Compared to the advances that permeate so many other technological fields, firearms have been a very mature technology for a very long time.I promise some fresh content later.
The only technological advances in man-portable firearms since the 1930s have been in materials and construction methods. I am unaware of any completely new operating mechanism after roller-locking recoil. Certainly the gas-operated, rotating-bolt, box-magazine-fed rifles which arm our troops would be instantly identifiable to John Browning in his 1890s Utah workshop, although the machined aluminum forgings and plastic furniture might seem novel to him.
A SIG P-226 would only be "exotic" to Le Maitre in its use of stampings in place of machined forgings. Other than that, it's a short-recoil tilting-barrel box-magazine-fed self-loader, still shooting a cartridge developed for the Imperial German Army in the first decade of the last century. (Just think about cartridges: Of the major martial firearm chamberings, only 5.45, 5.56, 7.62x51, and .40S&W were developed after 1945, while .50 BMG predates the last World War and 9x19, .45, and 7.62x54 predates the one before that.)
Friday, March 22, 2013
Stale leftovers...
...typed elsewhere this morning, because I have to run an errand:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
It's interesting to me that the material and construction advances have produced their own effect, that being so much smaller, lighter, and simpler guns.
There's no reason that the AKM, Seecamp, or for that matter M4 (in steel) couldn't have been made a hundred years ago, but the designers and end users weren't ready yet.
The same effect seems to hold in other goods. Most things from 2013- certainly most consumer goods- would have failed miserably in the Taft administration. They feel flimsy and cheap.
True dat. Whenever I play armchair gun-designer and come up with a novel locking system or something, there's always some obscure patent from nineteen-hundred-and-twelvety that comes along and ruins my delusions of originality. I can happily while-away hours, scribbling down bolts, cams and counter-weights only to peruse ForgottenWeapons.com and discover some guy in a stovepipe hat got there a century before me.
Jeez, there must be a forum for people like me, who conjure up arcane devices in their heads for no apparent profit... (And by "forum" I mean "help-group". We could all sit in a circle and share our time-wasting stories with other people who have been there. "I finally invented the stirling engine -- *sob* in 1989!")
Hmmmm. I thought that the cal .50 round was developed from a German armor-piercing anti-tank rifle round of 12.7mm (or so). Still early 20th century, though.
Mike
What about advances that never made it commercially, like the Dardick, Gyrojet, Metalstorm, and G11?
Actually, caseless ammunition is not at all novel (see the Volcanic "rocket ball") nor is the Metalstorm, which is a superposed flintlock with electronic ignition. ;)
It was my understanding that John Moses Browning (PBUH) designed the .50BMG simply by scaling the .30-06 up to .50 caliber - in all dimensions.
That's what I've read as well. If I remember correctly the Army contacted him and said "With armor and vehicles and such, we need a heavy MG; can you do it?"
Which really would've been a silly damn question; I have this image of some officer saying
"Mr. Browning, we need this."
"All right, I'll get on it. Take a little while."
I read somewhere that the thing was considered TOO accurate for aircraft use in original form; they wanted the bullets to spread more, so the aircraft version had greatly-increased freebore to get that effect.
I'll throw in son used one in first tour in Iraq; he liked it. Still does.
I've never met anyone who used one who didn't like the Ma Deuce.
As for improvements, we've made some advances elsewhere that have benfitted the Infantry; shaped-charges come to mind.
Boat Guy,
"As for improvements, we've made some advances elsewhere that have benfitted the Infantry; shaped-charges come to mind."
Well, that's not really 'small arms', though. (Nor is the Munroe Effect as new a thing as a lot of people think. ;) )
For all of the "nothing new under the sun", of the field of modern arms, what's interesting is the development of the hyper-modularity of the AR system, and even in competing designs.
The growth of the modular industry, in terms of stocks, lights, sights and a seemingly infinite range of attachments, would likely even astonish both JBM and Eugene Stoner alike.
Even uniform gear has adapted itself to the use of the modular carbine. Vests, MOLLE gear, hell even tactics and movement, have all developed and evolved to take advantage of those endless options.
I wonder what JMB and Mr. Stoner would bring to us now, having access to state-of-the-art materials, CNC machining and all the other near-miracle spec manufacturing tools in today's world?
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
British Martinis and Lee-Enfields had modular stocks, differing in length.
Merwin & Hulbert and Smith & Wesson
sold modular barrels of different lengths when Grover Cleveland was president.
You can't get much more modular than a detachable stock Borchardt.
Plus ca change.
As for Dardick, the first Gatlings used cycling chambers.
Yet somehow Arne Boberg was able to receive a patent on the design behind his XR9-S pistol. It is interesting to look at the previous patents referenced, starting with multiples by Maxim and Browning before referencing many others.
http://www.inventionmysteries.com/article4.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8061255.pdf
http://www.bobergarms.com/
Ed,
Yes, I'm familiar with the Boberg. I T&E'd one, remember?
What's surprising about the patent is that neither the rotating barrel short-recoil mechanism nor extracting the cartridges rearward from the magazine is exactly earth-shatteringly new...
Huh, never knew the Dardick was basically a down-sized upside-down Gatling without the pepperbox barrels. Or half the other facts coming up in this discussion.
What about helical magazines, like the Calico or Bizon? Or whatever you call the type the P90 uses, with the rounds perpendicular to the barrel? Are they just modernized versions of the Lewis' drum, or is there something novel about them?
Dave,
Behold the Evans: A 19th Century repeater with a helical 34-round magazine in the buttstock.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Repeating_Rifle
Yup, basically the improvements in firearms since 1900 have been minor: chemistry, metallurgy and improved manufacturing & control of materials.
Nothing in that triumvirate got THAT much better. Better yes, but not an order of magnitude - as far as making the business end any deadlier.
And that's where things stand, unless you can make some conceptual breakthrough in physics we are marking time and shuffling along very slowly.
Anything else we've dreamed up: "lasers", "blasters", Plasma launchers, "disintegrators", micro missiles runs up against that too.
Either you need a HUGE power pack, or some various species of un-obtanium, or the technology is MUCH more expensive for very marginal increases in lethality ( and usually decreases in reliability and practicality) or all of the above, over your basic slug thrower.
Hey humans used sticks, bows, arrows and sharp metal things for millenia. We may be using slug throwers for a while...
The advancements are coming in targeting, observation, ability to launch those 25mm micro artillery grenades...
All the stuff that chips and AI's can make better.
Boat Guy, I believe that shaped charges were first used in warfare by the Germans in 1939, in assaulting Eben Emael in Belgium.
As for Tam's larger point, it may be that we've reached a plateau in what is possible with firearms, barring incremental technical improvements. Next big leap might have to wait for the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
At least once in every generation someone comes up with the idea that everything that can be invented, has been. I believe there was even a movement to close the US Patent office at one time because of this.
Maybe we've reached the top of the tech tree on firearms. Still, who's to know?
s
This is usually considered a fun and effective learning method in general.
The sooner you memorize some chords, the easier will be for you to perform plenty
of styles of music. ][.
Review my homepage ... Tanging Yaman Piano Chords And Lyrics
There is the .510 DTC, a .50 BMG wannabe developed for places where .50 BMG is essentially illegal or highly regulated.
Does that count as new?
There is also the 7.62x64, developed as a modification to rifles chambered for .30/06 were to be used where regulated.
Then there are new rounds .460 Magnum and .50 Magnum.
Now I know that they are similar to black powder wrist breakers.
I also note that there hasn't been much progress aside from materials in the sharp stick or the club.
Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range?
That's GOTTA be new.
The Dardick tround had potential.
I'm sure a tround with a .495 projectile, and a .50 BMG powder load behind it would make a great round for a large dardick style revolver-rifle.
We have much better plastics these days than Celanese Fortrell.
Staghounds: The Dardick did not have a cylindrical chamber set.
It uses a rotor on two sides of the tround, and the top strap on the third side.
A Dardick Minigun with an electrically operated rotor could fire at an astounding rate. And the barrel would be fixed.
Firehand: JMB's solution to the "Ma Deuce is too accurate" problem was to make the headspace adjustable.
You loosen the headspace until you get as big of a beaten zone as you desire.
Tam,
I know that you are familiar with the Boberg XR9-S, but your readers may not be, especially the innovations detailed in the patent application. Your positive T&E review of the XR9-S on this blog was one of the reasons I took delivery of one. I save the Speer Lawman ammo for use with other things.
BTW Nice photo by Oleg Volk. You certainly did fill your hands.
http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/tamara_2bobergXR9-S_3477web.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/search/label/Boberg
I think sighting systems have really evolved. A holo sight on my carry piece is the stuff of sci-fi.
Kristopher,
I'm fairly certain that staghounds is well aware of the operation Dardick, various Gatlings and their modern powered iterations, and the revolver cannon so common today. (Dardick's weapon was basically a development of these.)
OK, I'll assume it was just his choice of terms. Kind of anal of me, yes.
I had been thinking about the possibility of modernizing the Dardick ... and upgrading it to a full grown rifle.
Oh, and stolen from saysuncle just for giggles:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9106/tacticalflintlock.jpg
There are allegedly Dardick carbines floating around out there still, in the "Bring Money" price class, no?
Anybody have a decent source of trounds? It's just so sweet, swapping the barrel and then simply going to a tround with a different inside diameter to fire a different round. I'm thinking that the patent is expired, our EDM machine has some spare time, and.....
The various .470 and other odd caliber British sporting rounds were rule benders for places where the .45 was illegal, so there's your Victorian .510 DTC.
And I did know that Dardick trounds were triangular.
That's Victorian too, I can't call its name but there was an American shotgun from I think the 1870s that used triangular pre loaded "chambers".
Yea, but the Dardick carbines are all in .38 Dardick, a pistol round. It was a convertible ... you removed the barrel, and put the pistol into the carbine frame.
I want something big enough to scare the rabbit people.
Ed:
I looked for them, but couldn't find anything other than single trounds traded by collectors.
I do remember seeing a collector sell a single .50 cal tround that Dardick had made for some military test.
Celanese still sells light green Fortrell motes in bulk, if you want to use the same material to make your own.
The next advance will be - like the generations before it - governed by the propellant.
Whoever can put a safe, reliable and fast-loading rail gun on a tank, SP howitzer or corvette turret will be the next Krupp, and the only thing keeping scaled-down weapons from the hands of infantry will be the battery.
I'd had high hopes for caseless ammunition but apparently it's a tougher nut to crack.
As for me, I remain uninterested. The "advances" in modular rifle design may have produced many shoulder-fired weapons which are more-or-less utilitarian (I'm being generous - I'm more inclined to use the adjective "marketable"), but they are universally unsightly.
The "rail" concept jumped the shark when Mossberg put out their 464SPX. Waffenposselhaft, pure and simple.
gvi
Wow.
I was just proud of myself for recognizing my M240's as crossbreeds of M249's and M2's.
Incremental advances still add up. There are carbines out there today that can hit 800 meter targets when the operator is skilled, that use barrels 5" or more shorter than those of 100 years ago, use cartridges that take up 50% as much mass, and whose caliber can be changed in less than 30 seconds. That ain't nothing. Being able to make a MOA rifle is no longer as much an exercise in virtuoso artistry, as it is an exercise in industrial processes. And that's a good thing. Affordable accuracy with inexpensive optics means practically any monkey can be reliably hitting targets at 250 meters in a matter of days.
That's the beauty of the AR15, and similarly modular weapons. Power to the people.
Those are still differences of degree and not of kind.
A Pennsylvania rifle, while much more accurate than a Land Pattern Musket, but both are still muzzle-loading flintlocks; a Henry is a different animal entirely from either, as is a Mondragon from a Henry.
^^^That's what I get for trying to write in English before the first cup of coffee...
(I will agree that there have been tremendous advances in practical effectiveness in the last sixty years. A WWII US infantry squad carried firepower that was mind-boggling for its day, but it pales in comparison to the hate that can be brought by its modern equivalent, and accurately, too, at any hour of the day or night.)
"Hate that can be brought". No, no, baby. Bring the love. Bring the rain.
It's interesting that our modern troops in close combat are more likely to use semi-auto fire than other US troops in the last 50 years. This suggests, among other things, that we are more likely to hit our target with only 2 rounds than in, say, 1963.
I Google imaged search for a pic of the Evans rifle and the third pic was from Borepatch's blog. Nifty.
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/09/evans-rifle.html
Personally I can't wait to see what real advances in firearms technology do to the anti-gunners rhetoric:
The founders couldn't have foreseen 3 mega-watt laser pistols.
You don't need a BL-209i Plasma-gun to hunt with.
A U.S. Infantry squad did have respectable "output" but a Wehrmacht squad built around an MG-42 was nothing to sneer at, even before the StG44.
I’d love for someone to plunk an M4 down in front of John Moses Browning. He’d take one look at that thing and say “Direct Impingement? That’s the __________ change in rifle technology that I’ve ever seen! Why, the man who invented this ________ technology is probably the ____________ person on the face of this Earth!”
I guess we’ll never know…
"He’d take one look at that thing and say “Direct Impingement?"..."
..."them Frenchies were working on that down there at St. Etienne two years before I died! 'Course I heard of it! Frogs and Swedes were using it by the early Forties! As a big fan of reducing the parts count in guns and making one part do multiple tasks, I heartily approve!"
Post a Comment