothing far fetched raising alarm bells in my engineering brain. I could make one of these myself if I wanted too.
So much of this.
Getting an ice dart to travel 100 meters intact so the poison reaches the target is absurd with modern technology, to saying nothing of 1970s available tech.
To start, most bullets leave the barrle of the gun 20-30 degrees above ambient temperature. A dart made of ice would melt and send a spray of water and toxin out the barrel. And even if you could design a round that could be carried in a holster that keeps the dart below freezing and ad some kind of shot cup that magially keeps the ice from melting on firing, you have to deal with accuracy.
Hitting targets beyond 10 meters with a 1911 is not something amateurs can reliably do. Hitting a target at 20m to 30m is considered exceptional marksmanship. At 100m it's more luck than skill. Now swap out the spin stabilized bullet designed to accurately shoot from the barrel of a gun for a projectile made of ice, not stabilized in any meaningful way and melting with every meter from the gun it flies, and you are not going to hit anything at 100m.
Its just not possible to do any of that, let alone silently and in such a way a person isn't going to notice being stung by any icey barb that still needs to be big enough to carry enough toxin to carry a lethal dose.
I don't think you could make an accurate version today of a rifle using pneumatic air or magnetic acceleration rails/coils that could it could penetrate a person sized target at 100 meters but still fit inside a 1911 holster or case.
But these aren’t being fired using gunpowder, so the thermal curve would change dramatically.
Strongly agree with all your other points though.
I could see it as a small BB gun, with a range of 10 meters instead of the advertised 100.
“Ice” doesn’t necessarily mean the water ice we are used to, it’s just the solid phase of something that’s a liquid or gas under normal conditions. For example, methane ice exists. Perhaps it’s a chemical with a reasonably tough solid phase that melts at 80 degrees f.
Also, ice can be way colder than the usual 32 degrees. It just has to be kept in a very cold environment. For all we know it could have been kept in a cooler full of liquid nitrogen and enter the gun at -300 f.
Hang on, not missing the entire target at 20 yards is not that difficult. A typical handgun range is 10 yards and a typical silhouette is 1/2 scale simulating a shot at 20 yards. I am not a great shot but I'm not usually missing the entire target.
I genuinely don't think ice will work as a dart. It's very brittle and would likely explode leaving the barrel. 100m range fired from a pistol is a great shot with an actual bullet.
The characteristics to fire from a barrel don't jive with the characteristics to leave no trace as a dart. You'd want something that fills the barrel uniformly.
A dart won't likely pick up the spin required. The back end is heavier, giving it weird flight trajectories.
The more I think about it, the more implausible it becomes.
The idea that there's no trace other than a red mark? Nothing about it makes any sense.
Edit: Never mind how light it would be! The mass is so low, this thing, even in tact would likely fly away. That 100m claim and idiotic scope on it make it even less likely.
Someone tried it with shotgun-sized slugs and found they were inaccurate over 40 ft.
https://blog.gunassociation.org/ice-bullet/
Man. This whole thing is so implausible. There's too many unlikely claims all layered on top of one another.
It could have been fin or conically stabilized. Like a rocket or shuttlecock.
There's a lot of information we might assume about this that we shouldn't take for granted.
Also it being real and not working well is a possibility. Look at the CIA's success rate at getting Castro.
A sabot solves a lot of the problems you list. It fills the barrel and imparts spin from the rifling. I also doubt the range claims, though.
Carrying around frozen ammunition without it thawing is the least plausible part.
How would it not leave a hole or damage on the target?
Only needs to touch skin not penetrate it?
Yes but you are shooting it at the target, you are not launching it gently. Especially at 100ft
You can shoot things at less than lethal velocities so i took a guess.