Is there anything new under the sun?

[Bfh_auto]

With all this arguing about 270, 30-30 etc.
It's there any truly new technology in rifles in the last 20 years?
It seems we have gone full circle and are back to show heavy bullets like our ancestors used. We just have better powder and bullets.

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

Bullet technology, optic technology, and manufacturing technology, has certainly gotten better over the last 20 years. 20 years ago someone would have to pay $1000 or more for a 1 MOA rifle most off the shelf rifles were 2.5 MOA or thereabouts. Now days there are multiple rifle brands with sub $400 rifles that are legitimate 1 MOA rifles and often enough are better than that.

 

[sage5907]

In the past 20 years CNC machining has worked it's way into the making of rifles. It started with the risers on compound bows and then quickly transferred to rifle stocks, actions, barrels and accessories. Now the most popular scopes have knobs on three sides and weigh upwards of 20 ounces. The popular thing now is to shoot long skinny bullets out of heavy rifles with a can on the end of the barrel. Classic hunting rifles of 20 years ago are a thing of the past to the new generation.

 

[forty_caliber]

At the end of the day, expanding gases are pushing an object down a tube and that hasn't changed since Chinese hand cannons from centuries ago.

We have made improvements on just how those gases are controlled, we have at better projectiles or at least more specialized ones, and we have much improved manufacturing processes that allow for consistent standard parts and barrels. All of this is produced in staggering quantities which is a really big change.

We aren't quite to the Terminators "plasma rifle in 50 watt range" or Star Trek's "phasers" quite yet.

In the last 20 years we have made significant improvements in optics. IR, Thermal, Laser, and high quality glass that allow us to make the best use of the aforementioned improvements.

.40

 

[BigBore44]

I would say the CNC is an addition to the firearms community. But like .40 said, the basic principal of the firearm and cartridges is the same.

 

[Bfh_auto]

In the past 20 years CNC machining has worked it's way into the making of rifles. It started with the risers on compound bows and then quickly transferred to rifle stocks, actions, barrels and accessories. Now the most popular scopes have knobs on three sides and weigh upwards of 20 ounces. The popular thing now is to shoot long skinny bullets out of heavy rifles with a can on the end of the barrel. Classic hunting rifles of 20 years ago are a thing of the past to the new generation.

I didn't think of the side parallax knob. That's a good one.
CNC is a definite plus.
I think the long skinny bullet thing is in danger of taking a good thing too far like the SUAM and ultra mags.
Cans have been here for a long time. Average people couldn't afford them until inflation caught up to the tax stamp.

 

[Bfh_auto]

At the end of the day, expanding gases are pushing an object down a tube and that hasn't changed since Chinese hand cannons from centuries ago.

We have made improvements on just how those gases are controlled, we have at better projectiles or at least more specialized ones, and we have much improved manufacturing processes that allow for consistent standard parts and barrels. All of this is produced in staggering quantities which is a really big change.

We aren't quite to the Terminators "plasma rifle in 50 watt range" or Star Trek's "phasers" quite yet.

In the last 20 years we have made significant improvements in optics. IR, Thermal, Laser, and high quality glass that allow us to make the best use of the aforementioned improvements.

.40

I would be happy with 25 watt plasma rifles.

 

[RedlegRick]

I would be happy with 25 watt plasma rifles.

Can't remember where I heard it, but that line was a mistake on Arnold's part, as it was supposed to be 'forty kilowatt range', but sounded better the way he said it.

That said, is there any way to calculate downrange energy from foot-pounds to kilowatts? I know you can do it for horsepower.

In keeping with the OPs line of thinking, I believe the next big thing is going to be electromagnetically launched projectiles, either coil or rail. Related to this might even be the rail-launched plasma gun, which is, as I understand it, being given some serious thought.

Heck, when I was at Sill doing BRM, I dreamt of such things, if only never to have to chant 'no brass, no ammo, Drilllllll Sergeant!' again.

 

[jmr40]

It seems we have gone full circle and are back to show heavy bullets like our ancestors used. We just have better powder and bullets.

We're not shooting heavy slow bullets, we are now shooting LONG aerodynamic bullets. There is a huge difference. Shooting long aerodynamic bullets is allowing less powerful cartridges to start out at lower velocities with less recoil, yet hit harder down range. A good example. An modern LONG, aerodynamic 180 gr bullet fired from a 30-06 will impact with greater velocity at only 75 yards than an old school HEAVY, short 180 gr RN bullet fired from a 300 WM. Even though the 300 WM has a 200 fps advantage at the muzzle. The same LONG 180 gr bullet fired from a 308 will catch up to the 300 WM and pass it in velocity at only 175 yards. With a 400 fps disadvantage at the muzzle and 1/2 the recoil. I'd say being able to hit an animal harder at ranges beyond 175 yards with half the recoil from a 308 than a 300 WM is a pretty big advancement.

The problem is that it isn't as simple as loading long aerodynamic bullets in some rifles. It is mostly a happy coincidence that it works with cartridges like 30-06. But factory 270's and many other cartridges simply aren't designed to use these bullets. In order to make them work requires custom built rifles with non standard barrels, magazines, and using hand loads not to made to factory specs. It is easier to develop a new cartridge and build rifles to shoot them than to make it work with most older cartridges.

 

[Legionnaire]

I think the move to user-replaceable barrels, like the Savage or “Remage” barrel nut system, and the availability of custom built barrels with a twist rate selected for the bullets you want to use is a great innovation. 20 years ago, you got what the factory offered or you paid for a full custom. Now there is room for the mechanically inclined to play in the middle.

Likewise, the move to self-built rifles on the AR platform is fairly new, given that platform’s designed-in modularity and the explosion of custom part makers.

 

[Jason_W]

In terms of ballistics, there hasn’t been an open niche in a long time.

Time travel back to 1925, and there are still plenty of very effective cartridge choices for every job.

As others have pointed out, the exciting modern developments have been in ammo and manufacturing techniques that allow smaller, lighter kicking rounds to cleanly do jobs that would have only been the realm of the bruisers a few decades ago.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

I certainly like the old stuff, but new production has a commanding lead in accuracy. A good example of the two paths crossing is the Kimber 84M Hunter I bought a couple years back: the action is a mix of the best features of the Mauser 98 and Winchester M70, made from modern weather-resisting materials to contemporary accuracy standards and rescaled to a package so lightweight it's almost magic. I have a Husqvarna Mauser 98 (7.92x57) from the 1940s that approaches the same weight (minus scope), but otherwise there really is no comparison between the two. The Kimber is the better rifle by any standard except possibly looks and class.

I won't be selling either, BTW.

 

[Bfh_auto]

We're not shooting heavy slow bullets, we are now shooting LONG aerodynamic bullets. There is a huge difference. Shooting long aerodynamic bullets is allowing less powerful cartridges to start out at lower velocities with less recoil, yet hit harder down range. A good example. An modern LONG, aerodynamic 180 gr bullet fired from a 30-06 will impact with greater velocity at only 75 yards than an old school HEAVY, short 180 gr RN bullet fired from a 300 WM. Even though the 300 WM has a 200 fps advantage at the muzzle. The same LONG 180 gr bullet fired from a 308 will catch up to the 300 WM and pass it in velocity at only 175 yards. With a 400 fps disadvantage at the muzzle and 1/2 the recoil. I'd say being able to hit an animal harder at ranges beyond 175 yards with half the recoil from a 308 than a 300 WM is a pretty big advancement.

The problem is that it isn't as simple as loading long aerodynamic bullets in some rifles. It is mostly a happy coincidence that it works with cartridges like 30-06. But factory 270's and many other cartridges simply aren't designed to use these bullets. In order to make them work requires custom built rifles with non standard barrels, magazines, and using hand loads not to made to factory specs. It is easier to develop a new cartridge and build rifles to shoot them than to make it work with most older cartridges.

Good point. The old slow heavy, was to increase BC. They just didn't understand it yet.
I do agree that we get a lot better in game performance for a lot less recoil.
It like every cartridge for bumped up a few rungs in the performance ladder in bullet and powder selection.

 

[sage5907]

A good example. An modern LONG, aerodynamic 180 gr bullet fired from a 30-06 will impact with greater velocity at only 75 yards than an old school HEAVY, short 180 gr RN bullet fired from a 300 WM.

The round nose bullet is used for a completely different purpose and was never intended for long range shooting. A better comparison would have been between a Sierra GameKing and a Berger VLD. The word old school is used to describe anything that is not fashionable or politically correct. The younger generation is learning things today that others have known for many years. The reloading manuals and firearms technology were developed over a long period of time. What is new today is not really that new.

 

[edwardware]

I would be happy with 25 watt plasma rifles.

I have often pointed out that interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that rest on 'common' or 'sporting' use are traps, because we're nearing a shift in arms tech.

You can draw an undeniable line from front-stuffers to ARs, but I expect the arms of the future to be directed energy weapons. What then?

 

[.308 Norma]

20 years ago someone would have to pay $1000 or more for a 1 MOA rifle most off the shelf rifles were 2.5 MOA or thereabouts.

Ah, come on! You guys are making me feel really old. 20 years ago was only 1999 for crying out loud!
I'm not saying "bullet technology, optic technology and manufacturing technology" hasn't improved in the last 20 years - there probably has been improvements in all of those areas. But I have a 1MOA Ruger 77 that I paid less than $300.00 (not $1000.00) for in the early '80s. And before that, I had one of those "hated" post '64 Model 70s that would do less than 1MOA, and I paid less than $300.00 for that rifle too.
What I'm saying is, is that even before 20 years before "20 years ago" you could find off the shelf 1MOA rifles for less than $400.00. I know, because I could and did. Of course $400.00 was a lot more money back then. The fact is, just last month my wife and I bought a new Dodge Ram 1500 pickup-truck, and we paid almost as much for it as we paid for this house in 1979. But that only goes to prove my point that when it comes to rifles - while improved "bullet technology, optic technology, and manufacturing technology" may have indeed kept the price of 1MOA rifles down, none of those things have impacted precision (or accuracy if you prefer) all that much in the last 20 years. I was shooting off the shelf $300.00, 1MOA rifles for 20 years before 20 years ago.
BTW, a little less than 20 years ago, I paid close to $3000.00 for my custom 308 Norma Mag. But that was because I wanted it and could afford it, and it was my retirement gift to myself. I didn't pay that much for it because it would outshoot (it won't) my old tang-safety Ruger 77 that I paid less than $300.00 for 20 years before that.

 

[sage5907]

What I'm saying is, is that even before 20 years before "20 years ago" you could find off the shelf 1MOA rifles for less than $400.00. I

The new generation thinks that rifle accuracy is a new thing and that's really narrow minded. We could buy production rifles in the 1950's that would shoot less than MOA. Price of a new Model 70 Winchester was about $130. The only thing that hampered long range accuracy was the quality of the available optics. Even then, with a Leupold M8 4 power scope I could shoot MOA at 100 yards with Speer bullets.

 

[Mullo98]

I think we’ve changed a lot; maybe in small steps each time. Wasn’t that long ago that semi-autos were the “ new kid “ on the firearms block.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Probably the most important changes in the near future are in the targeting technologies. Most folks aren't very good at estimating ranges, wind speeds, movement rates of moving targets, the effect of shooting at higher or lower targets, and the effects of different loads.

Soon there will be apps for all of that.

 

[.308 Norma]

We could buy production rifles in the 1950's that would shoot less than MOA.

The following is a quote from the 1962 Winchester Catalog I have sitting in front of me: "This rifle has won more big bore championships than all other target rifles put together!"
It's a quote about the Winchester Model 70 Target - $190.00 list price.

The new generation thinks that rifle accuracy is a new thing and that's really narrow minded.

Probably. I would have thought that the internet, the World-Wide-Web, would have expanded folk's knowledge about such matters. I guess I would have been wrong.

 

[.308 Norma]

Wasn’t that long ago that semi-autos were the “ new kid “ on the firearms block.

My first big game rifle was a Model 100 Winchester (semi-auto). My mom and dad bought it for me in 1963. I was 15. I'm glad to hear that "wasn't that long ago." Hearing that doesn't make me feel quite so old. Thank you!
BTW, I still have my Model 100, and it still won't do much better than about 3 shots in 3 inches at 100 yards. That's good enough for deer hunting as far as I'm concerned. But it goes to show that not all $150.00 rifles were 1MOA rifles in 1963.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

Probably the most important changes in the near future are in the targeting technologies. Most folks aren't very good at estimating ranges, wind speeds, movement rates of moving targets, the effect of shooting at higher or lower targets, and the effects of different loads.

Soon there will be apps for all of that.

The Army is working on getting a scope that can crunch those numbers for you, and project a reticle that's corrected for your drop and wind drift.

That's the next breakthrough IMO. People have long worried about getting rounds that shooter flatter, more aerodynamic, etc - but we may come to a point where that hardly even matters. It will all just be point and shoot, and our scopes will allow us to make 500 yard shots with a 30-30 or 7.62x39 just as easily as a 300 Win Mag.

 

[cougar1717]

It's there any truly new technology in rifles in the last 20 years?

Technology always advances. However, firearms technology has really only seen evolutionary change instead of a paradigm shifting change.

Twenty years ago, gunshops and ranges (remember, not many forums existed) would be filled with talk of:

Rem 700's in 300RUM
Lazzeroni magnums
Walther and S&W P99's
Custom 1911's
Glock being almost the only offering in polymer framed striker fired.
Pistol talk was Beretta 92 series vs Sig P22X vs S&W 3rd gen.
The latest movie you saw at the theater (because people went to the movies back then) that included a Desert Eagle.
Dreams of shooting 1000 yards and needing a 50 BMG
When would the AWB end or would it ever end?
Ridiculous firearm transport laws where the firearm had to be visible from outside. 1999 was before similar topics concerning CCW - allowing it in the first place, training, reciprocity, etc.
Oh, and don't forget that people with AR-15's (even the ones without evil features) were asked a ton of dumb questions, like: How did you get that? Are you in the military? Is that a machine gun?


But I get it, in terms of the technology itself - firing pin strikes primer, ignites powder, builds pressure, pushes bullet out barrel. Then no.

Also things that haven't changed much:
Gun advertisement that this new thing is the best ever and will totally revolutionize this infinitesimally small segment of the guns and ammo market!!!!!!!!
"..... is just as powerful as....."
"..... will shoot X moa all day if I do my part."
Complaints that company X doesn't make gun Y in caliber Z. "If they just made them, the world would be the happiest place ever and all my needs would be fulfilled!!!!" Except, when it doesn't meet expectations or they "value engineer" some part that creates a huge debacle.

Things that have changed:
CNC manufacturing, both in firearm and ammo manufacture
Manufacturers unashamedly beta testing and dealing with the consequences
An incredible amount of value engineering to make every part a little less expensive.
The death of the typical, traditional blue and wood stocked/gripped firearms. Don't get me wrong. They exist, but are just not as popular.
Cheaper finishes - polymer stocks vs wood, bluing vs nitrocarburizing
The evolution of ambidextrous firearms (typically handguns), but the pullback or discontinuing of left handed bolt actions.
Modular everything.
Tactical everything.


However... in college we learned about theoretical technologies such as a rail gun. That are now a working reality. Are they shoulder mounted? - not yet!

 

[Bfh_auto]

Technology always advances. However, firearms technology has really only seen evolutionary change instead of a paradigm shifting change.

Twenty years ago, gunshops and ranges (remember, not many forums existed) would be filled with talk of:

Rem 700's in 300RUM
Lazzeroni magnums
Walther and S&W P99's
Custom 1911's
Glock being almost the only offering in polymer framed striker fired.
Pistol talk was Beretta 92 series vs Sig P22X vs S&W 3rd gen.
The latest movie you saw at the theater (because people went to the movies back then) that included a Desert Eagle.
Dreams of shooting 1000 yards and needing a 50 BMG
When would the AWB end or would it ever end?
Ridiculous firearm transport laws where the firearm had to be visible from outside. 1999 was before similar topics concerning CCW - allowing it in the first place, training, reciprocity, etc.
Oh, and don't forget that people with AR-15's (even the ones without evil features) were asked a ton of dumb questions, like: How did you get that? Are you in the military? Is that a machine gun?


But I get it, in terms of the technology itself - firing pin strikes primer, ignites powder, builds pressure, pushes bullet out barrel. Then no.

Also things that haven't changed much:
Gun advertisement that this new thing is the best ever and will totally revolutionize this infinitesimally small segment of the guns and ammo market!!!!!!!!
"..... is just as powerful as....."
"..... will shoot X moa all day if I do my part."
Complaints that company X doesn't make gun Y in caliber Z. "If they just made them, the world would be the happiest place ever and all my needs would be fulfilled!!!!" Except, when it doesn't meet expectations or they "value engineer" some part that creates a huge debacle.

Things that have changed:
CNC manufacturing, both in firearm and ammo manufacture
Manufacturers unashamedly beta testing and dealing with the consequences
An incredible amount of value engineering to make every part a little less expensive.
The death of the typical, traditional blue and wood stocked/gripped firearms. Don't get me wrong. They exist, but are just not as popular.
Cheaper finishes - polymer stocks vs wood, bluing vs nitrocarburizing
The evolution of ambidextrous firearms (typically handguns), but the pullback or discontinuing of left handed bolt actions.
Modular everything.
Tactical everything.


However... in college we learned about theoretical technologies such as a rail gun. That are now a working reality. Are they shoulder mounted? - not yet!

All I remember from the late 90s is 30-06 vs 308 vs 270 vs 243 vs 30-30 for deer hunting.
If you mentioned an SKS, you were using an under powered inaccurate pile, but a mini 14 was good.

 

[Sistema1927]

Solomon says no.