The Stagnation Of Small Arms Development

[Cosmoline]

It often seems to be assumed that small arms development has proceeded at a parabolic rate, or something near that. With each decade giving rise to all the more amazing small arms. But in fiddling with a new 1886 Lebel it struck me that only 45 years before that rifle was designed, the Springfield arsenal was still making the 1840 flintlock musket. So barely a generation separated the end of two centuries of flintlock dominance and the dawn of our own age of smokeless powder. The armies and sportsmen went from being armed with hand made black powder firelocks to being armed with fully interchangeable and mass-produced smokeless repeating rifles. It's a leap of such monumental distance that the only modern comparison would be in computer science. And during the decades between the 1840's and 1890's there were a bewildering array of designs and innovations, many forgotten now. If you can imagine it, chances are it was already patented during that period. Out of that explosion of creative energy, all the basic elements for 20th century firearms were established.

Since WWI we have mostly seen refinement and improvement, not real innovation. Only a handful of truly innovative designs have emerged, and these have largely failed to make any impact. We still use the same powder, the same metallic centerfire cartridges and the same basic lock designs. 40 years ago our army was using the same basic platform it is still using today, with refinements and improvements. If we'd had a 19th century rate of innovation, they'd be using phased plasma pulse rifles now.

Think of it. If you were mustered into service during the Mexican war carrying a flintlock musket, you could have upgraded to percussion, then served again in the Civil War armed with a repeating BPCR and lived to shoot the first smokeless small arms.

I'm not sure why we've hit this wall in development, or if it can even be helped. But hit it we have.

 

[RON in PA]

In all reality do you think that there are any major improvements possible in small arms firing projectiles and using metallic cartridges? The biggest change since the 1980s has been the proliferation of polymer framed handguns. Rifle design since the 1960s has been toward the use of bull pup designs and utilization of aluminum and polymer and stabilized with 5.56 calibers. Caseless cartridges have not worked well.

I suspect that there will only be a major change in small arms if some inventor develops the Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon ray gun of the comics/movies. If not AK-74s and M-16s may well serve for another 100 years. They do a very good job of killing people.

 

[olafhardtB]

I am not going to go over all the reasons I don't agree with you,but I don't. In the closet is a Savage 99 and a DPMS both 308's and a Glock and a Iver Johnson both have safe triggers. Automobiles haven't changed at all, they all have four wheels and an engine.

 

[RX-178]

I am actually going to take a crack at this, olafhardtB.

First off we need some perspective. Yes, the AK47 is still the most well known, prolific, and infamous firearm in the world today, that hasn't changed since... I don't even remember. Our armed forces are still using weapons based on the AR-15 which has been around for over 50 years. On the surface that seems like things are not advancing, but that's just not the case.

I'm going to give just one example, and that's the PSG-1 sniper rifle. Everyone's heard the marketing that this was the most accurate semi-automatic sniper-rifle in the world, and we all look at it now and wonder what they were smoking, because it's just a 1 MOA rifle, right?

Well, in the 1970s when the PSG-1 was brand new, the kind of precision construction involved in making the barrel for this rifle was just unheard of. It really was something that people hadn't seen before at that point in time.

Fast forward 40 years. Now we can pick up a Savage Axis, or Ruger American Rifle for a bit over $300, and they have a barrel of the same overall quality as the PSG-1 had in 1970.

I call that an advance in technology.

 

[Sam1911]

I think it may be said that as any technology matures the advances become less grand. If you believe that a specific tool has some ideal form which all advancement trends toward, then as you approach that ideal the "corrections" to the current model needed to get closer to the ideal become smaller.

If the ideal is a solid-projectile projection weapon that is man-portable, and you start out with something like the Chinese fire lance, making it shoulder fired is a huge improvement. Making it breech-loading is another improvement that's quite significant. Making it a repeater, rather than a single-shot is enormous. Making it reload itself is pretty big, though not nearly as compelling. Making it smaller and more ergonomic/easier to shoot is nice, but not quite the ground breaking difference. Making it out of more durable materials which are also lighter yet. Again, nice but a relatively small change. Moving toward cartridges which are more efficiently suited to a particular task and easier to carry lots of...that's great, but again, a small change.

More recently we're making guns with better sighting systems. We're very slightly altering the ergonomics to better suit the average shooter, or to be adaptable for many shooters. We're tuning the cartridge/caliber design to squeeze a few more ... whatever ... out of the platform. We *may* be moving to a new type of cartridge case, or even no cartridge case at all. That would be a little closer yet to perfection. And so on.

But to make another "great leap forward" we're probably going to have to break away from the basic concept we've been working with. Like not using solid projectiles at all, but maybe small guided missile type weapons -- where ergonomics and conventional external ballistics issues are no longer critical to making precise hits. Or maybe even away from projectiles of any kind.

We seem to be approaching the point where there are no factors of the mechanics of the gun that are holding back the shooter, but that the shooter is decidedly the weak link. So the next changes will probably be to start to take the shooter out of the equation. Dynamically stabilized weapons perhaps? Computerized targeting systems like tanks and other large gun systems use now? Technology is going to catch up and provide these, and that will probably be the vector for the next great leap.

 

[husbandofaromanian]

I am shocked!!!

The acceleration of technology over the last 150 years has been mind blowing. How long did we use black powder before using smokeless (centuries). How long did it take us to go from smooth bore to rifling? How do modern day optics compare to the revolutionary war, American Civil war or even Vietnam?

Probably the most recent advancement has been is accuracy. Even a cheap bolt action rifle bought over the counter from Walmart will have amazing accuracy.

I see the next advancement being electronic ignition. This will prevent us from having to use explosives(primer).

 

[Bubbles]

I'm not sure why we've hit this wall in development, or if it can even be helped. But hit it we have.

18 USC Ch 44 Sec 922(o). Most of the design innovations were aimed at the full-auto / military firearms, which were only later modified for semi-auto guns. Since American companies can't recoup their R&D costs by selling new full-auto firearms to the public, there's no financial incentive to innovate. Military and LE sales just aren't that big compared to sales to the public.

One area we have seen a lot of improvement in the last few decades is suppressor designs. IMO that's because the public can still buy new suppressors in most states.

 

[JustinJ]

Firearms development appears to be largely driven by other technological developments with the industrial revolution being the reason for the biggest innovations. New materials i think would be second. Unfortunately the computer age has not really translated to firearms design beyond much more than CAD.

I don't know if it's always been that way but our modern military seems to be fairly resistant to change in firearms but one can see some valid reasons. I think Bullpups are the future but there seems to be little interest on our side of the pond.

 

[Sam1911]

18 USC Ch 44 Sec 922(o).

Exactly, tragically so. When Richard Gatling, Hiram Maxim, John Browning, and their type were working, they could build any number of competing designs and then take their prototypes anywhere they wanted to try to make a sale. (Leading to Maxim's weapons arming both sides of WWI.) Private citizens, corporations, our military, and other governments the world over.

Now an independent SOT2 manufacturer...well, they've got to first BE a licensed SOT2 manufacturer, and they have to follow all the rules about who can even possess their weapons here, and they have to be extremely careful about selling their designs elsewhere. Basically, the only really viable consumer for a new automatic weapon is the US military, and there's no reasonable expectation that you'd even get an audience with anyone to demonstrate it ... let alone live long enough to see your weapon adopted by the one possible customer even if they REALLY liked it.

I don't know if it's always been that way but our modern military seems to be fairly resistant to change in firearms but one can see some valid reasons.

Yes, that has been the one constant throughout. Firearms technology is not the driving factor in winning wars. Given the choice between a fabulous new rifle and a moderate improvement to transport and supply systems, the military will (wisely) put the money into logistics improvements because that matters far more. And, as always "good enough" stands eternally in the way of the next GREAT thing.

 

[ny32182]

Major leaps in firearms development have always, always been dependent on major leaps in the ammunition design.

Today we have smokeless powder metallic catridges. A major leap will require something revolutionary in ammunition beyond the smokeless powder metallic cartridge. As many have noted, we have ridden that horse as far as it will go.

Nothing has come along that is good enough to supplant the AK/AR in two generations. That is indeed stagnation at its finest.

To go further, if it is even necessary (I don't think it is) in small arms development, some kind of energy weapon has to be next. A man can't carry but so many lead bullets. They are heavy. But wars are not really fought with small arms today, which is why I say they have probably gone as far as they need to go. What NEED is going to drive further development? Without a military necessity it may not ever get done.

 

[JustinJ]

Yes, that has been the one constant throughout. Firearms technology is not the driving factor in winning wars.

Not today it's not but in the past it was certainly a much larger factor. It does seem in the past that new small arms were adopted much high intervals?

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, in the past it was more of a driving factor. Around WWI artillery started to become the dominant killing factor, by a huge margin.

But looking at infantry weapons choices from the 19th century it seems they were just as stuck in the mud then as 20th century policy makers have appeared to be.

There was a recent article in American Rifleman about various rifles and muskets issued and training in marksmanship given to troops preceding and during the Civil War. This issue was a major factor. Some commanders did want to issue rifles to their troops and train them well in accurately aimed fire, but many (and more powerful) officers did not, preferring to stick with quick-loading muskets and tactics relying on practically point-blank engagement.

 

[fatcat4620]

The weapon you are looking for is in development. It is called a rail gun and it can easily chuck a 2lb projectile at 10,000 fps. It's just not man portable yet.

 

[mdauben]

Since WWI we have mostly seen refinement and improvement, not real innovation..

I would have to agree. Despite the "advances" listed by all the other posters, none of them really represented a quantum leap in small arms developent, like the move from muzzle loaders to cartridge weapons, or the move from bolt action combat rifles to selective fire assault rifles. Sure, there has been improvements in the last 50 years, but the closest thing to a revolutionary development was the introduction of polymer frame handguns. Optical sights have improved, but they are still basically metal tubes with glass lenses in them. Pistols have improved, but they are still basically magazine fed, semiautomatic firearms using metalic cartridges.

As many changes and improvements as there have been, they are all incremental or evolutionary. IMO, not since the introduction of fully automatic firearms has there really been a revolutionary change in small arms.

 

[Driftertank]

Guided bullets, anyone?

I recall seeing something about the development underway of segmented rounds with...i want to say piezoelectric?...actuators that can move the tip of the bullet in order to "steer" the round onto a target, designated by laser. I recall they were working on a .50 cal. proof-of-concept...but my info may be off, i'm going from memory.

Seems to me, if implemented that would constitute a considerable paradigm shift in projectile small-arms...

 

[GEM]

It's the physics of energy delivery. We've probably maxed out in what you can do in a round that fits into a usable small arm.

Unless you can find another energy system - that's it.

What we might see are:

1. Directed energy weapons - if the power issues can be resolved.
2. Smaller guided rounds for small arms. We are seeing 50 BMG guided rounds. Will better electronics come up with laser seeking or guided 45 ACP sized rounds?

 

[rodregier]

In some ways small arms development parallels innovation in internal combustion engines. IC engines today are not a radical improvement on what was available in say the 1940's, but represent a bunch of design and production refinements. Adding computer controls was a big improvement on the stoichiometric control loop, but didn;t change the underlying power generation principles. In the case of gasoline-operated engines they still are based on air/fuel mixtures being exploded in cylinders to generate motive power.

Until there is a breakthru in the technologies underlying smokeless powder propellants or a superceeding technology I can't see the basic plateau changing.

Stored chemical energy is a pretty efficient way to generate motive power in a small package. We can make rail guns today, but the electric power sources are heavy/enormous.

 

[rajb123]

First Officer Spock from Startrek:

"Look, I found a primitive weapon used by humans in the early part of the 21st century. It has a steel frame and it is designed to burn a powder that creates a gas that pushes a tiny lead pellet down a hollow tube toward the intended target."

"It is VERY VERY primitive, but completely effective!"

 

[GEM]

On Star Trek DS9, they had our type of gun tied to a mini-transporter so you could shoot on the other side of a wall, IIRC - the nerd is with me.

 

[Bubbles]

On Star Trek DS9, they had our type of gun tied to a mini-transporter so you could shoot on the other side of a wall, IIRC - the nerd is with me.

I remember that. IIRC you didn't even have to "aim" at the target, since the transporter could be programmed to align the projectile as needed.

Now that would be a major innovation.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Firearms are like bicycles -- the technology is "mature." Most new developments are in different fields of weaponry -- missiles, electronic warfare, stealth technology and so on.

When you look at personal weapons, there are three major developments on the horizon:

1. Caseless ammunition -- which so far has not panned out.
2. Electric ignition -- which while successful in larger weapons in military applications has not panned out for small arms.
3. Directed energy -- which may never be practical or acceptable for small arms.

 

[ny32182]

I don't see what the big deal about caseless ammo and electronic ignition is... what is an assault rifle with these features going to do significantly better than what an M16 does today?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The point is, they are two of the only three technological advances on the horizon.

That tells us why firearms development has "stagnated."

 

[Cosmoline]

a Savage 99 and a DPMS

It's a good comparison. I've shot both the Savage 99 in .308 and modern AR platforms quite a bit. The difference between them is VASTLY LESS than the distance between a flintlock and the Lebel 86. Indeed I can and have rapid fired .308 from the Savage at a rate on par with an AR-10 platform. Maybe not quite as fast, but darn close. Capacity is less, but the power is of course equal. And each platform has its pluses and minuses. So really what we've seen in the 100 years from the Savage 99 to the DPMS is a greater array of personal choices in frame styles and an improvement of the automatic firing systems. Even if we stick to early Savage chamberings, there were several that were on par with modern cartridges including the .308. One famously exceeded 3,000 fps, and foretold the arrival of the post WWII super high velocity rounds like the .223.

Contrast that with the gulf between a front stuffed flintlock that served at Waterloo and an 8 shot smokeless repeater that held its own at Verdun. The musket shot a crude round ball jammed down on a pile of course black powder. Fun stuff, but terribly inaccurate beyond 75 yards and not even minute of man at 100. The projectile lost almost all its oomph within a few hundred yards. The musket was hand made, too. With no truly interchangeable parts.

Constrast with the Lebel shooting BT spitzer bullets at many times the velocity of any roundball, and orders of magnitude greater accuracy. So its killing range was limited only by the eyes of the shooter. And it hit hard enough to melt through steel plate. And it was mass produced with minor fitting needed and headspacing. Parts could easily be swapped or replaced in the field.

Until there is a breakthru in the technologies underlying smokeless powder propellants or a superceeding technology I can't see the basic plateau changing.

I agree. I think the powder is the key to all of it. The smokeless revolution changed the entire playing field overnight. It freed up designers to do all sorts of things black powder made difficult or impossible. A similar revolution with some kind of new propellant might free us from cases, primers and such. Leaving only bullet and propellant. But that's been easier said than done.

 

[Sam1911]

The difference between them is VASTLY LESS

Sure. And we've explored pretty comprehensively why that is. Right?

As Vern points out, we may be within a decade or two of one or two major breakthroughs that change combat arms completely, but until we move beyond projectile weapons, the technology is pretty mature.