We really cant design a better gun?

[RamSlammer]

1913 . . . 98 years ago. That's when Bullseye powder was introduced. It's still one of the best selling powders and I, for one, use more of it than most anything else on the reloading bench. Sometimes something just plain works and there's no need for change.

 

[BoneDigger]

If we had lasers then we could set them for stun, rather than kill. I saw that on Star Trek just last night.

Todd

 

[Lavid2002]

Give me a week to think about this ill have 10 ideas for you guys to yay or nay. Mostly nay but well see : )

 

[PolarBear158]

As for Lasers giving away your position, due to the way they are generated there is very little light leakage in any direction but to the target... also "light" comes in many wavelengths, not all of which are visible to the human eye...

 

[MacGille]

One consideration that most of you haven't touched on is the fact that ammunition has to be transported, stored, carried by troops, survive weather and topological factors (sand,mud etc). Ammo for troops has to be self contained, able to withstand shocks, heat, mud, handling, abuse and still be able to be chambered and fired without failure. It has to do all of these things and still retain its shape, size and potency. We haven't found anything that will do this better than the self contained dry powder cartridge.

That being said, we are still left with the chemical powder charge. A laser can be defeated with a mirror, a diffuser screen, or dust, and smoke. Also it would have to have a power source the size of an M1a tank. A particle beam needs a nuclear explosion to generate the particles. Not a comforting thought to have at your back in a firefight.

 

[olyinaz]

I'm waiting for a phased plasma rifle.

Yes, one in the 40 Watt range.

But serially, getting back to where the OP came in he was asking purely about soot/fouling and isn't there something better? I have to say that if any major chemical company could come up with a compound that burned at the proper rate (we need 50,000 psi in our barrels over a period of time - not a "clean burning" 300,000 psi explosion) yet was far less sooty - THEY'D MAKE IT AND SELL A BAZILLION POUNDS OF IT. Serially - a bazillion (that's even more than a Brazilian).

Think about it, pretty much everyone hates fouling and with millions of direct impingement ARs out there in the world a compound of the sort envisioned would be more popular than a cheerleader in a frat house.

"Piston AR? HA!! I'm shooting these new Composition G (for Good) rounds. I get 3700fps with an 82gr projectile out of a 14" M4 with zero fouling and zero throat erosion. Kiss my direct impingement BUTT Mr. Piston man!"

I will say one thing as well, even a rail gun would have to live in the real world of Newtonian physics and that means RECOIL. You're not going to be throwing anything faster or heavier that what your shoulder can take.

Oly

 

[javven]

High energy weapons are either never going to happen or are at least several generations off. I just have trouble envisioning the day they'll be more efficient than a standard cartridge weapon.

What I can see? I can see the use of metals like the new tungsten matrix as a projectile, fired using a case-less or semicase-less round inside an all - synthetic materials weapon. We're almost there now - plastic magazines, receiver assemblies, barrel strengthening (rimfire tension barrels) stocks etc. If one day barrels themselves and locking mechanisms could be made from synthetic materials - a lot could be gained. Weapons could be mass produced at an alarming rate, be extremely accurate and incredibly light.

 

[Dave R]

Most of the barriers to new designs have been hit pretty hard. Batteries etc. just don't carry as much energy per ounce an smokeless powder. There are propellants with more energy per ounce than powder, but they're not safe or easy to work with.

But the main reason we haven't had a breakthrough in a generation or more...

We don't have a John Moses Browning alive today.

 

[Pathfinder45]

No.

You can only make improvements up to the point of perfection. We're virtually there as far as firearms are concerned. Sure, there is always the fascination of a new model perhaps better suited for some applications than others. Yet the latest radical incarnations still don't render a 1911 entirely obsolete. Firearms are nearly fully evolved. Like Woman, for instance; there's never been a more effective contraption devised to captivate the soul of Man. There's different models to suit different tastes but they work essentially the same. Still, a gun is better because you can put a silencer on it. I do not think that it's possible to eliminate violence and thus render weapons obsolete UNLESS you can implement compulsory lobotomy on all humans.

 

[Lavid2002]

I think I have a pretty good idea for a premise for a gun. Do you guys think its worth keeping secret and trying to go about patenting something? Or do you think I should just share it as it is probably an idea that has already been used?

-Dave

 

[B.L.E.]

What I can see? I can see the use of metals like the new tungsten matrix as a projectile, fired using a case-less or semicase-less round inside an all - synthetic materials weapon. We're almost there now - plastic magazines, receiver assemblies, barrel strengthening (rimfire tension barrels) stocks etc. If one day barrels themselves and locking mechanisms could be made from synthetic materials - a lot could be gained. Weapons could be mass produced at an alarming rate, be extremely accurate and incredibly light.

I dunno, I have always called those feather light composite stocked rifles and shot guns "be careful what you wish for" guns. Until we repeal Newton's laws of motion, light guns will always have more recoil energy than heavy guns.

 

[BlueTrain]

Some of the futuristic goals of firearms designers tend to be a little funny. One idea is caseless ammunition. The whole idea is that you could (somehow) simplify the mechanism of the firearm by having a round or cartridge that is completely consumed upon firing, by which we mean there is no case to extract and eject. Only you would then, I assume, have to have an external means of ignition, a rather more advance means of obturation of the breech, and a means of somehow protecting what would bound to be a more fragile cartridge. In other words, it sounds like going back to 1860s technology. Oh, the ammuntion would be lighter, all right, but the only photo I recall seeing of such an experimental rifle, assuming here that it had rifling, made it look as light and handy as a chain saw.

I'm not sure who's to blame but with a lot of the add-ons so popular these days with infantry rifles and carbines, especially those rail-type forearms and also grenade launchers, you end up with 15-pound ultra-light rifles.

 

[jman841]

Check out the HK G11... it was a prototype weapon that fired caseless ammunition. It never really caught on so they stopped development but they were getting pretty close to developing a suitable cartridge. The cartridge they had at the time wasn't fully reliable if not handled properly and got wet or damaged but it was a good attempt.

 

[ClayInTx]

Lavid2002,

You have an idea?

Many years ago I learned that the man who finds a hundred dollar bill laying on the sidewalk and will attempt to find the owner because it’s the right thing to do will steal your idea and claim it as his own.

Many persons don’t think of ideas as being property; if it has no physical being then they don’t believe it has value. Every improvement in technology, social and political relations, and culture began with an idea.

The problem with ideas is these are not patentable. The problem with patents is these are expensive to obtain. A friend of mine recently got a patent on a simple thing after about ten years and he now has over twenty thousand dollars in it.

My treatment of ideas is that if I cannot receive benefit from it then it will go to my grave with me. Realize, though, that benefit is not always money.

If you believe your idea has value I advise consider the potential market; then the cost of bringing it to completion. If the bottom line is positive then get a patent lawyer started on it in order to prove priority.

Have deep pockets.

Good luck.

Edit: Patent lawyers are in a field of their own. Regular lawyers know very little about it, although they might help establish priority. Even a notary might do; reference the "Candy Store Patent" on the laser.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've always wondered about those Napoleonic times air rifles that supposedly the Austrians used and upset Napoleon so much. Could modern versions be upgraded to reasonable weapons. Note, I don't watch the airgun show on cable so not up on what's new.

Is there some physics limit on the speed of a projectile from compressed gases in tank?

 

[Dave R]

Is there some physics limit on the speed of a projectile from compressed gases in tank?

I dunno. But I DO know that Lewis & Clark carried air guns on their expedition, that were on par with muskets. So they're not exactly new.

Caseless ammo--the problem with this concept is that the case serves such a useful purpose. Most of the waste from combustion stays in the case. And when you eject the case, you eject a lot of the combustion byproducts, and a lot of the heat from combustion. With caseless ammo, all the byproducts of combustion stay in the action. And a lot more heat stays there, too.

So I don't see a future for caseless ammo.

 

[Evan Thomas]

What about having a weapon operate more like a combustion engine where a bullet is dropped into the chamber, then a gas or mist of something is introduced behind it, then a spark is ignited when the trigger is pulled sending the projectile down the barrel?

I think you've just reinvented the spud gun...

I've always wondered about those Napoleonic times air rifles that supposedly the Austrians used and upset Napoleon so much. Could modern versions be upgraded to reasonable weapons. Note, I don't watch the airgun show on cable so not up on what's new.

According to Robert Beeman, Navy Seals in Iraq have used 9mm PCP air rifles, equipped with suppressors and night sights, for sneaky flashless sniping at insurgents. So I guess that would count as an "upgrade to a reasonable weapon"...

Is there some physics limit on the speed of a projectile from compressed gases in tank?

As with the Girandoni-style air rifles, I suspect that the practical physics limit has more to do with the properties of the tank and compression system than anything else... those required a lot of behind-the-lines support to function even halfway effectively, and even then were madly prone to malfunction. (A friend who is something of an expert on early steam technology is amazed that the Girandoni-style rifles worked at all, given that, as with attempts at building steam engines during the same period, they were right up against the limits of machining technology.)

 

[BillCA]

So I don't see a future for caseless ammo.

The only "successful" caseless ammo I'm aware of has already been invented, tested and provent to work. In the 1960s. The aforementioned Gyro-jet rocket slug is a version of "caseless" ammo. No case is left behind to deal with. The projectile carries it's own propellant with it.

Oddly enough, with the Gyro-Jet, it was proven that the projectile actually accelerated once it left the muzzle. Recoil was nil due to the venting of the rocket's gasses out of the pistol. The company had designs to create a light carbine of 17mm or so, with a small RDX warhead charge to increase lethality. And a round with a tungsten-carbide tip for anti-armor use. It all came to naught when the military rejected the concept.

But to redesign the above into a workable platform would cost much more than incremental advancements in traditional firearms technology. I've never seen the German "squeeze bore" principle applied to small arms (probably for good reasons) though it's an interesting concept.

Designers have made about as much progress in compact design as possible with a minimum of moving parts. Almost anything else will merely complicate things.

Until/unless someone invents a "field effect" weapon (akin to a phaser set on stun) I don't expect any miracle breakthrough designs.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We've had hand held laser blinding guns - since banned and I read that hand held EMP guns are possible.

Surrender or I will fry your I-PAD!

 

[Magnum Wheel Man]

probably why the "aliens" aren't coming... they are afraid we'll blow holes through things with our old fashioned projectile weapons...

used to have a link to modern single shot air guns for sale... if I recall, I think they even went to 50 caliber... but likely the 9mm repeater was most practical IMO

some interesting air rifles...

http://www.airforceairguns.com/condor.html

http://www.quackenbushairguns.com/

http://www.pyramydair.com/p/big-bore-909s-sam-yang.shtml

http://www.airgundepot.com/career-dragon-slayer-771.html

http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Career_707_9mm_Ultra/307