No Major Changes to Guns Since WWII

[johncage]

further proving that the peak of humanity was decades ago. it's all downhill from here

[bohoki]

i think the idea of the tround and "chamberless" firearms could be revolutionary but there are no real benefits

the nfa has caused stagnation

the double mag tube shotguns and the double round firing revolvers like the thunderstruck are outside the norm

[TKM]

The Firearm Owners Protection Act ( FOPA) of 1986 drove a stake into the heart of firearms development.

Caseless and electrically primed ammo haven't grabbed the(any) market share needed for success.

In the 80s ceramics, plastic and counterforce construction promised us dishwasher safe weapons. Still waiting. Looking at you, Red Eye Arms.

https://www.straightdope.com/21342349/is-it-possible-to-make-an-undetectable-nonmetal-gun

[xcoreflyup]

I agree in a way. Firearm changes have been incremental. Just like we have been using piston ICE engine in cars until recent years.

[norcalAF]

Well.....How bout my plasma laser blaster. Picked it up cheap at a garage sale. Not technically a firearm, so no FFL involved.

And yes, it is in 30 watt range.

You gotta get those numbers up buddy, 40 watt minimum

[pacrat]

bohoki said;

i think the idea of the tround and "chamberless" firearms could be revolutionary but there are no real benefits

AGREED, Inovation that fails any metric of improvement over existing technology. Is a fruit that dies on the vine.

The illustrated single barrel "Tround" MG. Is still 300 RPM. Below the Firing Rate of the WWII German MG-43.

[L84CABO]

Bro! Do you even operate?

We have "tactical" guns today. Our grandfathers never had those. That right there is what we call...revolutionary!

What do I win?

[Verdha603]

Going to have to agree with the folks that say firearms technology stagnated by the 1970's, and not WWII.

Biggest one being the shift from full-powered rifles being accepted for general military use to carbines with intermediate cartridges; the likes of the STG-44 and AK-47 were around in the WWII/immediate Post-WWII era, but it didn't achieve general acceptance by most of the world for at least another two decades, not least of which was the very US/Western-centric stubbornness of refusing to accept that we were no longer living in a world where the deciding factor for winning a firefight was having a big, powerful, accurate rifle in the hands of a rifleman that could pop heads off at 1,000 meters. Proposing that "riflemen" usually never had to take an aimed shot past 300 meters and that an intermediate cartridge that was significantly weaker than a .30-06 or .308 Winchester was good enough to drop other people with was like the equivalent of taking grandpa out behind the shed and popping him in the back of the head in the eyes of military and shooting traditionalists, not least of which were the ones in the US military.

Hell, you'll still see plenty of it with older folks arguing we should've never left the M14 even after 60 years of history have shown that the M16/M4 was more than good enough for the job in a majority of combat situations.

The revolutionary thing that I think should also be brought up is the M1913/Picatinny rail system in the 1990's; you can thank that for making firearms modular enough to easily add mission-enhancers to the firearm to make the soldier's job easier; red dots and scopes make it easier to provided precise aimed fire (close range with dots, longer range with optics) more quickly than irons, a mounted light allows for target identification quickly without taking your sights off the target, and grips/had stops have made it so you no longer have to adhere to a "one method fits all" approach when getting people to easily hold onto the front end of a long gun for extended periods of time.

[Sutcliffe]

This is important

You are asking the wrong question. Its not based on the gun, look at the ammunition. The method of propelling a projectile has remained the same. Case, primer, propellant, and projectile. As long as that remains the primary method, the instruments that use it will remain relatively the same with various improvements to materials, weight, accuracy, and reliability.

[Beetle Bailey]

[The Gleam]

Oh c'mon man..... where's your game Calguns? Just, where's your game?!?!

I'm very disappointed in the lot of you.




----

[IVC]

^^^ The time on that watch is wrong. Doesn't look too high-tech to me.

On a serious note, this is again something that it not an improvement on guns or gun technology. It's a basic 22 with crappy trigger and crappier sights, likely a jammomatic in real life. Sort of "Saturday night special went on a date with the Casio executive" type of setup.

Besides, Belinda Padilla who was pushing this gun never went to Shot Show, only to the most anti-gun legislators she could find. It was never about technology that would interest shooters or have a use in real life, it was all about mandates and forcing it on us, peasants.

Even if smart guns do end up in mainstream, and I can see where they might be useful in some highly-specific scenarios, the sort of scenarios that require level-4 retention holsters or alike, the "revolution" will be in the gadgets that are attached to the gun, not in the gun itself. It will still be a basic polymer service 9mm that shoots using the same principle as any Glock out there.

[golfish]

Not to mention the huge advances in precision machining. The advent of sophisticated Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machining improved the speed, accuracy and precision of complex intricate machined parts.

Dan

That's what I was thinking, along with better materials ....

Good thread OP

[The Gleam]

^^^ The time on that watch is wrong. Doesn't look too high-tech to me.

On a serious note, this is again something that it not an improvement on guns or gun technology. It's a basic 22 with crappy trigger and crappier sights, likely a jammomatic in real life. Sort of "Saturday night special went on a date with the Casio executive" type of setup.

Besides, Belinda Padilla who was pushing this gun never went to Shot Show, only to the most anti-gun legislators she could find. It was never about technology that would interest shooters or have a use in real life, it was all about mandates and forcing it on us, peasants.

Even if smart guns do end up in mainstream, and I can see where they might be useful in some highly-specific scenarios, the sort of scenarios that require level-4 retention holsters or alike, the "revolution" will be in the gadgets that are attached to the gun, not in the gun itself. It will still be a basic polymer service 9mm that shoots using the same principle as any Glock out there.

So you got the joke! The picture itself is the punchline!

Only better picture of it, is Belinda feeling it up with her man-hands!



---

[HKAllTheThings]

Several innovations just off the top of my head:

Assault weapons
Ghost guns
Cop killer bullets
Barrel shrouds
Porcelain Glock 7