So what does drive small arms innovations?

[Andrewh]

Kaylee in the thread about the Aliens small arms, states that it is necessity that drives small arms innovations.
I felt this would be an interesting topic for discussion.

I disagree, and feel rather it is the need to be able to have a smaller force better armed men do as much damage as a larger group with inferior weaponry.

Historically, the inventions have been there before any hostilities. The wide spread use however was not implemented till as Kaylee stated, (and I am paraphrasing) my weapons do not do what we need, give me one of those instead.
For instance, The machine gun was around prior to WWI. It was not invented for the war, but did definatly change the way wars were fought there after. (And I really think you could have used an AK type weapon to good effect even then. You have a long range rifle that you can rapid fire as good as any fixed machine gun that you can then use up close and personal with bayonet.)
The cartrige loading/repeating fire arm was around durning civil war times yet they still used muzzle loaders.

In other words, the weapons were always there before the conflict, and the conflict brought about the use of the new wonder gun, not the other way around.

 

[Navy joe]

A good line of thought, I just don't think you're stated need for fewer people with better guns is the driving force. It's more basic than that. It's the Tim Allen syndrome. Every since someone came up with a rock shooting hand match hand cannon one of his buddies has felt the need after several hits of mead, MGD,etc. to make it go boom louder, faster, etc. Necessity sometime does drive or foster invention. Look at JMB who grew up at the knee of his gunsmithing family. He learned gunsmithing for a simple reason, many folks didn't like Mormon settlers like his parents. His early training of necessity created the firearms world we live in today. The "assault rifle" is another good example, WWII generated such as the M-1 carbine and STG-44 based on needs or field experience of combat infantry. The STG concept of an intermediate power short cartridge (8mm Kurz), Stamped metal const., compact gas operated was borrowed heavily then by Kalashnikov. So I think we can see both development mechanisms in action.

 

[Scott Evans]

Combat!

The desire to win; the need to out do your enemy; the rigorous circumstance and environments in which they must perform.

This seems to be the overwhelming influence in small arms advancement.


Some examples that come to mind are the 1911, BAR and M-1 Garand.

 

[MAD DOG]

WAR drives small arms advancements as well as large arms advancements.
It has also driven such indispensable advances as interchangable parts, medical science, communications, psychology, transportation, and the entire space age.
War is GOOD!
Enjoy it while you can, after its over, we go back to years of technological stagnation.
Peace sucks.

 

[WESHOOT2]

OPINION ONLY

Greed drives invention; war is business.

 

[David Scott]

Maybe "greed", or at least the desire for profit, does drive some innovations. Gaston Glock used the polymer moldng capabilities of his kitchen-utensil business to create pistol frames so he could capture a large government contract.

Other folks are just tinkerers. Humans are tool using creatures, and somebody's always trying to make a better tool. Just look at all those kitchen gadgets being sold on infomercials.

Some day, someone will make the Star Trek phaser pistol a reality, and people will take it up in preference to gunpowder based arms, just as we gave up bows and arrows for muskets.

 

[BigG]

I think it's all private money, nowadays. This is in opposition to when we had totalitarian govts like Soviet Union.

Therefore, since it is so expensive for the average Joe to develop a new weapon, not many are. Think John Browning. Can you think of anybody else who has followed in his footsteps? I can't. Sure, you can mention Garand, Stoner, Ruger, Glock; but is there anybody out there developing a better gun for the love of the invention or just rehashing some old technology, painting it black, and calling it "new"? The Germans during Hitler's era made some of the most forward-looking weapons I've seen, including arguably the best GPMG still available, but that is already 60 years ago!

 

[swifter...]

Money drives invention in any field.

We can see how the development of small arms has slowed in this country in the last century due to government regulations:
Too much paperwork for the tinkerer, only big outfits can afford to do this, and why bother when we can sell what we make now?

Tom

 

[Blackhawk]

Necessity does spur innovation. So does profit opportunity, which is innovation mixed with marketing. However, there's a much stronger force that drives it.

When the confluence of social, materials, and technogical developments "permit" an invention, it will happen. For example, laser sights. Lasers came into being about 4 decades ago, and they only made their way into laser pointers about 2 decades ago. Somebody with a laser pointer and firearms awareness must have said, "I wonder if I can attach this thing...."

You could say that societal, materials, and technological evolution drives innovation, and necessity and profit relentlessly spur it along.

 

[Andrewh]

I guess I can believe the tinkering part. People just have the natural drive to make things better. I still disagree on combat and wars driving the invention of small arms. Unless it is the previous war.
That is, the 1911 wasn't invented for WWI. It was already in the works. WWI was just a good reason for them to actually crank up production.
The M1 was already made prior to WWII. Not because of it. I suppose however, both could be said to be a result of the previous war. The 1911 for the lack of stopping power found in the 38's from the War in the Philippines, etc ...

 

[C.R.Sam]

WS2 said it first. Money. With few exceptions. John Browning and John M. Browning not being exceptions. They found profit in innovation.

Sam

 

[4V50 Gary]

A lot of designs are fermenting in the minds of inventors. What war or anticipation of war does is provide the funding for those thoughts to bear fruition. The M-1 and M-14 are examples of firearms which were developed during peace.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

BigG, I don't think it's particularly expensive, at least not inherently, to tinker with small arms. I've thought of a couple of things I'd like to try, myself, and doing so would be relatively cheap. Doing so legally would NOT be cheap, either in terms of money or my civil liberties.

 

[EnochGale]

I keep thinking about the resistance to weapons change such as in the Civil War, the resistence to semiautos vs. bolt action guns, Cooper on the 308, Cooper on the 223, etc.

The needs of the field act against the resistance of the stodgy.

 

[Correia]

There are still lots of us who have the desire to tinker with stuff, it is just human nature. And if you profit off of it, good for you!

The biggest negative I see of this is that the great pool of inventivness for weapons is being smothered under BATF paperwork. Browning or Maxim would be in prision right now for violating some law about barrel length or US parts or something.

 

[WilderBill]

Wars always spur development, not just in small arms or big 'uns for that matter.

I think that most really innovative concepts come from people who just like to tinker.

Most military arms have been devloped in response to a government request for something that will fall within given parameters. This tends to make devlopment follow the need to correct flaws found during the previous conflict.
An obvious example is the M 14. Someone noticed that as good as the M1 was it could use more capacity, less recoil, and maybe the ability to fire full auto. The result was one of the finest full size battle rifles of it's day.
Having taken care of the shortcomings we were then well armed to fight the last conflict...then came Viet Nam and the need for a lighter wepon with synthetic stock that would work well in the jungle.
Now we find the US in Afganestan. I know we see lots of news photos of AKs, but I heard that when the Russians were there the real threat was from old men firing down from the mountains with SMLEs. So do we need to go back to a full size battle rifle or is the next war going to require something that can fit inside a sewer?
If someone knew that, the answer could be already developed, but without the question we can only hope somebady gets a wild idea and works it out on his own in time for the need.

 

[Nightcrawler]

The big question that has to be asked is this: Do we need guns to do anything that they can't do today? Do modern firearms, as are, have any real shortcomings that new technology would correct? By shortcomings, I don't mean little things, like having slightly higher capacity, or slightly less weight. In order for militaries, at least, to retool, the new weapon has to present a significant combat advantage over the old one.

Do we need our guns to do something they can't today? If so, what technologies can be applied to correct the shortcoming?

 

[Andrewh]

Well, once the thought process of the military changed from "They shouldn't have weapons that reload easy, or they will waste their shots," to "How much ammo can they carry if they don't carry food"
Then the only thing left is capacity. Maybe the wrong word, but can we get the grunt to carry more ammo so he can lay down more fire etc... Such was the though process on caseless ammo. In lou of that, they went back to better hits, ie the programmable 20mm on the new assault rifle. so less is more.
If they can only carry 4, they better be able to hit with all of them type stratagy, as the carrying more failed.

So it sounds like the next step is more accuate weaponry rather than spray and pray types.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

Firearms developement is the result of a combination of requirements. Combat, safety and profit. Combat- the need for high cap lightweight, dependable and accurate battle rifles. Safety- as evident by the growing popularity of SA only hi-cap pistols. Profits- reduced manufactering costs due to the increased use of precision investment castings. Pass on the cost saving to the consumer and you can increase market share and profits ...

 

[Mark Jones]

The big question that has to be asked is this: Do we need guns to do anything that they can't do today? Do modern firearms, as are, have any real shortcomings that new technology would correct? ...
Do we need our guns to do something they can't today? If so, what technologies can be applied to correct the shortcoming?

No, the question is--why should we be asking that question? That's the sort of question a central manager would ask. It's the sort of question a _bureaucrat_ from the Bureau of Firearms Development would ask.

In a free country, individuals would be free to tinker all they liked. Most of them would spend a lot of time and money ruining perfectly serviceable guns. But a few would make some useful but minor modifications. And a tiny handful would introduce some radical improvement. And then all of those changes and inventions would be judged not by a roomful of "experts" but by the millions of people who enjoy firing guns or use them in their jobs (or both), and the truly useful ones would become common features on a variety of weapons.

Freedom, curiosity and a desire to improve a tool are what drive firearms innovations. We've still got two out of three, but the lack of freedom is what's stifling innovation.