Mike Irwin wrote:
The point you're missing about mounting the motor on the Gatling gun is that it didn't just make the old, tired Gatling better, it created an entire new weapons system that solved a whole slew of issues that were cropping up in the jet age.
And yet it was still based on the same old "tired" concept of the Gatling wasn't it? The same old "tired" concept that most everyone else had thought was obsolete and had no place in modern times. I disagree that it "created an entire new weapons system" when G.E. supposedly "created" the Vulcan cannon and smaller caliber mini-gun. G.E. did not "create" that. Gatling created that WAYYYY back in 1893. Gatling's
electric-powered design received U.S. Patent #502,185
on July 25, 1893
Gatling's 1893 electric powered gun had a cyclic rate of 3000 rds per min.
Yet it laid dormant for over 40 years. Why? Because people didn't think the Gatling had any viable application anymore. Just like you think the primer activation system has no viable application and has lain dormant for almost 90 years now. Those who discounted the Gatling for over 40 years were wrong weren't they Mike? So you should keep an open mind about the primer activation system lest you be equally as wrong. Never say never Mike.
Mike Irwin wrote:
The ability of the Vulcan system to solve those issues by essentially merging the firepower of 10 guns into one package while also addressing issues such as weight, where to put that many guns in a modern fighter, overheating, ammunition storage, is what made the Vulcan system successful.
No Mike, Gatling's invention of the Gatling gun is what made the "Vulcan" system successful,
not the other way around. Gatling created the first so called "Vulcan" system, if we want to call it that.
All a so called "Vulcan" or "mini-gun" system is, is an electric powered Gatling that Dr Gatling did back in 1893. Without Gatling first inventing it, it wouldn't have been here for G.E. to over 40 years later, revisit Dr Gatling's work and do the same as Gatling did in 1893 and put electric motors on them. G.E.'s first tests were done using old original Gatlings that they fitted with electric motors and using those old guns for their initial testing, they got cyclic rates of 4000 rds per minute.
Besides, the Gatling gun was already a former success decades before the G.E. "Vulcan"/"mini" gun. Gatling guns were used all over the world before Maxim came out with his gun. The fact that Gatling spent his money and eventually died in bankruptcy is irrelevant, the Gatling gun of Dr Gatling's time was a huge success at that time. The same recognition due Gatling, will one day be likewise due to Garand and other early experimenters of primer activation systems, when a modern version of a primer activation system gets commercially produced. It won't be solely that future primer activation system that will be responsible for its success, nor will it be the times, or any other excuse one can think of for its success, the reality is, it will be the prior work of Garand and other early experimenters who pioneered the field of primer activation that created
the possibility for any such future success.
Mike Irwin wrote:
Contrasted against that, what problems would the primer activation action solve?.....So, I ask you, compared to the marriage of the Gatling gun to the electric motor, what would the primer activation action give us?....Once again, what inherent advantages does it have that makes it better than other designs that are proven and familiar?
Mike I disagree that a primer activated system is more complicated. I believe it is simpler overall, and with advances in metallurgy and even non metallic components, it can be done even better today than it could be done in 1944 and earlier. To answer your above questions in part,
it requires no gas tube nor piston to have to disassemble and clean, a substantial savings in weight and time spent maintaining.
Even the 1944 Ness article had this to say about the weight savings gain of the primer activated Clarke carbine vs the M1 carbine,:....
"The Clarke action is so small and compact, without any projections, that it places no restrictions whatsoever on the exterior design of the piece, be it a shoulder arm or sub machine gun. Hence, we are not interested in the Clarke carbine or rifle as an arbitrary design. It could be any desired shape or size
with that little unobtrusive action. ....It is significant, however, and interesting to note that
THE CLARKE CARBINE IS LIGHTER IN WEIGHT EVEN WITH ITS MUCH HEAVIER BARREL THAN THE SERVICE CARBINE. ITS ACTION IS 50 PERCENT LIGHTER AND ITS PRIMER THRUST IS NEARLY TWICE AS LONG AS IN PREVIOUS DESIGNS, ENABLING IT TO DO FOUR TIMES THE WORK. THE CLARKE ACTION IS NOT MERELY UNLOCKED, AS WAS THE GARAND, BUT IS COMPLETELY OPERATED BY THE POPPING OF ITS PRIMER."
I believe a primer activated system is (and today can be made even moreso) less complicated than other types of semi auto operating systems. But setting aside the issue of more or less complication for a moment,....the
SUBSTANTIAL weight savings (50% as mentioned in the above Ness article) of a primer activated system, plus the streamlining of the action by omitting a gas tube and piston and their necessary cleaning, that should be enough in itself Mike to answer your questions of "what would a primer activation system solve and give us".
Mike Irwin wrote:
One also needs to think of all of the new and innovative ideas in the firearms field that have been out and out flops. Remington's Elektronix firing system is barely hanging on by a thread despite its incredibly faster "lock times."
The Voere caseless cartridge system is now a footnote in history because no one accepted the "advantage" of the weight savings of shedding the brass case vs. the inability to reload and tailor your loads to best tune your rifle.
The rotating barrel pistol keeps trying to break into the public fold despite the concept having been tested, and abandoned, by none other than John Browning.
Electronic firing systems and caseless ammunition, will come back and have their place in the future of firearms. Just give it time. You think they are "flops" now, and for the time being may be so commercially and militarily, (which is changing militarily as technology advances), but they aren't flops operationally because they work. They will come back in the future and eventually be accepted for civilian firearms since often civilian firearms follows in the footsteps of advances made for military arms. It just takes time and time for stogy thinking to change in people's minds of:..."That thar Browning auto 5, or Remington 1100 or Benelli was good enough for my granddad and dad, and it's good enough fer me". It takes decades for generational thinking to change to accept concepts that people aren't used to. But it will come. Just as the air car, personal flight vehicles, using magnetism will change how people think about transportation. It takes time. Old concepts will always be revisited and those people that weren't aware of its previous existence will always think it is new, when it isn't.
Mike Irwin wrote:
I'd be willing to possibly accept that when compared to a gas operated system, but I have serious, SERIOUS reservations if that would be even remotely true when comparing the primer activated action against something like a Benelli or Beretta short-recoil gun.
"I'd be willing to possibly accept that when compared to a gas operated system". Good, then we at least agree upon that. I can also put your reservations to rest regarding why a primer activated system would be superior to the Benelli short recoil (actually it could be argued it is a delayed blowback, but we won't quibble). Suppose a law enforcement officer were wounded and was only able to use one arm/hand to operate his Benelli? And suppose in doing so he was forced to brace the Benelli's butt against something to help him support and operate it to fire? The Benelli wouldn't operate. Because it cannot be braced and operate. For the Benelli to operate, it requires the action and the whole gun, stock and all, to move rearward under recoil, and is dependent upon the compressibility and move-ability of the shooter's shoulder. Wherein the heavier bolt and spring loaded bolt head, in effect, stays somewhat stationary to a certain extent (but not totally) in mid air, while the rest of the action recoils to the rear. Thus the Benelli cannot operate if its butt is braced against something immovable. As a former State of Florida law enforcement officer myself, I wouldn't want a semi auto shotgun with that fallibility and limitation.
Mike Irwin wrote:
If this supposed mousetrap is so vastly superior to what's currently out there, why hasn't one of the major manufacturer's pushed such a design to market? Why, in the absolutely INCREDIBLE period of civilian firearms development that followed World War II, when the starved American consumer would literally buy anything the companies put in front of them, did they not jump on the primer activation system? Winchester's people would have been the obvious ones to pick it up given how closely Winchester worked with Garand and Springfield Armory in producing the M1.
But they didn't, and I truly believe it's because they knew that a primer activated action offered no real advantages over the other action types that were then in use.
Why? It's not because the system didn't work, we know that it did work. It's because manufacturers are financially driven profit wise instead of being just driven by what works. Manufacturers know that the public at large is slow to accept change and new things, even when they work fine. Manufacturers are bean counters who answer to a board of directors and stockholders regarding profits, not necessarily what works better mechanically, but what is best at that time to generate profits. So, once again...."The builders build what the people will buy, and the people will buy what the builders build".
Mike, I never claimed primer activation would be an instant commercial success profit wise. Because of human's clinging to preconceived concepts of what they like, are used to, and what they perceive as "normal" is what makes that difficult. But I do maintain it is simpler, lighter, and that the concept will come back and be revisited in the future, and eventually people will grow to accept it. Just like they did the Benelli (even with its no bracing limitation).
Concerning the Benelli short recoil (or delayed blowback according to how you look at its action). Guess what? In the Benelli patent on that system guess who is listed as "prior art" in the field? David Marshal "Carbine" Williams. Mike you asked me why in all these years didn't some major manufacturer revisit the primer activation system pioneered by Garand and others? You might ask yourself why did it take more than 60 years for Benelli to revisit and capitalize upon "Carbine" Williams' work in the field that eventually became the Benelli action. Why did it take that long? Simple, because it did.
Because no one was thinking about it for decades and had basically forgotten about it. Same is true of the primer activation system. It will be revisited. When I don't know but it is inevitable. Equally you might ask yourself, why did it take over 40 years for G.E. (or anyone) to revisit Dr Gatling putting an electric motor on a Gatling gun that Gatling had done way back in 1893?
Engineers employed by companies don't have the flexibility and independence of independent engineers. They are employed to work on the company's wants and needs which are driven by profit, not necessarily by what might be better mechanically. And profits are directly affected by what consumers are used to, feel comfortable with, don't want to change to, and companies know this. But that profit driven mentality does not necessarily have anything to do with whether a system works better than another one or not, it just has to do with profit making.
When Roger Bacon was experimenting with fulminate of mercury as a detonator, Mike why did it take so many years for it to become in general usage in percussion caps and finally in cartridge primers? With all the knowledge those firearm manufacturers of that day had, and that knowledge consisting of knowing that fulminate of mercury would unchain them from having to use flintlocks and enable them to use self contained powder "vessels", or chargers or cartridges, then why did it take so many decades for them to come up with cartridges when they already had knowledge for centuries of "beer stein" breech loading cannon, wherein the beer stein breech was basically a self contained cartridge. All they had to do was think about a beer stein loading system that was ductile enough to seal the breech. You asked me why didn't Winchester or some other manufacturer think about and produce a primer activation system, well I ask you why did it take so many decades for those firearm manufacturers of that day to think about the beer stein breech block and then just create one that was made from thin brass that inserted completely into the breech/chamber of a gun to seal the gas. Viola! A cartridge.
Since they already had the fulminate of mercury detonator, why Mike did it take them so many decades to think about that and revisit the beer stein breech block and looking at that, logically come up with the ductile brass cartridges?
I can answer that for you. Simple, because it did. They just didn't think about it right away did they? Or perhaps because they had forgotten about the beer stein breech loading cannons since they had been superseded by muzzle loading iron cannon because of the leaks at the breech of the beer stein cannons since the "beer stein" breech blocks weren't ductile and didn't seal as well. But they eventually came back to the concept didn't they, or else we wouldn't have cartridges today.
It's like Da Vinci said: "Does anything ever get done?" Yes it does Leonardo, it just takes time for people's minds to acclimate to change and for manufacturers to manufacture something when the people's minds are ready for it, and when those manufacturers or some enterprising individual reminds everyone that an old concept that worked a long time ago, is something that should be revisited.
If after everything I have written for your consideration Mike, if you still disagree, then I guess on this primer activation issue, as gentlemen we will just have to agree to disagree
. I would like to leave you with this thought though. Ideas are a living thing. They do not die as long as someone has heard about them or they are written down for someone to find and be reminded of later (sometimes much much later) and then those largely forgotten ideas are revisited (like "Carbine" Williams' work that the Benelli patent referenced as prior art in the field). I would much rather err thinking that ideas that DID work will be revisited when the time is right, than to discount those ideas entirely. When Orville and Wilber were building their plane in their bicycle shop, there were those who said it was an old idea that wouldn't work and had been tried before, and that if it would work someone else would have done it already.
.