We really cant design a better gun?
- Thread starter Lavid2002
- Start date
Schneiderman
New member
I'm working on nuclear powered rounds as we speak. I just need some funding. They leave no fouling but the cases remain radioactive for 60 years so you need to dispose of them carefully.
Have you tried this newfangled "smokeless powder" stuff? It's great.
There are several problems with improving what we already have.
Anything that leaves no residue is also too unstable and dangerous for use in guns. Would you like to shoot a gun that used liquid nitroglycerin as the propellant? I'll be 500 yards that way behind a berm watching through a periscope.
Gunpowder contains its own oxidizer, but not enough for complete combustion, thus leaving residue. Introducing extra oxidizer compounds turns the powder into more of a high explosive and will still leave some resedue.
Agents used to control the burn rate, by their nature, do not burn and will be left behind.
Crosshair....
I know powder burn rates are controlled partially by the shape of the powder....Flake powder has the most surface area and burns VERY quickly....Semi-spherical is next....then Spherical...then Cylindrical Im assuming.
Is the oxidizer the other main method of control in terms of burn rate? Is this why one powder burns faster than another?(Oxidizer?)
I know powder burn rates are controlled partially by the shape of the powder....Flake powder has the most surface area and burns VERY quickly....Semi-spherical is next....then Spherical...then Cylindrical Im assuming.
Is the oxidizer the other main method of control in terms of burn rate? Is this why one powder burns faster than another?(Oxidizer?)
I dont know to me it seems like the whole gun world is getting stuck in a rut. We invented the cartridge years ago. Once it was invented firearms took off. Bolt action, semi automatic, fully automatic....Now we keep progressing...However the progression seems very minimal compared to the enormous feat the "Semi-auto" rifle brought over the bolt action rifle. I think if we change something dramatic...
I.E. the propellant, casing, projectile, method of ignition, etc..
We can give inventors a colossal window of opportunity for new inventions.
I.E. the propellant, casing, projectile, method of ignition, etc..
We can give inventors a colossal window of opportunity for new inventions.
There's no free lunch
Everything is a trade off somehow. Come up with a better powder that leaves no residue? Sure. Start by giving me (or a chemical company) a few hundred million dollars for design, testing and expirimentation.
There are practical limits to everything. As was mentioned, change the powder significantly, and you might have something that cannot be contained in the brass case and steel of a gun (or at least one of a size we would be willing to carry, use, and most importantly, buy!).
Powder is being impproved, over time. But the process takes time, MONEY, and brings limited results. We have better powders today than they did in the 1930s. But only in a small degree.
As to a laser, well, the problems with lasers are mostly, power (in a man portable package), the effect of atmosphere over distance, and their effect on those things most usually shot. Burning a small diameter hole through a deer, or a man (and cauterizing the wound in the process) would not be a good stopper, unless you nailed the brain, and did it in the just right place!
Caseless ammo has been under developement for around 40+ years, and hasn't been made into a workable proposition yet, although some developements show promise. If they do get it perfected (enough to use), I still won't buy any. I like handloading!
Everything is a trade off somehow. Come up with a better powder that leaves no residue? Sure. Start by giving me (or a chemical company) a few hundred million dollars for design, testing and expirimentation.
There are practical limits to everything. As was mentioned, change the powder significantly, and you might have something that cannot be contained in the brass case and steel of a gun (or at least one of a size we would be willing to carry, use, and most importantly, buy!).
Powder is being impproved, over time. But the process takes time, MONEY, and brings limited results. We have better powders today than they did in the 1930s. But only in a small degree.
As to a laser, well, the problems with lasers are mostly, power (in a man portable package), the effect of atmosphere over distance, and their effect on those things most usually shot. Burning a small diameter hole through a deer, or a man (and cauterizing the wound in the process) would not be a good stopper, unless you nailed the brain, and did it in the just right place!
Caseless ammo has been under developement for around 40+ years, and hasn't been made into a workable proposition yet, although some developements show promise. If they do get it perfected (enough to use), I still won't buy any. I like handloading!
Currently available gunpowders are already as powerful as our current guns will withstand. Before we use more powerful propellants we must have a gun, and shoulders, and hands, that will withstand the pressure and recoil; and also be able hold it up with human strength.
Historically most mechanical improvements have happened only after material improvements made these possible.
However, I don’t want to be completely negative about this. It’s a good question you posed.
What kind of improvements should we be seeking?
Edit: I don't believe lasers should be part of the discussion.
Historically most mechanical improvements have happened only after material improvements made these possible.
However, I don’t want to be completely negative about this. It’s a good question you posed.
What kind of improvements should we be seeking?
Edit: I don't believe lasers should be part of the discussion.
Plasma rifles are more trouble than they are worth. One shot and you have immediately given the enemy your EXACT location. It would be like getting into a firefight and having your magazine loaded entirely with tracers.
As was mentioned before, lasers have their own set of issues that limits their anti-personnel use.
No, it is mainly controlled through the shape or the grains and via retarding agents added to the powder. I just said that it was theoretically possible to add an additional oxidizer agent for more complete combustion, but the result would be a faster burn rate as well.
You want a better gun or a better propellant? Ain't the same thing.
"...leave little or no fouling after firing..." Compared to BP, smokeless powders are clean. Did you have a point?
"...STILL cant design a better propellant for firearms..." Not that is as inexpensive and stable as smokeless powder. Liquids don't fit in cartridges or give the same results. Neither do solid fuels. Both take far more space to give the same kind of pressures.
"...Plasma rifles...lasers have their own set of issues..." Power source.
"...leave little or no fouling after firing..." Compared to BP, smokeless powders are clean. Did you have a point?
"...STILL cant design a better propellant for firearms..." Not that is as inexpensive and stable as smokeless powder. Liquids don't fit in cartridges or give the same results. Neither do solid fuels. Both take far more space to give the same kind of pressures.
"...Plasma rifles...lasers have their own set of issues..." Power source.
cannonfire
New member
Crosshair,
I'm going to have to agree with you with lasers giving away your position... but again you are shooting a freakin' laser... I don't mind giving my position away to a bunch of dead guys (assuming everyone else on my team has laser rifles also)
PLUS! they tend to work very well for the Rebels and the Evil Empire (ref: episodes 1-VI)
I'm going to have to agree with you with lasers giving away your position... but again you are shooting a freakin' laser... I don't mind giving my position away to a bunch of dead guys (assuming everyone else on my team has laser rifles also)
PLUS! they tend to work very well for the Rebels and the Evil Empire (ref: episodes 1-VI)
hickstick_10
New member
First off I wanna say I have the utmost respect for the men and women in the service so please don't misinterpret what I'l be saying here.
Most small arms developments In my opinion are directly or indirectly related to large wars and conflicts, puts a fire under the ass of engineers to design a better gun or place or whatever.
We have not had major conflicts for many years, and the cold war is over, so arms development has come to a standstill. Govt and private industry sees very little need to fund it.
Most small arms developments In my opinion are directly or indirectly related to large wars and conflicts, puts a fire under the ass of engineers to design a better gun or place or whatever.
We have not had major conflicts for many years, and the cold war is over, so arms development has come to a standstill. Govt and private industry sees very little need to fund it.
riverwalker76
New member
The reason we can't develop a better gun is because of one reason alone ....
The ALIENS that gave us the technology for the microwave, the knowledge for splitting the atom, and the knowledge to decipher the Mayan Calendar haven't given us the technology for their weapons yet!
They hoped we'd kill each other with the whole 'Atomic Bomb' thing ... but that hasn't worked yet!
They're waiting for us to kill each other and use up all of our fossil fuels before they invade.
Be ready .... 'cause they're coming back on December 21, 2012. The Stuff is gonna hit the fan. It's gonna blow your minds.
The ALIENS that gave us the technology for the microwave, the knowledge for splitting the atom, and the knowledge to decipher the Mayan Calendar haven't given us the technology for their weapons yet!
They hoped we'd kill each other with the whole 'Atomic Bomb' thing ... but that hasn't worked yet! They're waiting for us to kill each other and use up all of our fossil fuels before they invade.
Be ready .... 'cause they're coming back on December 21, 2012. The Stuff is gonna hit the fan. It's gonna blow your minds.
Matchlocks lasted for what -- 200 years? -- before wheel locks came around (though they remained in service until the 18th century in Europe; 19th century in Asia). Then wheellocks lasted another hundred, then someone invented the snaphance and then eventually the flintlock. That lasted another 200 or so years, maybe a little longer, until someone invented the cartridge and it caught on, eventually allowing for better repeaters.
During all that time, almost until the turn of the 20th century, they were using pretty much standard black powder, almost the same as the stuff the Chinese invented 2000 years ago (with a few modifications to the production method for safety reasons, as well as to enhance burn rates). It wasn't until the late 1800s that better powders began to evolve.
Sometimes these things just take a while.
During all that time, almost until the turn of the 20th century, they were using pretty much standard black powder, almost the same as the stuff the Chinese invented 2000 years ago (with a few modifications to the production method for safety reasons, as well as to enhance burn rates). It wasn't until the late 1800s that better powders began to evolve.
Sometimes these things just take a while.