Greatest invention in firearms history

[Art30/30]

I would say the M1 Garand. Otherwise we would be typing in German right now

 

[bangswitch]

Gotta go with gunpowder.

Definitely. A gun in any form would be nothing other than a club without it.

Good points in that it doesn't have to be an actual gun. But what of those choices would you put at #1?

Invention of the wheel is way up there somewhere. Without that concept, no such thing as a revolver.

 

[Lefty38-55]

The development of the wheellock allowed firearms to be maintained at a safe, "ready-to-fire" status indefinitely ...

Not quite ... as historically (from original writings of the time) they were judged to be no better than 75% reliable to fire and would NOT work if wound and left wound over-night (many instances about this, including from Nobility who were subsequently murdered, also from original writings). As such, you see many, mostly non-military wheelies, with either 2 dogs (the cock that holds the pyrite, or 2 dogs and 2 wheels, or lever-cocking/spanninf wheels, or even a combination wheellock with a separate serpentine for matchcord (think matchlock).

In military use, mostly on horse back, they were wound prior to the charge of the caracole.

 

[Meeks36]

The 2nd amendment. Without it we would have squat. Not an invention but pretty darn useful.

 

[crstrode]

This came up in a discussion between my son and I. What would you consider to be the greatest invention in firearms history? It doesn't necessarily have to be something you own or even like. As a matter of fact I would rather your answer not be based on likes or dislikes at all.

My candidate is the 1911 and I have never owned one so don't know if I like it or not.

A good lawyer's number on speed dial.

 

[CapnMac]

but how many of our forebears could see that well ?

Well, given the evidence left behind by the arms they built, their visions was (presumed) to be significantly better than our modern vision.

We, in our modern times, live in more dense places, with more kinds of pollution, and significantly more processed food. There's endless debate on whether our eyes are "worse" as a result, or we have better, more accurate ways to measure more peoples' eyesight than ever before.

I was just looking more along the lines of things that advanced firearms as they evolved.

Which is a good point.
Many are advocating for the self-contained metallic cartridge. But, with black powder, you are typically limited to revolvers for reliability due to the fouling.
Self-loading handguns did not come into their own until smokeless powder made them "clean enough" to operate efficiently.

Single-shot (and the odd pepper box and the like) pistols had been around for centuries.
Roland White's patent for using a cylinder was the result of perhaps four to five decades fussing with the notion after Waterloo in 1815. The metallic cartridge simplified revolvers (and made lever guns possible) in the mid-1800s.
But, by the end of the 1800s, it took scarcely more than a decade for most to adopt and adapt to "nitro powder."
Consider how many arms sprang out of that time from 1895 to 1918. Not just Machine Guns, but Machine Rifles and Machine Pistols to serve alongside of self-loading pistols.

After that time, everything was tried. Blow-back, blow-forward, rotary locking, toggle locking, swinging links, flappers, you name it; recoil operation, gas operation--all of it.

For just handguns, the "biggest thing" is probably the Browning Lock, which is nearly a universal choice for locked breech handguns. The "why" of that can seem obscure, but, the answer is simplicity. It's as simple as two angled surfaces and a retention device of some sort. Hard to argue with that level of simplicity.

 

[Lefty38-55]

Roland White's patent for using a cylinder was the result of perhaps four to five decades fussing with the notion after Waterloo in 1815.

Patent ...shmatent ... revolving arms date to the late1500s, here's a few matchlock and flintlock.

 

[AlexanderA]

I would say the M1 Garand. Otherwise we would be typing in German right now

You have to look at this in context. The "base of fire" of the German infantry squad was its MG34 or MG42 general-purpose machine gun. The riflemen were just there to support the machine gun, and to carry extra ammunition.

Likewise, the base of the British squad was the excellent Bren gun.

In contrast, the U.S. equivalent, the BAR, was definitely inferior.

So, if you compare the German or British squads to the Americans, their total ability to sling lead was greater. The Garand was only a part of this picture. But anyway, battles were won by artillery and air power, and by logistics. That meant that the Garand played an even smaller role. It was better than the Kar98, but so what?

 

[1KPerDay]

Roland White's patent for using a cylinder was the result of perhaps four to five decades fussing with the notion after Waterloo in 1815.

FYI if you're interested, it's "Rollin White." And his original patent design was laughably bad and apparently incorporated a box magazine as well as a cylinder.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Not quite ... as historically (from original writings of the time) they were judged to be no better than 75% reliable to fire and would NOT work if wound and left wound over-night (many instances about this, including from Nobility who were subsequently murdered, also from original writings). As such, you see many, mostly non-military wheelies, with either 2 dogs (the cock that holds the pyrite, or 2 dogs and 2 wheels, or lever-cocking/spanninf wheels, or even a combination wheellock with a separate serpentine for matchcord (think matchlock).

In military use, mostly on horse back, they were wound prior to the charge of the caracole.

Fine, perhaps not truly "indefinitely", but way more "indefinitely" than playing burning match games.

 

[Ignition Override]

The tv show Combat in 1963.
This “invention” showcased multiple very cool guns for the first time for an eight year-old.

For a literal answer, the repeating rifle vs a muzzle-loader.
Wasn’t the first a Winchester?

 

[jmr40]

I would say the M1 Garand. Otherwise we would be typing in German right now

The Germans weren't going to win WW-2 even without the USA. But had the USA not gotten involved Russia would have done the job and not stopped with Germany. All of Europe would be speaking Russian right now and the USA would be a much weaker player globally. The Garand may have allowed us to do the job with fewer casualties.

I'm going with smokeless powder and metallic cartridges in a tie.

 

[film495]

FN M1900, first production pistol to have a slide

 

[Jim Watson]

A quality flintlock on a lightweight gun suitable for "shooting flying."

Captain H. Hornblower's double barreled rifled patchlock pistols "Four men's lives in his hands."

 

[Legionnaire]

I still say the metallic cartridge. Smokeless powder makes them more consistent and powerful, but I think a more significant innovation was loading from the breech. Coupled with the metallic cartridge breech loading firearms revolutionized warfare. Semi- and full-auto firearms just do it faster.

 

[starnbar]

I would say there are two the colt 45 six shooter and the winchester rifle

 

[Space Ghost]

NOT gonna say gunpowder because that's a given... there IS no firearms history without gunpowder.

So... Going on from there... I'm gonna say the greatest invention has been the self contained metallic cartridge.
All other developments center around that.

 

[silicosys4]

I'm going to say that the greatest invention in firearm history is......
The firearm.

After that, I'm going to say,
The metal barrel. Bamboo, staves, and crude iron hoops will only get you so far

 

[borrowedtime69]

Scopes for sure, distance shooting really allows many to hunt that otherwise had difficulty reaching out.

 

[Art30/30]

You have to look at this in context. The "base of fire" of the German infantry squad was its MG34 or MG42 general-purpose machine gun. The riflemen were just there to support the machine gun, and to carry extra ammunition.

Likewise, the base of the British squad was the excellent Bren gun.

In contrast, the U.S. equivalent, the BAR, was definitely inferior.

So, if you compare the German or British squads to the Americans, their total ability to sling lead was greater. The Garand was only a part of this picture. But anyway, battles were won by artillery and air power, and by logistics. That meant that the Garand played an even smaller role. It was better than the Kar98, but so what?

What?

That’s like saying the current infantry platform is the 240 B and riflemen are there to support. That is NOT infantry doctrine. The BAR just like the M249 SAW (and 240) is a base of fire weapon. To suppress while the other riflemen flank, close and destroy the enemy. That’s the context I was taught in Ft Benning years ago. Gain firepower superiority through violence of action. Maneuver, close and destroy. The machine gun is to support the riflemen, not the other way around.

My OPINION to the OP can’t be wrong because it is MY opinion.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Dynamite gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“From 1894 to 1901, the Army purchased and installed several coastal artillery batteries of 15 inch (381 mm) dynamite guns as part of the coast defense modernization program initiated by the Endicott Board. These could throw an explosive projectile from 2,000 to 5,000 yards (1,800 to 4,600 m) depending on the weight of the projectile, from 500 to 50 pounds (227 to 23 kg). Compressed air at 2,500 psi (17 MPa) was supplied by a steam-driven compressor.”

Do a search on 'dynamite gun/dynamite cannon' - USS Vesuvius - Spanish-American War...

PRD1 - mhb - MIke

Point taken.

However, where are they today?

 

[AlexanderA]

The machine gun is to support the riflemen, not the other way around.

That was the U.S. doctrine, but not the German doctrine. The Garand fit with the U.S. doctrine, and the MG34 / MG42 fit with the German doctrine. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that "the Garand won the war."

 

[lysanderxiii]

You have to look at this in context. The "base of fire" of the German infantry squad was its MG34 or MG42 general-purpose machine gun. The riflemen were just there to support the machine gun, and to carry extra ammunition.

Likewise, the base of the British squad was the excellent Bren gun.

In contrast, the U.S. equivalent, the BAR, was definitely inferior.

So, if you compare the German or British squads to the Americans, their total ability to sling lead was greater. The Garand was only a part of this picture. But anyway, battles were won by artillery and air power, and by logistics. That meant that the Garand played an even smaller role. It was better than the Kar98, but so what?

You are correct about German doctrine. Not only was the machine gun the base of fire, it was the primary offensive weapon for the infantry.

At the company level, platoons infiltrated forward according to the ground and the particular enemy situation . . . The infantry platoons infiltrated forward, using all available cover and concealment, attempting to remain invisible. As they advanced, the battalion and company machine guns alternately bounded forward behind them, providing continuous covering fire. Within the platoon, the sections also infiltrated forward. When the sections reached open areas, however, they bounded forward in small groups, while still under covering company and battalion heavy machine gun fire. The section's light machine guns, as well as the riflemen, did not fire until absolutely necessary. Finally, when the heavy machine guns could move no further forward, the platoon leaders essentially "leap frogged" their combat groups forward under the platoon's light machine guns until the platoon prepared to assault the enemy's position. The Germans felt rifle fire played a mere supporting role. Primarily, the riflemen added rapid, short range, accurate fire immediately prior to throwing hand grenades and penetrating the enemy's position. The infantry platoon's fire power rested on the light machine gun. But even this weapon only fired at the closest possible distance from the enemy and at the latest possible moment.*

This is in stark contrast to US doctrine, Which mandated that all available weapons, rifles, and automatic rifles, be used to suppress the objective with the advance being done in bounds under mutual covering fire. As I understand it, British doctrine was similar to US doctrine. In US doctrine the M1919 was used in a similar manner as the the German heavy machine guns, but as a supplement to rifle fire. The US also did not issue machine guns in the same quantity as the Germans (by TO&E). A US rifle battalion had 14 machine guns and 27 automatic rifles (41 total), a German rifle battalion had 55 machine guns.

The MG-34/MG-42 and the Kar-98k were excellent weapons for German doctrine. The MG-42 and MP-44 would be even better, as the Germans did not intend for the assault element to open fire until within 100 meters of the objective. The M1 and M1918 were excellent weapons for US doctrine, as they allowed all weapons in the company to initiate and maintain accurate fire at maximum range. (In the 1930s, the US actually removed all BARs from the squad, feeling that the M1 would be sufficient.)

_________
* Taken from "The American and German Infantry Battalions, 1944," by Paul E. Melody, MAJ, USA

 

[Mosin77]

There are a lot of major inventions that lead to the modern firearm.

Rifling was pretty significant, although it wasn’t really applicable until 300 years after its invention in any significant sense… the minie ball, or more properly, Delvigne’s developments in the 1830s-1850s allowed the rifle to become what it is now. The breech loading principle was also very important as was the self-contained cartridge. We might credit Flobert with developing it in the 1850s, or even Alexandre Dumas (yes, really) with envisioning the idea, fictionalizing it in The Count of Monte Cristo (1846) and spurring on the invention of the same by Flobert, who was followed quickly by Smith & Wesson with the .22 short. Smokeless powder was the next big thing.

In terms of today’s firearms scene I think the AR-15 was a quantum leap in terms of normalizing the detachable magazine, modern materials, and the concept of modular design we take for granted today. Arguably the Glock did the same for pistols.

 

[BreechFace]

The ink that wrote the 2nd Amendment