Evolution Of Firearms

[Steel Hayes]

I’m using what’s available at this time, but thanks to Gauss(and yes, I studied Guass’s law in physics), the future will hold something truly astounding.
If I can charge a battery to shoot a rifle, I’m all for it.

 

[SmeeAgain]

There's an old saying out there....."iffin' it ain't broke, it don't need to be fixed!". Firearms are like that. Like many other tools that have been around forever, there have been advances in metallurgy, esthetics and ergonomics, but the basics have stayed the same, simply, because they work and they work well. Hand saws, hammers, shovels, forks, knives and spoons for example. Bicycles. Wheelbarrows, wagons, etc. Over my lifetime I have seen several different methods of propulsion proposed/developed for the projectiles used in firearms, but it seems the old standby, gunpowder, is still preferred. Basically, cause it still works better than the others.

While 99.999% of what you wrote is true, I saw a wheelbarrow the other day with TWO wheels for the first time in my extremely long life.
I thought it was brilliant yet simple. That should have been the first design!
So... what we often assume is "good enough" there is often room for improvement.

 

[buck460XVR]

While 99.999% of what you wrote is true, I saw a wheelbarrow the other day with TWO wheels for the first time in my extremely long life.
I thought it was brilliant yet simple. That should have been the first design!
So... what we often assume is "good enough" there is often room for improvement.

Two wheeled wheelbarrows have been around since they were invented in China in the third century. Not a new thing. Being in construction for 40 odd years I saw concrete men using two wheeled wheelbarrows all the time. Generally used for heavy loads that are not stable. Are today's modern firearms just "good enough"? I'm guessing if there were better alternatives out there for our infantry than what they are using now, they'd already have 'em. Simplicity of use, effectiveness, portability and reliability makes the small arms they use, plenty "good enough". While there have been major advances in sights/optics over the years along with calibers and their projectiles, the same basic powder in a case, fired by a primer, seems to be still working just fine. Is there room for improvement? Probably, but not enough to make any major switch with what technology is out there. I see advances in optics such as thermal and night vision becoming more common, along with automatic changes in elevation and windage, long before I see us moving away from what we know as ammo and standard rifle/handgun configurations.

JMTCs.

 

[SmeeAgain]

Two wheeled wheelbarrows have been around since they were invented in China in the third century.
JMTCs.

Obviously I don't get out much.

 

[Jim Watson]

If I can charge a battery to shoot a rifle, I’m all for it.

Charge your rifle, charge your car, batteries are in style but range is short either way.

 

[Ramone]

This is an interesting possible future for weaponry

 

[J-Bar]

How big a battery would one need to provide enough energy to propel a .30 caliber projectile to equal the performance of a .30/‘06? I’m guessing it would be bigger than a couple AAs, but it’s been too long since I took a physics class.

 

[Steel Hayes]

How big a battery would one need to provide enough energy to propel a .30 caliber projectile to equal the performance of a .30/‘06?

Unfortunately there is more to it than battery size.
This link is a great place to start understanding how it works.
https://www.instructables.com/50-cal-Coil-Gun/?amp_page=true

 

[jdc1244]

Also I take issue with the initial statement of arms technology stultifying. Many technological advances have been made, better metal alloys, better finishes, more precise (in burning rate) powders, non-hydroscopic primers and better sights and scopes.

True.

But at a fundamental level there’s been little evolution in the technology of firearms.

Bolt-action rifles and revolvers are plentiful and popular.

9mm Luger, .38 SPL, .30-06 Sprg, and .45 ACP have been around for well over 100 years yet defy becoming obsolete and are more ubiquitous than ever.

If we put a gunsmith from 1922 into a time machine and transport him 100 years into the future, he’d be astonished at how little things have actually changed.

 

[tinhorn]

The fact that we are still shooting projectiles stored in brass cases filled with combustible powders similar to those used in the Spanish-American War and World War One makes me think perfection may have been achieved.

Couldn't agree more. Firearms are mechanical devices. All the gee-whiz new technology seems to be related to electronics. My wife has a ton of battery operated Christmas candles with REMOTE CONTROLS. We have a kitchen trash can with a proximity-sensing electronically-contolled lid. It's nuts. But aside from fancy sights, our guns will probably always be mechanical devices which is perfectly fine with me.

 

[Archie]

True.

But at a fundamental level there’s been little evolution in the technology of firearms.

May I suggest you mean 'design' instead of technology? I have to agree bolt action rifles are still around and 'straight pull' rifles are still rare. One is led to believe the 'straight pull' mechanism didn't sell as well, due to the buyers finding that sort too expensive or not suitable. Then one notes semi and fully automatic types are a 'straight pull' with power assist. Humpff.

Bolt-action rifles and revolvers are plentiful and popular...9mm Luger, .38 SPL, .30-06 Sprg, and .45 ACP have been around for well over 100 years yet defy becoming obsolete and are more ubiquitous than ever.

Yes, they are. However, all of them are made to closer tolerances - belted cases have no real function anymore (don't confuse popularity with function) - and I see the main change is to render them all cheaper and harder to modify or repair. Probably an entirely different problem and discussion.

If we put a gunsmith from 1922 into a time machine and transport him 100 years into the future, he’d be astonished at how little things have actually changed.

Possibly. A gunsmith from even seventy years ago would be amazed in that items would be less easy to repair; easier to replace. I may be digressing again.

 

[Mosin77]

Firearms developed so quickly in the mid-19th century to mid-20th century because the percussion cap led to the self-contained cartridge, which in turn led to firearms becoming mechanical contrivances for the handling of those cartridges. Two separate revolutions, really, each of which radically changed the design of guns. In order to make a Glock or AR seem quaint (“yeah it’d probably do the job fine in a pinch, but today we just have so much *better* options” -much like we say about a black powder gun or a single action revolver) a revolutionary new system would have to hit harder, have dramatically more capacity, or be far more portable and user-friendly. Little incremental improvements (like the difference between a 1911 and a Glock) wouldn’t be decisive enough.

 

[DeepSouth]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I fully believe, in reality, that IF their is a major innovation in firearms it will be regulated out of civilian hands almost immediately by our loving oligarchs….

 

[PapaG]

My humble apology for not making sense when I meant to write "since".
A few examples are the lever action rifles, the 1911 and AR series. All of which earned Colt a fantastic reputation.
One thing they ALL had in common were outsiders designing them. Henry, Browning & Stoner.
I know Browning had a close relationship with Colt but unaware if he actually worked for them (as an employee) or not.
I hate to sound like an ungrateful girlfriend but the question "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind.
I think they could have done MUCH better by employing more or better engineers, paying closer attention to quality control and providing better customer service.
Granted each is expensive but the alternative is where they are now.
Take the current Henry Repeating Arms for example. While they aren't the original Henry, they have a big name to live up to.
I don't know about their engineering dept but I currently own 8 of their rifles (and several others I've disposed of over the years) and every one has been OUTSTANDING quality. The only flaws being a short lived plastic barrel band on a .22 cal lever action rifle. (They offer free metal replacements for merely asking. And they pay shipping!)
The workmanship & attention to detail is also superb.
Their customer service is well beyond the competition.
Colt could have done that but chose not to.

I like Henry's stance on "made in America" but if you examine the 22 lever action it is a close copy of the old Erma lever action from years ago. Over Johnson, I believe, made a similar one. We had one of each in the shop a few years ago and the similarities were uncanny.

 

[CapnMac]

I saw a wheelbarrow the other day with TWO wheels for the first time in my extremely long life.
I thought it was brilliant yet simple. That should have been the first design!

As noted above, a two-wheel barrow is known as a "Mason's barrow" and has been in use for a couple centuries.
Its design is based on the larger weights carried as a compromise for being less well-equipped to turn corners (which is only wise with several hundred pounds of masonry or mortar or the like aboard).

The real "secret" of a traditional wheelbarrow is to not over-load it (yet we all do so).

How big a battery would one need to provide enough energy to propel a .30 caliber projectile to equal the performance of a .30/‘06?

Trick is not in the battery, but in the capacity of the capacitors to "step" the current up. This is then limited by the ability of the switching that "dumps" the power to the coils.

(There's a mechanical aspect to that, too--as electrical current is created, there is a magnetic effect, in proportion, at 90º to the flow direction of that current, so the structure that carries the current needs to cope with those stresses, too; and the electrical currents they, themselves, induce--it's all as simple as a map of spaghetti in a bowl.)

Caseless ammunition is interesting to consider. Much as using novel materials for the case is also interesting.

Would using polymer cases "revolutionize" firearms? Not in the opinion of the average reloader, like as not. Not unless the cases had virtually no cost to them. Like as not, the bugabear of obturation would, again, raise its head and require a hybrid case, which is unlikely to make them inexpensive.

Caseless ammo is hung up on obturation, too. Now just as back in the days of the needle rifles (a form of caseless ammo). Modern notions of ammunition handling give caseless ammo an enviable gleam, though.

Mind, that invites comparisons to "telescoped" ammo, which gets us back to novel case material. And the "good enough" calculus that ensues.

Materials science is a marvelous thing. There could be a breakthrough just waiting around the corner. Imagine the firearms world if we had a machinable lightweight ceramic composite with the strength and flexibility of steel. (I have to admit the notion of a 5# rifle in .416 or 8mm mag a touch daunting, even if a 3# AR teases my imagination.)

 

[SmeeAgain]

I'd trade "most" of my guns for a working phaser!
A similar topic came up decades ago when about half a dozen of us designed and built the lasers for NASA that were used in the Apollo Program Lunar Ranging Experiments.
Many lengthy discussions in the break area for using lasers as weapons.
Quite easy and very portable even way back then except for one wee little problem.
Cooling! We were never able to overcome that.
The "wee little problem" was sarcasm. It was a HUGE problem. The cooling units were several times larger than the power supplies & laser heads combined.
Now if you are interested in a very expensive single shot, hit me up!

 

[SmeeAgain]

As noted above, a two-wheel barrow is known as a "Mason's barrow" and has been in use for a couple centuries.
Its design is based on the larger weights carried as a compromise for being less well-equipped to turn corners (which is only wise with several hundred pounds of masonry or mortar or the like aboard).

The real "secret" of a traditional wheelbarrow is to not over-load it (yet we all do

It has always been my understanding that, if it fits, it's good to go... weight doesn't matter, it's going to tip over regardless.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The Blish Lock did not work any better than straight blowback for .45 ACP.
The Blish Lock did provide delay at .45 Remington/Thompson levels (250 gr bullet at 1,450 fps for 1,165 ft/lbs from the 14in barrel of the M1923 Thompson)
The Blish Lock was inadequate for .30-06 Thompson rifles.

The 1923 Thompson in prototype only and the .30 Carbine Thompson version of the M1928 submachinegun* did intrigue me on reading about them. It is like the Blish lock worked in the narrow window of .45 Magnum and .30 Carbine pressures, was not needed at 9mm Luger or 45 ACP levels, and had dangerous cartridge ejection velocity with .30-06.

_______________________
*(AutoOrdnance did also design rifles distinctly different from the classic Thompson SMG for the .30 Carbine trials.)

 

[CapnMac]

The Blish Lock did provide delay at .45 Remington

Testing later never really came up with a consistent answer when the effects were studied after the fact.
The friction from all the inclined surfaces may (only may) have been the sum of it.

Material science studies in the fifties found that the Blish effect was strongest above around 70-100K psi--pressures found in artillery pieces and not hand-held arms. The temperatures associated with such pressures tended to recommend against use of materials like brass, just for the flexible friction coefficient.

Where "we" generally "see" the effects of Blish are in the use of gilding metal for cartridge cases. At chamber pressures they "grab" the chamber walls and then "let go" through the change in pressure. Now, is that change in coefficient of Friction similar to the flexation from the ductility of the materials used? Dunno, it will create arguments among professors of materials science enough to interrupt who is supposed to go get the next pitcher of beer . . .

If I remember rightly (and I may not, it's been beers and beers ago) but the original "French 75" used a brass alloy rotating breech as a nod to the Blish effect. The French determined that the brass case was sufficient and a steel plug worked just fine.

Material science is a thing.