Would it be fair to say that there's basically no more major innovations to be made with firearms designed around cartridges? (at least no major experimentation like there was in the early 20th century to around the 70's-80's). Seems like all they can do not is different sights, furniture, maybe twist rate, minor modifications basically.
If so, where does that leave the future of the firearms development and manufacturing, is there any chance we'll see attempts at new systems such as rail gun/laser technology or caseless ammunition?
I've always wondered this myself. I remembered reading an article somewhere saying that basically we've invented and basically pushed the limits for chemicallly propelled weapons back in the 60s with the dawn of the modern assualt rifle. I'm starting to agree, all we see nowadays are companies perfecting rifles to make them more precise/accurate, but not much in terms of changing the firearms themselves. You could arm soldiers with AKs from the 40s and pit them against folks with modern weapons like CZ805s and I doubt either side would really have much of an advantage.
some article in gun mag recently about polymer bullets and casings - shooting times ? nra ? I can't remember
more efficient powder - this seems to be at a limit
really powerful handheld lasers - why do we need to fly some piece of metal into somebody else just burn a hole in them
given enough time we'll see the advent of integrated weapons systems that fit into power armor and can be aimed with a HUD instead of conventional sights (a la HALO) but at the same time I don't see anything replacing firearms for quite a while till we come across a major scientific breakthrough
don't forget, flint locks were the staple military weapons of the world for nearly 200 years, black powder rifles and match locks have been around for even longer.
I really thought that guns like the AN-94 were the next evolution of the modern infantry rifle, with the delayed recoil and 2 round burst and quadstack mag to essentially turn each hit into an automatic 2 round hit, but I guess not.
lazers don't have quite the range or power to be effective yet. Not to mention the massive battery you'd need to lug around with it.
Only reason caseless ammo never really caught one was because of production costs.
I'd like to see how much politics will hinder or help weapon development. Don't forget guns were unregulated for most of their existence and officers and enlisted have been able to bring their own rifles, that they figured were the most efficient into combat.
Only reason the AN-94 never caught on was because the Soviet Union chose a wonderfully inconvenient time to collapse. It was well set to become the next standard weapon of mother russia but economics dictated otherwise.
bullpups are coming along, although traditionalists have been fighting this the whole way.
Lighter and a better trigger(which is already done)
Personally I think we'll see the pdw's again along with smaller ammo, bullet tec will advance as well.
Ehhh... bullpups are really nothing special. the advantages are not stellar when compared to literally every other option on the market, and for the most part they're more expensive.
If SHTF what would you reach for? A Kel-tec RDB, or a milled reciever Kalashnikov?
We need our plasma throwers to be smaller or our lasers to be stronger. Until then we get boring little advances in mass deployment logistics. Caseless is a dead end, might be used for a next generation amphibious firearm, but not damn likely. Rail guns are probably a crap shoot too, but I want to believe.
there are tons of thing still need to improve like bolt, trigger, more ergonomic gimmick like trigger safety or fast mag change
and seen like only the slav are coming up with more new thing
Most of these are still just minor modifications though, not major innovations.
What I mean by a major innovation is something like going from powder charges to cartridges, black powder to smokeless, single shot to manual action to semi to full, select fire and three round burst, ext... Something that complete changes firearms technology.
my point is more that most comapnies are just fine tuning guns in this day and age. We won't see anything "new" come to market ever again
>1800s cartridges hit the scene
>1860s gatling guns
>1890s bolt action rifles
>1920s Sub guns
>1940s Assault rifles
>1950s battle rifles
>1960s - today nothing
fite me, you squishy triggered paint huffer
How effective is delayed recoil anyway? From the footage of the G11 I could see it didn't really do much.
I think bullpups are great but I don't see them replacing standard rifles, the ballistics are better but at most ranges it isn't much of a thing especially if it's at close ranges which is what bull pups excel at for more ergonomic reasons than ballistic.
With the advent of optics on standard infantry rifles the shorter sight radius doesn't matter as much and the slower magazine change times can be ironed out via training.
today designer usually want to play safe, they rather improving old design/concept than making something new that would fail
like the AN-94
and the world is on a peace period with no major war
no military want a new small arm concept rightnow
If we could improve barrel technology substantially it may be possible to have single man operated rail guns.
Likely not anytime soon though.
my point still stands, there hasn't been a major development in small arms for the past 70 years. We need to see something change on the battlefield, even though realistically it's just gonna be who has the most bombs/armor/ and air superiority in the next few decades.
Wow, dat history tho.
>1830s-catridges for breachloaders
>1840-1870s - gattling guns and other manually operated machine guns
>1840s - revolvers (mass produced for the first time)
>1850s - lever action repeaters
>1870s - single shot bolt- and falling block rifles
>1880s - bolt action rifles and heavy machineguns
>1890s - semi auto pistols
>1900s - commercial semi auto rifles
>1910s-1920s - sub machine guns
>1930s - military semi auto rifles and double stack semi autos.
>1940s-1950s- assault rifles
>1960s-1970s - polymer firearm parts, bullpups, shift to smaller cartridges for military rifles.
This isn't even about the material, your main argument is that the reduced weight was a good thing but literally everything would make it shit beyond that. Ballistically it would be irregular as fuck because of the very lightness and it would drop like a rock and become fucking puppy kisses at any range. Barrel life is non issue because barrels will eat steel core ammo for far longer than even the most cash strapped and active military needs it to.
Everything you've said is absolutely retarded and puts into significant doubt of your ownership of any firearm.
Prove me wrong. The BAR doesn't really count as an assault rifle since it wasn't used or issued like one. The Sturmgewehr, Kalashnikov and FAL all date from the 2 decades I mentioned. Also unless you have examples of bullpups from the 1950s, or correct the 1960s bit, fuck off. My rough 1960s to 1970s date is accurate
I'd imagine that someday, with sufficient battery technology, we will see high powered, man portable laser weapons that can outclass any projectile based weapon. Think Star Trek phasers, only not quite as faggy looking.
You are half right because polymer cased telescopic ammo is probably going to be as good as it gets short of getting into caseless.
>Cased telescoping ammunition
That's more of a minor advancement
>Piezoelectric gauss rifles
Kind of not a gun in the way OP means, and if piezoelectric rifles, engineered materials and processors being able to be durable and smart enough to adjust mid flight are a thing I can't imagine there would be much to fight about because energy and resource wars would be over at that point.
I mean a firearm is defined by being fired via chemical propellant, if it's a Gauss gun or an energy weapon that would be more of an advancement of small arms. Though that's mainly me being a pedant.
Smart scopes with ballistic computers (think TrackingPoint with automatic target detection using combined CCD/thermal optics). Fragmentation rounds, possibly guided, certainly airburst.
Think LSAT plus that 40mm rocket with a 2km range, or OICW with a LSAT carbine--both are the same basic concept, they just differ on which is the primary weapon and which is the backup/support. Now add that smart scope with ballistic computer, and the ability for it to control fire so that every round is a hit or a close miss.