aarondhgraham
New member
Oops!
Duplicate post,,,
.
Duplicate post,,,
.
What's the next big thing for firearms?
- Thread starter FrosSsT
- Start date
I don't think we'll run out of metal that soon. But that doesn't mean there couldn't be developments in caseless ammo. That is, successful and practical advances. The problem is, coming up with something that's really an advance.
I was just thinking about tank ammunition. A 120-mm gun uses a base like a shotgun shell and long priming rod that goes up into the rest of the load. The rest of the case, which looks for all the world like a piece of plastic plumbing pipe (it's even white) necked down at the end to hold the projectile. The problem is in the handling. The tank gun is a single loading, semi-automatic gun. It's loaded by hand, with gloves (but not white gloves). The best application for a sporting arm would be shotgun ammunition. But a shotgun shell is already made of either paper or plastic above the brass base. We certainly aren't going to run out of paper or plastic. For smaller bore weapons, you run into a space problem, that being the thickness of the case wall. True, a .410 shotgun shell is no bigger than a .45 but it's on the long size.
Just thinking out loud on those points.
I was just thinking about tank ammunition. A 120-mm gun uses a base like a shotgun shell and long priming rod that goes up into the rest of the load. The rest of the case, which looks for all the world like a piece of plastic plumbing pipe (it's even white) necked down at the end to hold the projectile. The problem is in the handling. The tank gun is a single loading, semi-automatic gun. It's loaded by hand, with gloves (but not white gloves). The best application for a sporting arm would be shotgun ammunition. But a shotgun shell is already made of either paper or plastic above the brass base. We certainly aren't going to run out of paper or plastic. For smaller bore weapons, you run into a space problem, that being the thickness of the case wall. True, a .410 shotgun shell is no bigger than a .45 but it's on the long size.
Just thinking out loud on those points.
No intent to turn this thread political,but the next thing in firearms may be defined by whatever restrictions come out of Wash DC.
Someone will look at what we have left to work with and do the best they can.
I suspect ammo will be far more expensive.And ,some suppliers may shut down.The new Health care laws will influence the cost of having an employee and the cost of production,as will higher taxes.We may see doors close.
A lot of us will have less for disposable "play" funds.Cost per shot will be more important.We have already crossed $1+ per round ,in some cases $2+ per round,for factory loads.
When surplus 5.56 was 2 to 3 cents per round(early /mid 70's) burning off a 30 mag to make dust was great fun and "going shooting" meant several hundred rounds of centerfire.
Now,even shooting an AR,I squeeze one round at a time.As a kid,I would go out "hunting" with 2 or 3 20 ga shells.
If ammo gets to be $4 a shot,who will be able to afford to burn a $120 30 rd mag?Right now,we are having fun with semi-autos.How much time will they spend in the safe if shooting 4 magazines costs $480 ? So,IMO,folks may return to the fun of a single shot .22.
Dueling tree with a matched pair of pink Cricketts and a brick of 22s.Ritz cracker shoots,or lollypops might surge over 3 gun matches.
It just might be that the brass friendly single shot may make a comeback.
For that matter,so might the flintlock.
We might play with .22s a lot more.Maybe the 50 ft smallbore range will be more popular.
We may lose more places to shoot,such as lead or shooting restrictions on public lands via the EPA.
If that occurs,places to reach out with a .338 Lapua or 50 BMG might become rare.
Pardon me for being dismal,but the current spike in firearms trade is a "get it while you can" bubble.
If the future we fear comes,it may well be that the firearms industry will be just trying to survive.
Someone will look at what we have left to work with and do the best they can.
I suspect ammo will be far more expensive.And ,some suppliers may shut down.The new Health care laws will influence the cost of having an employee and the cost of production,as will higher taxes.We may see doors close.
A lot of us will have less for disposable "play" funds.Cost per shot will be more important.We have already crossed $1+ per round ,in some cases $2+ per round,for factory loads.
When surplus 5.56 was 2 to 3 cents per round(early /mid 70's) burning off a 30 mag to make dust was great fun and "going shooting" meant several hundred rounds of centerfire.
Now,even shooting an AR,I squeeze one round at a time.As a kid,I would go out "hunting" with 2 or 3 20 ga shells.
If ammo gets to be $4 a shot,who will be able to afford to burn a $120 30 rd mag?Right now,we are having fun with semi-autos.How much time will they spend in the safe if shooting 4 magazines costs $480 ? So,IMO,folks may return to the fun of a single shot .22.
Dueling tree with a matched pair of pink Cricketts and a brick of 22s.Ritz cracker shoots,or lollypops might surge over 3 gun matches.
It just might be that the brass friendly single shot may make a comeback.
For that matter,so might the flintlock.
We might play with .22s a lot more.Maybe the 50 ft smallbore range will be more popular.
We may lose more places to shoot,such as lead or shooting restrictions on public lands via the EPA.
If that occurs,places to reach out with a .338 Lapua or 50 BMG might become rare.
Pardon me for being dismal,but the current spike in firearms trade is a "get it while you can" bubble.
If the future we fear comes,it may well be that the firearms industry will be just trying to survive.
Last edited:
For the future, don't look to sci-fi movies (Hollywood doesn't think), look to science fiction novels and games.
Some advances I think we might see:
In the ammunition field -- caseless ammo eventually (hasn't provided enough advantage to make it worthwhile changing everything, that's why we don't have it yet). We may also see guns that use a liquid propellent, sprayed into the chamber in an aerosol similar to a the fuel injector in your car. This would allow adjustments to vary the velocity of the round, from subsonic for surpressed shots, to high velocity shots. And we might see some advances in bullets to improve their terminal performance, like practical explosive bullets, or a hollow point bullet that also includes a dense armor-piercing core, enabling one round to perform well against both armored and unarmored targets.
We'll likely see improved sighting systems for guns. Better laser sights, improved reflex sights and optics. All of these are becoming more common; ten years ago most soldiers did not have anything other than iron sights, now various optics and accessories are almost standard.
Railguns and other electromagnetic weapons exist, in laboratory form anyway. We won't see practical, man-portable versions for a while. I think the main problem is storing enough energy, then being able to release enough of that energy all at once, rather than in a trickle. Chemical propellent still provides that more efficiently than anything else we've got. However, when this problem is solved, electromagnetic weapons will provide the ability to accelerate a projectile to very high speeds.
Directed energy weapons like lasers, particle beams, etc. Same problem as for railguns, the power source. We already have lasers in the field, but mainly as part of sighting and ranging systems. There's a forward observer vehicle for artillery that mounts a laser capable of blinding enemy troops. A true laser weapon is going to require a lot of energy released all at once, and there are also environmental conditions that can make lasers ineffective -- rain, fog, smoke, etc. I'm not that knowledgeable about particle beams and plasma weapons, but here's a link for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_weapons
Oh, and as far as lightsabers....we certainly don't have them yet. George Lucas writes space opera, not hard science fiction. To my knowledge, there isn't even a scientific principle that would allow it to function -- how to you create an intense laser beam that stops after 3 feet? And the problems mentioned above about the power source are even worse for a lightsaber, where you are constantly wasting power.
Some advances I think we might see:
In the ammunition field -- caseless ammo eventually (hasn't provided enough advantage to make it worthwhile changing everything, that's why we don't have it yet). We may also see guns that use a liquid propellent, sprayed into the chamber in an aerosol similar to a the fuel injector in your car. This would allow adjustments to vary the velocity of the round, from subsonic for surpressed shots, to high velocity shots. And we might see some advances in bullets to improve their terminal performance, like practical explosive bullets, or a hollow point bullet that also includes a dense armor-piercing core, enabling one round to perform well against both armored and unarmored targets.
We'll likely see improved sighting systems for guns. Better laser sights, improved reflex sights and optics. All of these are becoming more common; ten years ago most soldiers did not have anything other than iron sights, now various optics and accessories are almost standard.
Railguns and other electromagnetic weapons exist, in laboratory form anyway. We won't see practical, man-portable versions for a while. I think the main problem is storing enough energy, then being able to release enough of that energy all at once, rather than in a trickle. Chemical propellent still provides that more efficiently than anything else we've got. However, when this problem is solved, electromagnetic weapons will provide the ability to accelerate a projectile to very high speeds.
Directed energy weapons like lasers, particle beams, etc. Same problem as for railguns, the power source. We already have lasers in the field, but mainly as part of sighting and ranging systems. There's a forward observer vehicle for artillery that mounts a laser capable of blinding enemy troops. A true laser weapon is going to require a lot of energy released all at once, and there are also environmental conditions that can make lasers ineffective -- rain, fog, smoke, etc. I'm not that knowledgeable about particle beams and plasma weapons, but here's a link for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_weapons
Oh, and as far as lightsabers....we certainly don't have them yet. George Lucas writes space opera, not hard science fiction. To my knowledge, there isn't even a scientific principle that would allow it to function -- how to you create an intense laser beam that stops after 3 feet? And the problems mentioned above about the power source are even worse for a lightsaber, where you are constantly wasting power.
To GM 1967's post,daisy had the VL system,where some propellant was in the skirt of a pellet,and the compressed air provided a diesel type ignition.These rounds approached 22 lr in performance.Daisy dumped the project as it threatened to put airguns under the GCA68 rules as a firearm.
I can see that for some sports shooting with today's modern airguns,this could be good.A caseless,primerless 10 mm airgun with vl tech might be a fine target/small game rifle,even if I had to fill a form 4473 on it.
I can see that for some sports shooting with today's modern airguns,this could be good.A caseless,primerless 10 mm airgun with vl tech might be a fine target/small game rifle,even if I had to fill a form 4473 on it.
ChasingWhitetail91
New member
Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The Ukrainian navy has trained dolphins with pistols on their head. I kid you not - google it.
Carne Frio
New member
Here is one part of the future, as to firearms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbyAcYjzlc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbyAcYjzlc&feature=player_embedded
I recently bought an electric toothbrush with a non-rechargeable, non replaceable battery from Oral-B. The manufacturer offers it as the ultimate in convenience, stating that the brush and battery will stop working effectively at about the same time. I think the same thing will happen with self-defense firearms. New polymers and new casings will result in inexpensive, disposable, non-reloadable handguns. Much like pepper spray containers, millions will be sold that will never be used but be kept in glove boxes, ladies purses, etc. Meant for close-in protection, only moderate accuracy will be needed. I'm not sure what form these disposable guns will take, semi-auto or revolver, but I will be surprised if we don't actually see this type of general use handgun.
Sparks1957
New member
Yuck... not a world I want to live in. Sounds like a waste of materials to me.
