What will the next major advance in firearms be?

[mljdeckard]

But Chief, all that is still very much theoretical. We don't even know yet what those rounds or propellants will be.

 

[leadcounsel]

You can bet that civilians won't benefit from 'ray gun' technology. A stroke of the pen will propel use into the next "bow and arrow vs. the firearm" chasm of disadvantage, by making these 'destructive devices.'

We'll be 'stuck' in the dark ages, and government militaries will have super weaponry.

As soon as ballistic armor is light, flexible, and can stop a .300 win mag, we peons are in real trouble from tyranny...

I'd say 50 years, maybe 100 years from now.

Science is decades ahead of where you and I believe it to be.

Think of the declassified projects we learn about today that nobody had a clue about in the 1950s and 60s...

We all dread the apocalypse scenario...but the fact remains that the government which could produce such a scenario has one great weakness...and that is the fact that the government is actually made up of, and run by, members who are part of the population itself.

So, for starters, that means that the military which would be called upon to perform such suppressive actions would actually be composed of men and women who are friends, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins of the people who make up the civilian population being suppressed.

THAT cannot be sustained, and it's been historically proven.

This is not to say we are not to be leery of heavy handed government control and oppressive laws and such, however. But we need to be realistic about it, too.

If open military combat against entrenched home forces operating with guerilla tactics were that clear cut and easy, then a great many military conflicts shouldn't drag on for years, or even decades.

I disagree. We have a military and martial-police force that has demonstrated time and again zero apprehension overall to violating human and civil rights. Bombing targets with known civilian casualties overseas. And kicking in doors, shooting harmless housepets, and putting civilian lives at risk for trivial drug crimes (just google 'no knock' on youtube , etc.), and other tyrannical exercises against non-combatants and civilians.

Soldiers and police, largely, follow orders. We can make-believe that many wont. But one need only watch the nightly news. Recently there was an article of a SWAT team murdering a pet fawn in the Midwest, and a cop murdering by shooting 5 kittens in a civlians' backyard in front of families and kids. I have lost a lot of faith in the individual Soldier or cop to do the right thing.

 

[lloveless]

Check out future weapons on you tube. The military has some really nifty shotgun rounds. Since when have there not been any new developments in the last 100 years?
ll

 

[barnbwt]

"We'll be 'stuck' in the dark ages, and government militaries will have super weaponry."

That ship sailed with the NFA of '34

"As soon as ballistic armor is light, flexible, and can stop a .300 win mag, we peons are in real trouble from tyranny..."
What makes you think the powers that be will still be relying upon human labor to enforce their edicts by then?

"there has been exactly ZERO NEW revelations in the firearms world for over 100 years"
Unless you count lightweight materials, burst fire capability, advanced/quality optics, ergonomic controls, full auto locked breech guns, 1MOA accuracy, non-mercuric and non-corrosive cartridges, lube-free mechanisms, modularity, and CNC production, then yeah, nothing. Oh yeah, and tactics; possibly the biggest advancement of them all

TCB

 

[wturner14]

As with everything else;I think older technology will make a comeback. Wood, blued steel, iron sights. Perhaps single shots and long barrels. Semi autos are fun; but there is nothing like opening a smoking breech and pulling a 3 inch brass hull hull out. As with " hip huggers, every thing comes back in style.

 

[wturner14]

How about a semi auto muzzle loader. That's just dumb. To early in the morning to engage in intelligent conversation.

 

[Cryogaijin]

Science is decades ahead of where you and I believe it to be.

Ahead of where some people think it is. Others have a firm grasp on State of the Art, thanks.

I'd like to adress Directed Energy Weapons for a bit.

To start out with, at present the energy density of the best self-contained batteries on the market (More on the self contained bit later) is about a quarter that of typical powder from the last 50odd years. (Smokeless powder is self-contained: It has its own oxidizer) Thus you need 4x the volume of batteries to equal the energy of a simple SINGLE cart.

Next you have "bloom" which is the atmospheric heating caused by your Directed Energy Weapon (Referred to as a DEW from this point on) Bloom is interesting, as it tends to bend things like laserbeams in ways one wouldn't expect. Further, Bloom occurs from the point of emission of your DEW all the way to the point of termination. This could result in quite the flash-burn for the operator, depending on energy levels. So, to bypass bloom, most DEW programs are using either VERY high power output in VERY short durations. Millisecond durations or less; so little time that the bloom doesn't have a chance to bend your beam too much. The other way is to use a continuous visible beam of lower power for a longer duration. This tends not to work too well due to. . .

Next up we have atmospheric scattering. The more intense the energy, the more the atmosphere is going to want to scatter it. It is somewhat similar to how atmospheric drag is higher on faster projectiles (ish. Simplified for discussion). This means you're likely to flash-blind everyone in the area, even if you're using an IR laser. You can bypass this by issuing IR laser goggles to all your troops, and only blinding the enemy troops.

Then there is the simple beam divergence. The further away your target is, the larger the dot will be when it hits 'em. Add the above factors to this, and energy on DEWs drops FAR faster than on kinetic weapons.

Next up we have the simple function of how DEWs deal damage to the target: They do it via heating. The big issue here is that people are mostly water, and water is one of the materials that requires the greatest energy to heat. Humans are not ideal targets for DEWs.

Then we have the issue of reflective substances. I'm not even talking mirror armor here, I'm talking paint. Since your enemy is going to be using single frequency DEWs so their soldiers can protect their eyes from the atmospheric diffusion, all that is needed is for the enemy troops to match that frequency with a paint of the same color. Oh, and EVERYONE IN THE WORLD already has UV reflective goop easily on hand. (well not everyone, but shine a blacklight on your laundry detergent sometime. . .)

Next we get to emitter efficiency. Laser diodes are in the low to mid double digets in converting electricity to light. There is room to grow, but diodes are by nature low energy. Other forms of lasers are significantly less efficient. All the wasted energy ends up as heat. And there is no convenient brass heatsink to eject each shot as a way of dumping that heat. (Though you could use other heatsinks. Diamond is most likely.)

Finally there is "adverse atmospheric conditions" to consider. Rain, fog, and snow each present differing chalenges to the use of DEWs. Vastly more so than conventional kinetic weapons.

All of the above work together to make "rayguns" a highly unlikely weapon for small arms. However most of the issues above can be mitigated with larger weapons. I could fully see something the formfactor of a vulcan gatling gun being an effective DEW.

 

[Pilot]

Old news -- the Voere rifles have been around a coupla decades.

I thought we were talking about what is most likely for production, not theory.

 

[Cryogaijin]

Anyhow, to continue:

There are mildly better powders on the horizon. The biggest issue is that they're significantly higher pressure.

OTOH, there are batteries on the horizon (Specifically Lithium Air) that are up to 15x as good as the best batteries out now. If we assume the "new" powders double the energy density, Lithium Air batteries will still be double that. The issue here is that they need to be able to breathe, so the question is how much they can discharge at once with normal airflow.

Now Lasers and plasma weapons (The DEWs above) are NOT the only "future tech" weapon on the horizon. Rail and coil/gauss guns suffer from the same energy density issues as DEWs do, but don't suffer from the other issues. They're a VERY likely middleground, especially if someone manages to make a lithium air battery with the right characteristics. Railguns have the issue of burning out their rails, and until the is solved they'll never be practical. Coil and gauss guns seem to be more of a labratory oddity than field practical, though who knows with enough research.

Where "future tech" weapons really shine is in the less lethal realm. There are current trials going for a microwave beam weapon that causes no physical damage, but great pain in the people it hits. Being tested for riot control.

There are also trials being consucted on using low power lasers to ionize air providing conduction channels for a tazer zap. Modulate the frequenzy of the zap and you have a good chance of knocking out the computer of a car or aircraft. . . without the pesky wires.

 

[Sam1911]

<The discussion topic here is future technological advances in firearms design. Not your favorite gloomy-doomy Chicken Little predictions about the imminent collapse of freedom in the US of A. Let's try to keep this on topic. Many thanks.>

 

[we are not amused]

There are also trials being consucted on using low power lasers to ionize air providing conduction channels for a tazer zap.

Sounds like the Star Trek phaser set to stun.

I had been thinking about such a device for a while, any information publicly available for it?

Okay...! Did a little googling and found some information in Wikipedia about Electrolaser.

Sounds interesting, and that my wild daydreams might not be all that wild![/I]

 

[Tcruse]

Saboted ammo with fins that have laser seekers for weapons mounted lasers. First will be seen on 50 cal handguns.

Miniature cameras on guns so the fabled 'good shoot' will be documented. Camera and sound comes on at the draw.

A doubled barrel shotgun with one barrel bent up at 90 degrees so you can shoot one in the air and then one through the door.

Yes, VP Biden would think that would support that idea.

 

[AKElroy]

I think some of the best designs I could have hoped for have come out in the last year or two. The KelTec KSG is on the top of my must-have list, assuming the crazy pricing / high demand get more under control. Not dropping $1200 on it. Sure want it, though----

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=359289818

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But Chief, all that is still very much theoretical. We don't even know yet what those rounds or propellants will be.

Not true...guns which fire caseless ammunition have been around for quite a while. However, for military use as a personal field combat weapon, it does have some issues which have yet to have solutions engineered to compensate for, which barnbwt so graciously pointed out in post 49.

There are a variety of solutions being looked into. The issue with "cooking off" of caseless ammunition, for example, can be mitigated by using a different propellent, with either a higher ignition temperature or which isn't ignited by heat.

The ability to clear a misfire for a caseless weapon might be approached by a different design which makes this easier...though there will likely still be and ease-and-speed tradeoff with conventional weapons. We'll have to wait and see.

Heat dissipation is a very serious concern, also brought up by barnbwt. I'm sure if you own a firearm, like a pistol, and have put a hundred or more rounds through it in a short period of time, you've noticed how toasty it became. No metallic case for the ammunition means no metallic case to carry away a significant amount of heat when it's ejected. This, too, might be somewhat mitigated through engineering. Some methods already exist (such as water cooled barrels and gatling gun designs with multiple barrels). Other innovative designs, and materials, might go a long way in providing a solution.

It might be that such weapons might not be practical for military use on a personal weapon basis. They might be more suitable for lower rate of fire weapons, or larger combat weapons that allow for more robust designs.

Heck...the 16"/50 caliber big guns on the Iowa class battleships were fine examples of caseless guns. They just ain't very practical for field use by the soldier!

 

[Cryogaijin]

Heck...the 16"/50 caliber big guns on the Iowa class battleships were fine examples of caseless guns. They just ain't very practical for field use by the soldier!

Very true. It is important to remember that many things do not scale up, and many things do not scale down. In my discussion of DEWs above, all of the energy density concerns go away when you can use a small, efficient diesel generator as your power source.

 

[justice06rr]

Many of the "futuristic" guns we see in movies like the EM Gun in 'Eraser', or the tracking guns in 'GI Joe' etc would be my vote to be made. They present some very unique challenges though with the physics required, and the cost to sell them would be enormous.

 

[horsemen61]

Bullets that process the game for you all wrapped up ready for the freezer .

 

[barnbwt]

"The issue with "cooking off" of caseless ammunition, for example, can be mitigated by using a different propellent, with either a higher ignition temperature or which isn't ignited by heat."
If chemistry is what occurs, and all the components for the reaction are present, there is not way heat cannot ignite it. Raising the temperature of ignition above an operating threshold (say, the detempering limit) would make the cook off problem a non-issue, but super-duper primers would be needed to ignite the propellant, or electrical systems nearly as powerful as the Directed Energy Weapons themselves .

"No metallic case for the ammunition means no metallic case to carry away a significant amount of heat when it's ejected. This, too, might be somewhat mitigated through engineering. Some methods already exist (such as water cooled barrels and gatling gun designs with multiple barrels)."
Man, I sure hope water jackets and multiple barrels aren't the future of firearms. Sounds like a step backward, if not two . The lack of a metallic barrier/sink to protect the action from combustion heat transfer is a fundamental drawback of the caseless design that cannot be outsmarted without defeating the laws of thermodynamics (though we're trying, I'm sure )

A thought occurred to me about the discussion on increasing energy density in batteries possibly being the route to their ascendance. If batteries even begin to get as energy dense as gunpowder, or even gasoline, they will become increasingly dangerous to be around. Unlike your cartridges, little parceled-out chunks of propellant in a vessel that protects them from ignition and also ruptures easily to release pressure if not chambered, a battery is a (relatively) contiguous lump of potential energy. It's be like having all your rounds connected by a fuse, and relying on the gun's mechanics to snip the cable between them after every shot. If anything goes wrong, the energy is released. If the gun is damaged, the energy is released. Energy is energy, and whether it's voltage or heat won't matter too much because either will burn or blow you up in an instant at the levels found in gunpowder. This fact gives me pause when I hear about fancy new Lithium Air batteries that hold 15X the juice of LiPos that already have a nasty reputation for starting fires, exploding, and downing aircraft . Forget guns, do even want a cell phone in your pocket running off something like that?

Instead of developing fancy rayguns and super-powders, why don't they just figure out how to use dynamite or fission/fusion in a gun safely . It's basically the same thing past a certain point. Shoot a deer and belt it with gamma rays at the same time

TCB

 

[Njal Thorgeirsson]

The military drives a lot of innovation. Primarily, modern military arms value efficiency. Greatest power/effectiveness for the lowest cost. So I think the most likely advances will revolve around production price.

This means that things like caseless ammunition and advanced projectiles (perhaps bullets with a polymer component or something) would be high on the priority list. Caseless ammo (on a large scale) probably doesn't cost any more to produce than just the powder+primer+bullet of a traditional cartridge. Not to mention its smaller, lighter, and probably has some functional advantages in a firearm over traditional brass-cased cartridges. I don't see magnet-propelled small arms taking off any time in the next century. The battery tech just isn't anywhere near ready, not to mention it doesn't really have too many advantages over traditional firearms.

Although not a major advance, i think a major change coming to firearms (in the next century) is electronic firing.

 

[BigBore44]

Now seriously, how do I follow posts like Cryo, barn, and Chief? But I'll give it a try.

I think it's not going to be as much of a firearms breakthrough as it will a camouflage breakthrough. The ability to not just blend with surroundings, but to actually mimic. A reflective camouflage that no matter what angle it's viewed from matches everything around it. I have seen this on cars. You can actually buy. Try googling "invisible car". It's a Mercedes. Pretty amazing.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

If chemistry is what occurs, and all the components for the reaction are present, there is not way heat cannot ignite it. Raising the temperature of ignition above an operating threshold (say, the detempering limit) would make the cook off problem a non-issue, but super-duper primers would be needed to ignite the propellant, or electrical systems nearly as powerful as the Directed Energy Weapons themselves .

TCB

Ah, but there are fine examples of explosives which are not detonated by heat...in fact, they can be tossed in a fire and burn without any explosive yield whatsoever!



Using those particular types of explosives in a firearm, however, is definately NOT an option because they're too violent for such use. But the chemical technology which produced such ignition characteristics can be adapted, I'm sure.

I think the problem here, though, is in trying to radically improve a firearms technology centered around launching a metallic projectile from small arms. It's already been refined to the structural limits of the materials we build them from to the point where further practical improvements have reached the point of diminishing returns.

This means if we really want to radically improve their overall performance, we need a paradigm change in how such a weapon operates and what the expected end result is.

As Cryogaijin said: "many things do not scale up, and many things do not scale down".

High density power sources are, indeed, necessary to produce an effective sidearm. Gunpowder, and chemical varients of it over the centuries, has provided that source of power directly through localized heat producing chemical reactions confined to the firing chamber. Using alternate means, such as an electrically powered rail gun, introduces other factors which affect efficiency and yet still produce heat as a byproduct (which is total waste because that heat itself isn't utilized to propel the projectile).

Anybody who's had a cell short out in a car battery has an idea how dangerous having a high powered electrical storage device can be. Heck, Sony had a huge laptop battery recall not all that long ago because they were causing laptop fires.

BigBore44 probably most realistically hit the nail on the head with respect to the most radical sidearm improvements that could be made:

"I think it's not going to be as much of a firearms breakthrough as it will a camouflage breakthrough. The ability to not just blend with surroundings, but to actually mimic."

 

[Ashcons]

I'd like to think that with computers available like the Raspberry Pi, we'll see some DIY projects using digital cameras, laser rangefinding, pressure sensors, batteries, ballistics software, etc. making some pretty cool, if bulky (optics/sensor cluster on the gun, computers, power source, other stuff as a wearable system), targeting systems available for fun on the range. Throw in 3D printing system improvements and you could put the optics/sensor cluster in a nice case with silicone sealing with plans on the Internet and just about anyone could build their own relatively cheaply and without extensive expertise. I know a lot of purists would scoff at that sort of thing.

As far as commercial improvements go, I don't know. I'd say electrical ignition systems could be viable, but who would want to buy a gun that requires batteries? If it did happen and gained steam, it would require almost require a new industry to pop up - sounds like far more risk than reward for the private market, so I don't imagine it happening.

Between 3D printing systems and a growing base of people tinkering in the Internet of Things, we're going to see some improvements coming out of garages, basements, and shared at large through the Internet.

 

[BigBore44]

Chief,
That's quite a compliment. Thank you sir.

 

[Comrade Mike]

As long as no one makes reloading obsolete.

 

[Black Butte]

Liberals are working hard to bring you the mandatory signature gun that also microstamps cartridges upon firing. Rumor has it the gun will additionally recite auditory safety warnings with every pull of the trigger. Worth every penny!