The big break through was the AK followed by the AR then followed by hybridizing the AK action to the AR making it virtually trouble free. The SCAR seemed to have promise but for what ever reason it was short lived. So the Question arises what will be the next break through in weapon technology? Just kind of brain storming right now. And If not what would you like to see in the next generation of weapons weather it be pistol rifle or shotgun.
The Next Generation of weapons.....
- Thread starter TNT
- Start date
It's going to be a lot like what we have now, just with more plastic.
Look at the LSAT project. The Army is working on plastic cased telescoped rounds, and they apparently work pretty well. They are also working on caseless rounds, but they aren't as far along.
Also, blah blah blah lasers and death rays.
Look at the LSAT project. The Army is working on plastic cased telescoped rounds, and they apparently work pretty well. They are also working on caseless rounds, but they aren't as far along.
Also, blah blah blah lasers and death rays.
I would not be surprised to see either a "smart" bullet that is guided to target (I vaugley recall reading about a DARPA project for a "guided" sniper bullet, or a "smart gun that will when in auto mode will only shoot when there is a target that would be hit. you would "wave" the barrel of the gun towards the target with your finger pulling the trigger the whole time but the gun would only discharge when there is a "valid" target that would be hit by the round loaded in the gun. The validity of the target would be confirmed by multiple sensors (optical recognition, thermal, microwave radar, infared etc...) The gun could fire semi auto or full auto and of course would not be perfect, not every shot would hit but it would be a very high hit ratio.
I am talking about maybe 10 years to never for this to occur.
Nukemjim
I am talking about maybe 10 years to never for this to occur.
Nukemjim
FrankenMauser
New member
The future of weapon development has already been decided.
Among other things, the Zorg ZF-1 performs amazingly like the description above (NukemJim's post).
On a more serious note...
I don't think anything currently on the table will be a "breakthrough". I think the next breakthrough weapons will be using electromagnetism: Hand-held 'rail guns'. They would, decidedly, be a "deadly weapon", but don't fit the definition of a 'firearm'. Let's just hope they don't get a "WMD" classification.
A weapon with no muzzle blast, minimal noise, few (or zero) moving parts, and only electricity to worry about, would be very nice to have. And, of course, accuracy would probably be impressive.
Among other things, the Zorg ZF-1 performs amazingly like the description above (NukemJim's post).
On a more serious note...
I don't think anything currently on the table will be a "breakthrough". I think the next breakthrough weapons will be using electromagnetism: Hand-held 'rail guns'. They would, decidedly, be a "deadly weapon", but don't fit the definition of a 'firearm'. Let's just hope they don't get a "WMD" classification.
A weapon with no muzzle blast, minimal noise, few (or zero) moving parts, and only electricity to worry about, would be very nice to have. And, of course, accuracy would probably be impressive.
The innovation might not be with the firearms but with who or what carries the firearms. The military is doing so well with pilotless airplanes (drones) I wonder if small remote controlled ground vehicles taking the place of infantry men (sorry - infantry persons) aren’t in the near future.
Boots on the ground will still be doing the work not sure f they will ever take that away and I was just curious what the next biggest innovation in guns will be. I know component weapons are in so maybe the ease of tearing them down and putting them back together again. Simplifying the process, not sure how much simpler it can be but I am sure some where there is a New John Browning some where that is redesigning the way we think of weapons as we speak
There has always been attempts to eliminate the need for soldiers in American service, although it usually doesn't work out in practice. We try to replace people with technology. Our recent enemies, not generally as dumb as we like to imagine, does not do that and seem to have been as successful as we ever have been. Overall, I'd say we've placed too much faith in technology to replace the need for people and not just the infantry. That isn't to say there is no need for technology by any means, however.
As far a weapons development, I would agree that development tends to be evolutionary over revolutionary, especially in the area of small arms. Once in a while along comes someone who is a brilliant designer and produces something really remarkable, yet almost never something that makes everything else obsolete. The Colt 1911 Government Model as designed by Browning would have to be called remarkable, yet the older and much more complicated Luger remained in production for almost another 30 years and in service in some places for another 15 or more years even after it went out of production. Come to think of it, you might say the same thing about the Colt because the army never bought any after the war, or so I understand.
The AK-47 is another good example, yet it hardly replaced everything or made everything else obsolete and other than those who used Eastern Bloc equipment (because that's where they were), only the very confident copied it and made their own versions. But nevertheless, the AK-47 is a benchmark of advances in weaponry.
Other advances are less appreciated and I'd have to say that the use of plastics, mostly in place of wood, is probably the most under appreciated but best known and perhaps the most controversial. Even the British eventually switched to plastic for the SLR before it was replaced with the SA-80/L85. Even in WWII, the Germans tried to replace natural wood for their rifles, eventually deciding that what was basically plywood wasn't so bad after all.
Other evolutionary advances worth noting are probably finishes and certain details not yet universal, like chrome linings in barrels. Other things not yet evolved but for which a lot of potential exists is in the area of ammunition but there certainly is a lot of different opinions about what small arms ammunition, not to mention the weapons, should be able to do.
As far a weapons development, I would agree that development tends to be evolutionary over revolutionary, especially in the area of small arms. Once in a while along comes someone who is a brilliant designer and produces something really remarkable, yet almost never something that makes everything else obsolete. The Colt 1911 Government Model as designed by Browning would have to be called remarkable, yet the older and much more complicated Luger remained in production for almost another 30 years and in service in some places for another 15 or more years even after it went out of production. Come to think of it, you might say the same thing about the Colt because the army never bought any after the war, or so I understand.
The AK-47 is another good example, yet it hardly replaced everything or made everything else obsolete and other than those who used Eastern Bloc equipment (because that's where they were), only the very confident copied it and made their own versions. But nevertheless, the AK-47 is a benchmark of advances in weaponry.
Other advances are less appreciated and I'd have to say that the use of plastics, mostly in place of wood, is probably the most under appreciated but best known and perhaps the most controversial. Even the British eventually switched to plastic for the SLR before it was replaced with the SA-80/L85. Even in WWII, the Germans tried to replace natural wood for their rifles, eventually deciding that what was basically plywood wasn't so bad after all.
Other evolutionary advances worth noting are probably finishes and certain details not yet universal, like chrome linings in barrels. Other things not yet evolved but for which a lot of potential exists is in the area of ammunition but there certainly is a lot of different opinions about what small arms ammunition, not to mention the weapons, should be able to do.
Do you guys realize, that more than a hundred years after we started producing electricity to light, heat and cool homes...we still plug things into a wall socket, male and female connections, just as we did from the get go?
I mean, we've been to the moon, right? And we have instantaneous communication with anywhere in the world. So why don't we have some innovative new method for plugging in stuff?
Same with guns...we're still using what are essentially percussion caps to set off a volume of powder, which goes pow! and sends on down the line, a projectile.
Every day, I get up out of bed, do my many chores, and then lie in wait for the mailman...
To put in my mailbox a letter, a magazine, something that tells me of the fulfilment of the promise of the electrically fired gun I've been seeing on and off for years.
Batteries last for years in high grade red dot sights. Where is my electrical gun? I've got soldering guns that use batteries. Where is my electrical gun? My grandkids have water guns that use batteries. Where is my electrical gun?
I mean, we've been to the moon, right? And we have instantaneous communication with anywhere in the world. So why don't we have some innovative new method for plugging in stuff?
Same with guns...we're still using what are essentially percussion caps to set off a volume of powder, which goes pow! and sends on down the line, a projectile.
Every day, I get up out of bed, do my many chores, and then lie in wait for the mailman...
To put in my mailbox a letter, a magazine, something that tells me of the fulfilment of the promise of the electrically fired gun I've been seeing on and off for years.
Batteries last for years in high grade red dot sights. Where is my electrical gun? I've got soldering guns that use batteries. Where is my electrical gun? My grandkids have water guns that use batteries. Where is my electrical gun?
Basically every mechanical locking, feeding, firing mechanism for automatic firearms was invented in the 1890's.
Since then all has been refinement with the lesser features being weeded out. Examples of lesser features being things like direct impingement and oilers.
If you look at action designs the greatest change since the 50's has been in material technology, specifically the use of plastics.
The basic problem will all small arms is the case. The Germans came up with a caseless design, almost fielded it, but that idea is over.
Until someone comes up with a new cartridge, such as liquid propellants, phasers, plasma guns, the next generation guns will be a long time coming.
To change inventory it takes more than a 10% improvement in lethality to justify spending the money to replace what we current have.
Since then all has been refinement with the lesser features being weeded out. Examples of lesser features being things like direct impingement and oilers.
If you look at action designs the greatest change since the 50's has been in material technology, specifically the use of plastics.
The basic problem will all small arms is the case. The Germans came up with a caseless design, almost fielded it, but that idea is over.
Until someone comes up with a new cartridge, such as liquid propellants, phasers, plasma guns, the next generation guns will be a long time coming.
To change inventory it takes more than a 10% improvement in lethality to justify spending the money to replace what we current have.
Having served as an Ordnance Officer, I have thought long and hard about the next generation of Small Arms.
The major consideration is Cost, cube and lethality.
1. Caseless ammo will be the next step. The cost of metal will be the driver.
2. Pollution from the bullet. Metal bullets will be replaced with a ceramic. They are harder than metal and do not pollute the runoff water from ranges.
3. Packaging is a major issue. The bullets will be packaged in a plastic magazine. The top will be removed the spring activated when the magazine is inserted into the weapon. This will also protect the "delicate" nature of the caseless ammo. Magazine Pouches probably be designed to remove the top closure when the soldier removes the mag from the pouch.
4. Smart bullets and exploding rounds will be limited to grenades. The current 40mm will be replaced by a low velocity round in the 10 to 12 gauge range. They will have the ability to fly around corners or air burst after they clear a barricade (above or through). Simliar to the effect of quick or superquick fuzes. Mortar and Artillery folk will remember those settings.
5. The rifle will look something like the weapons used in the Alien movies.
6. The smart bullets will have the ability to identify the target by a body signature and will follow the target until it hits. This round will be launched and an internal rocket will ignite and propell it to the target. Issue will be limited to Spec Opertators for specific missions.
Please feel free to respond on thses thoughts.
The major consideration is Cost, cube and lethality.
1. Caseless ammo will be the next step. The cost of metal will be the driver.
2. Pollution from the bullet. Metal bullets will be replaced with a ceramic. They are harder than metal and do not pollute the runoff water from ranges.
3. Packaging is a major issue. The bullets will be packaged in a plastic magazine. The top will be removed the spring activated when the magazine is inserted into the weapon. This will also protect the "delicate" nature of the caseless ammo. Magazine Pouches probably be designed to remove the top closure when the soldier removes the mag from the pouch.
4. Smart bullets and exploding rounds will be limited to grenades. The current 40mm will be replaced by a low velocity round in the 10 to 12 gauge range. They will have the ability to fly around corners or air burst after they clear a barricade (above or through). Simliar to the effect of quick or superquick fuzes. Mortar and Artillery folk will remember those settings.
5. The rifle will look something like the weapons used in the Alien movies.
6. The smart bullets will have the ability to identify the target by a body signature and will follow the target until it hits. This round will be launched and an internal rocket will ignite and propell it to the target. Issue will be limited to Spec Opertators for specific missions.
Please feel free to respond on thses thoughts.
Glad to engage in a debate of ideas.
I would disagree, the main problem with caseless ammo is that any savings in metal is more than offset by the increased cost of the manufacture and raw materials of the caseless ammunition.
The cost problem has been effectively solved by the use of steel cased and steel core'd ammo, as the metal prices below show.
October prices per ton:
Carbon Steel: $800
Copper: $7,040
Zinc: $1,734
Lead: $1,792
Aluminum: $1,920
Steel cased ammo is simply too cheap to make caseless ammunition economically viable, though it can always be a choice because of space or weight reasons, though I think those situations are few and far between, The Soviets put a 23mm cannon on their spy space station and even that used cased ammunition.
I would argue that the pollution threat is greatly exaggerated and on the list of "things we need to worry about as a society" is somewhere around, "are we eating too much garlic." It's an issue, but not one that is especially difficult to solve.
As for ceramic, no way that is happening. Ceramic is brittle and won't stand the force of firing down a rifled barrel and your barrel wouldn't last an entire magazine. They have been trying to get ceramics durable enough for engines and even for that task they can't get it to work.
Since I don't think caseless ammo is gonna be coming, there's nothing I can really debate about on this one.
They tried that with the XM-25 and found that even limited to only a compact impact fuse, the 20mm grenade was not lethal enough to reliably incapacitate infantry. Sure, if you have 25 of them incoming, like with an airplane cannon, then it certainly can do some nasty stuff.
They could certainly do that sort of stuff with the 40mm grenades though, except for the flying around part. The guidance and propulsion systems couldn't be shrunk down far enough and even then there wouldn't be any reasonable way to control or detonate it where/when you wanted it.
Could be.
You've been watching the movie "Runaway", haven't you? (Don't be afraid, it was actually a decent movie.)
First off, there's no way to fit a camera or sensor into something even closely resembling a rifle bullet that has the resolution to identify an individual at range. Basic physics in regards to optics puts the kibosh on that idea right away. You MIGHT be able to fit a camera into a 40mm, but the best it could do is be told to "kill that blob over there" and the guidance system would take up so much space there wouldn't be space left for explosive.
Thanks for the thoughts, hope we can get some good discussion going.
StrongSideArmsInc
New member
I think one thing that most tend not to consider when brainstorming a question like this is, MONEY. When it comes to military arms and equipment, one must not throw way the notion of politics and money. An example of this would be the invention of AM radio, most people don't know that FM radio was invented three years after AM. But FM never was released for another 20 years. The same company owned both technologies. Politics included, when you look at many different designs around Stoners AR15, many excellent more reliable (at the time) designs were being made. However, Colt has and had lobbying power when it came to military contracts. Did you know the very first lite bulb is still burning? Edisons design was never intended to go bad, why do all lite bulbs go bad, simple, MONEY.
Weigh your conclusions carryfully when pondering such questions.
Weigh your conclusions carryfully when pondering such questions.
InigoMontoya
New member
A few thoughts....
1) Work has already begun on "land-based drones." One that has already been fielded is the Talon but you can bet that other, more capable systems are in the works. Imagine an ATV with a turret that contains a weapons and sensor package. Not to say that such a system would replace large quantities of soldiers. Think of it more as a sentry that will rove the perimeter and never get tired.
2) Guidance packages for 40 mm grenades. Not hard to imagine at all. In fact, the Navy tried to develop a 40 mm diameter fire-and-forget missile. They had some issues and grew the diameter a bit (the result was Spike) but the tech has done nothing but get better in the 10ish years since the Spike program had to commit to a body diameter. The next time they try it, the tech will almost certainly be ready.
1) Work has already begun on "land-based drones." One that has already been fielded is the Talon but you can bet that other, more capable systems are in the works. Imagine an ATV with a turret that contains a weapons and sensor package. Not to say that such a system would replace large quantities of soldiers. Think of it more as a sentry that will rove the perimeter and never get tired.
2) Guidance packages for 40 mm grenades. Not hard to imagine at all. In fact, the Navy tried to develop a 40 mm diameter fire-and-forget missile. They had some issues and grew the diameter a bit (the result was Spike) but the tech has done nothing but get better in the 10ish years since the Spike program had to commit to a body diameter. The next time they try it, the tech will almost certainly be ready.
Last edited:
i agree with sahagan, alot of weapons are just more dressed up now. i remember seeing some sort of anti-aircraft weapon that could fire a million bullets at once ( sounding like a farting noise kinda...).
I mean whats the point? Imagine a military buying ten of those. They would bankrupt themselves in a few hours.
I think future weapons will be definetely more plastic but especially cost effective, countries everywhere are either implementing or speaking about austerity so to keep weapons they will have to mass produce cheaper, equally robust firearms.
so maybe it will be like certain cardboard boxes but the rifle will say ''made from 50% heinz beans tins'' and the soldiers can go ' ah, see, it's reducing my carbon footprint AND it spreads freedom.''
I mean whats the point? Imagine a military buying ten of those. They would bankrupt themselves in a few hours.
I think future weapons will be definetely more plastic but especially cost effective, countries everywhere are either implementing or speaking about austerity so to keep weapons they will have to mass produce cheaper, equally robust firearms.
so maybe it will be like certain cardboard boxes but the rifle will say ''made from 50% heinz beans tins'' and the soldiers can go ' ah, see, it's reducing my carbon footprint AND it spreads freedom.''
I think you will see vast improvements in body armor before you see any real change in weaponry design. Only after body armor (or some equivalent) makes lead projectiles obsolete for rapidly delivering destructive energy to flesh will you see the next generation of weaponry. Right now, there is simply no need for anything more effective than firearms for the job that they do. Not much can defeat a high powered rifle with steel-core ammo.
In the interest of money and weight
Polymer!
Polymer slides with all contact/impact parts being steel. I think the barrels would still be steel. Perhaps the polymer could be impregnated with elements giving them some metallic qualities for heat dissipation and resistance or whatnot.
But the bulk of slides for Semi-auto pistols could probably be made of polymer. Unless I'm mistaken it's the chamber and the barrel that takes most of the pressure.
If it works, a slide could last indefinitely and the small contact metal parts could be replaced if/when needed - much like polymer frames we have today.
Maybe this doesn't count as a next whole "generation" but it would be an advance in technology. Weight reduction would be big benefit and we're not talkin just a couple ounces.
Polymer!
Polymer slides with all contact/impact parts being steel. I think the barrels would still be steel. Perhaps the polymer could be impregnated with elements giving them some metallic qualities for heat dissipation and resistance or whatnot.
But the bulk of slides for Semi-auto pistols could probably be made of polymer. Unless I'm mistaken it's the chamber and the barrel that takes most of the pressure.
If it works, a slide could last indefinitely and the small contact metal parts could be replaced if/when needed - much like polymer frames we have today.
Maybe this doesn't count as a next whole "generation" but it would be an advance in technology. Weight reduction would be big benefit and we're not talkin just a couple ounces.
They would bankrupt themselves in a few hours? That was first uttered when Maxim and Hotchkiss were trying to sell their wares, well over a hundred years ago.
Many things mentioned here aren't such bad ideas, like ceramic bullets. They aren't necessarily all that fragile and a coating of some sort would solve the barrel wear problem. Something along the lines of a brass ring like is used on artillery projectiles. But some traditional tube artillery uses up barrels at alarming rates.
On the other hand, some ideas that have been tried out just do seem to have the great advantages they claim. Guns that fire around corners? Television cameras (for looking around corners, of course) for individual soldiers? Grenade launchers? Well, we've been using those for over 40 years but heavens, don't make them any smaller. And don't attach it to my ultra-lite rifle.
Come now! Is the very first light bulb still burning? Edison had to try everything he could think of before he got one that didn't burn out quickly. At any rate, I don't think I could fill up the tank on my car on what we spend on light bulbs in a year.
Many things mentioned here aren't such bad ideas, like ceramic bullets. They aren't necessarily all that fragile and a coating of some sort would solve the barrel wear problem. Something along the lines of a brass ring like is used on artillery projectiles. But some traditional tube artillery uses up barrels at alarming rates.
On the other hand, some ideas that have been tried out just do seem to have the great advantages they claim. Guns that fire around corners? Television cameras (for looking around corners, of course) for individual soldiers? Grenade launchers? Well, we've been using those for over 40 years but heavens, don't make them any smaller. And don't attach it to my ultra-lite rifle.
Come now! Is the very first light bulb still burning? Edison had to try everything he could think of before he got one that didn't burn out quickly. At any rate, I don't think I could fill up the tank on my car on what we spend on light bulbs in a year.
Everybody loves the idea of bullets that steer themselves to the target. Trouble is that even forseeable future technology won't be able to make that happen in something as small and fast as a bullet.
Anti tank missiles and AA missles can steer, a bit, but nothing much smaller can be made to do so, and nothing without its own propellant system and some kind of steering mechanism (like fins) can overcome inertia and change directions.
The "bullets" used in the movie Runaway were actually tiny little rockets, and while we could make something like this today, there are all kinds of tactical drawbacks, not to mention the cost/effectivness.
Besides use of plastics/polymers, the most likely "evolution" is the smart gun technology being sought by many. A gun that an enemy, or a child could not fire is not a bad thing. However, a gun that YOU cannot fire (because it does not recognize you as "authorized") is not. This is the main drawback to this concept, the failure rate of the recognition system, (it may only happen once in 10,000, but if that once is in a life threatening situation, you're SOL), AND the hidden "unintended consequence" of smart gun tech, the fact that once we have it working "acceptably", controlling govts will outlaw regular guns, as being too "unsafe".
Anti tank missiles and AA missles can steer, a bit, but nothing much smaller can be made to do so, and nothing without its own propellant system and some kind of steering mechanism (like fins) can overcome inertia and change directions.
The "bullets" used in the movie Runaway were actually tiny little rockets, and while we could make something like this today, there are all kinds of tactical drawbacks, not to mention the cost/effectivness.
Besides use of plastics/polymers, the most likely "evolution" is the smart gun technology being sought by many. A gun that an enemy, or a child could not fire is not a bad thing. However, a gun that YOU cannot fire (because it does not recognize you as "authorized") is not. This is the main drawback to this concept, the failure rate of the recognition system, (it may only happen once in 10,000, but if that once is in a life threatening situation, you're SOL), AND the hidden "unintended consequence" of smart gun tech, the fact that once we have it working "acceptably", controlling govts will outlaw regular guns, as being too "unsafe".
At the time that was actually somewhat true given the ammunition manufacturing technology available. Then add in the logistics cost of moving that ammunition. Ammunition manufacturing improved to the point that it wasn't as much a problem. Not to mention that it was true for the Soviets for Afghanistan, true for the US in Vietnam, and is proving to be the case for the US in the middle east today.
I mean think about it, how many $100,000 missiles can you shoot at $500 pickups before you start to feel the economic consequences? Do you really think they are going to run out of pickups before you run out of missiles? "Superiority" by Arthur C. Clarke is a nice short story on this topic.