Posted: 11/19/2011 3:54:03 PM EDT
|
Where do you see small arms technology in the long term future? I will loosely define it as the next 100 years.
In the next 10-20 years we will see incremental advances in material technology which allow for lighter firearms with superior performance compared to their steel counterparts. Longer barrel life, sustained firing rate, lighter weapons and ammunition. Electronic systems and computers are just not being joined with firearms with amazing results. The XM25 is just a peek into the future. One integrated system utilizing a computer, radio transmitter and an electro-optic system (LRF). Imagine if instead of bolting optics, night vision/thermal optics, lR lasers, and lights to an assault rifle it instead functioned as one integrated package with an internal battery. Past that it gets really interesting. Because even material improvements and integrated electronics doesn't change the fact we are using rifles with 50+ year old operating systems shooting chemically propelled chunks of ballistically efficient metal. Coil guns? Rail guns? Something else entirely? |
|
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles
ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable |
|
Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable Explosive Power Generators. |
|
Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable I would think so. Gun powder is about as mature a tech as we have. We may be able to tweak it here and there but IMO the next great leap in weapons will be in rail guns. As soon as a power source is developed. |
|
Quoted:
I think the SCAR is a great example of the improvements you touched on. Lighter materials,simpler designs that meet or exceed the capabilities of older designs. Yes. But OTH people complain about the recoil of the .308 17s due to its light weight. But I love mine anyway! |
|
If we ever achieve room temperature super conductors, the energy problem will be solved.
Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable |
|
Quoted:
If we ever achieve room temperature super conductors, the energy problem will be solved. Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the SCAR is a great example of the improvements you touched on. Lighter materials,simpler designs that meet or exceed the capabilities of older designs. Yes. But OTH people complain about the recoil of the .308 17s due to its light weight. But I love mine anyway! People also complain about 1903s garands , M1As, FALs, AKs but millions of them were used without much complaining throughout history. People complain about pump 12 gauges too .. Yet teenage girls shoot them and dont complain lol |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the SCAR is a great example of the improvements you touched on. Lighter materials,simpler designs that meet or exceed the capabilities of older designs. Yes. But OTH people complain about the recoil of the .308 17s due to its light weight. But I love mine anyway! People also complain about 1903s garands , M1As, FALs, AKs but millions of them were used without much complaining throughout history. People complain about pump 12 gauges too .. Yet teenage girls shoot them and dont complain lol No doubt people will be complaining about Gauss rifles in the future. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the SCAR is a great example of the improvements you touched on. Lighter materials,simpler designs that meet or exceed the capabilities of older designs. Yes. But OTH people complain about the recoil of the .308 17s due to its light weight. But I love mine anyway! People also complain about 1903s garands , M1As, FALs, AKs but millions of them were used without much complaining throughout history. People complain about pump 12 gauges too .. Yet teenage girls shoot them and dont complain lol No doubt people will be complaining about Gauss rifles in the future. To summarize: people complain Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
How far are we away from energy weapons? I imagine something like a microwave gun. Something that doesn't make any noise and just microwaves the target's organs from a distance in an instance. MASERs are old tech. Pre LASER, even. Again, it's battery tech that limits energy weapons. But LASERs will be more practical than MASERs. |
|
Barrels are going to get much better across the board.
I expect sniper teams will have doppler radar available to measure the wind over the traverse to a target, then integrate the measurement into an automated sight adjustment (that also takes the other atmospheric conditions into account). Powdered tungsten bullets will be more common for long range shooting. Counter sniper teams will have very good sensors that integrate sound, IR signature, and RADAR signals to locate the source of a shot. Sniper teams will have good thermal management and some RADAR cross section reduction. 100 yard benchrest will still be shot with 6 PPC, and benchrest for score shooters will shoot .30 caliber bullets, but I ain't gonna bet which case they'll be using. Shooters will still be burning through .22 LR ammo by the rail car load. CZ will admit the 455 rifle was a stupid mistake, but they won't do much to fix the problem. The 5mm Remington Magnum will make a come back and take its rightful place amongst the rimfire nobility. |
|
Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable My money would be on rail guns as well. That said, I loves me the plasma rifle in Fallout 3/New Vegas. 
|
|
Advances in material science spell better, cheaper body armor and stronger chamber and barrel materials. Probably much better for both of those, and soon. Battery tech isn't anywhere near good enough for man portable rail guns, though that will probably accelerate with all the money being thrown at electric cars and nano tech.
So, mid-term, new ammo will have to penetrate much better armor, and will probably use much higher chamber pressures to push very dense hypervelocity rounds to do it. That or drop bullets entirely, and switch to small rockets and missiles-notice all of the RPG's being used as anti-personnel weapons against American infantry? Long-term it's a race to build a battery good enough to power rail guns and lasers. The other way to defeat great armor is a precision round that targets weak spots. DARPA's already working on a self-guided sniper smart round, the soldier in 2111 may have a magazine full of smart rounds programmed to seek the neck or arm pit. You could simply place multiple hits on the same spot of armor using a Metal Storm type system (or like the Russians are trying with the AN-94), but as armor advances you'll need more rounds fired faster and recoil will become excessive. Keep in mind that some of the bleeding edge physics is getting pretty weird lately: time travel, teleportation, parallel universes, FTL, etc. I've read a lot of articles lately in which serious physicists think that some really funky sci-fi stuff is theoretically possible. So small arms of the 22nd century could well be molecular disrupters or some crazy shit we haven't even heard of yet. |
|
Place all your hope on established gun companies because USC 922(o) has killed off any ability of the individual designer/engineer. We'll never see another JM Browning/Eugene Stoner again. Simply because it is so damned hard to get an FFL/SOT to foster any creativity.
Thank Jack Hughes and the democrats for that. |
|
Quoted:
Barrels are going to get much better across the board. I expect sniper teams will have doppler radar available to measure the wind over the traverse to a target, then integrate the measurement into an automated sight adjustment (that also takes the other atmospheric conditions into account). Powdered tungsten bullets will be more common for long range shooting. Counter sniper teams will have very good sensors that integrate sound, IR signature, and RADAR signals to locate the source of a shot. Sniper teams will have good thermal management and some RADAR cross section reduction. 100 yard benchrest will still be shot with 6 PPC, and benchrest for score shooters will shoot .30 caliber bullets, but I ain't gonna bet which case they'll be using. Shooters will still be burning through .22 LR ammo by the rail car load. CZ will admit the 455 rifle was a stupid mistake, but they won't do much to fix the problem. The 5mm Remington Magnum will make a come back and take its rightful place amongst the rimfire nobility. Meh. Gunpowder is just a passing fad. We'll be going to compressed air with electronic valves to shoot paper targets. Crosman with its Benjamin Rouge is just the beginning. |
|
Quoted:
Place all your hope on established gun companies because USC 922(o) has killed off any ability of the individual designer/engineer. We'll never see another JM Browning/Eugene Stoner again. Simply because it is so damned hard to get an FFL/SOT to foster any creativity. Thank Jack Hughes and the democrats for that. and the established gun companies will balk at investing millions in R&D for the US Military based upon their long record of screwing industry over. This will be especially true if there is no possibility of commercial sales. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable My money would be on rail guns as well. That said, I loves me the plasma rifle in Fallout 3/New Vegas. Gauss gun in better. 
|
|
Quoted: Place all your hope on established gun companies because USC 922(o) has killed off any ability of the individual designer/engineer. We'll never see another JM Browning/Eugene Stoner again. Simply because it is so damned hard to get an FFL/SOT to foster any creativity. Thank Jack Hughes and the democrats for that. Agreed though 922(o) has almost nothing to do with the difficulty of getting an FFL. |
|
It is my belief that firearms are a mature technology. There will be no further breakthroughs; there will only be small minor changes that don't really advance existing tech to a great extent. A good example is the ACR and SCAR. Both are the new hip thing, but when you look at exactly what they do, they are not much of an improvement from a modern M4 or any other modern rifle.
Firearms will remain mostly unchanged for many decades from this point on. They will also be the primary small arm for many decades. The major improvements will come in the form of electronic integration. Smart sights, or smart ammo are two possibilities. The limits are inventors imagination and the physical limitations of the firearms platform. The future of small arms will be something completely different from what we have now. It is unlikely that this major change will happen in our lifetime. The look of small arms will continue to be a similar form of firearm. The next evolution of firearms will likely be some sort of energy weapon, or energy propelled projectiles. It will be something that we cannot even come close to making currently. That or mini-nukes. I love me some mini-nukes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rail guns but battery power is not advancing as fast as I would like. Maybe capacitors? I think they will be on nuke ships first then self propelled artillery, then tanks, then fighting vehicles, then sniper rifles, then assault rifles ETA: as batteries/energy source become more portable My money would be on rail guns as well. That said, I loves me the plasma rifle in Fallout 3/New Vegas. Gauss gun in better. Man, I need to find the time to play again. My wife and I were totally going to take most of December (she was going to take 3 weeks off work, and I have tenure ) to play Fallout New Vegas - because we LOVED Fallout 3 - but now my old and insane folks decided to come and visit and house-shop in D.C., so we're going to be stuck baby-sitting them for most of the time. 
|
|
Civilians will get nothing, and like it.
We will see massive advances in optics and lights, but any significant advances in firearm technology will be LE/mil only. Phased plasmas and friggin lasers will NOT make it into our hands. ATF, or whatever follows it, will prevent us from owning anything beyond FIREarms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Place all your hope on established gun companies because USC 922(o) has killed off any ability of the individual designer/engineer. We'll never see another JM Browning/Eugene Stoner again. Simply because it is so damned hard to get an FFL/SOT to foster any creativity. Thank Jack Hughes and the democrats for that. Agreed though 922(o) has almost nothing to do with the difficulty of getting an FFL. But has everything to do with getting an SOT. As you know, almost everything we like about this website is based on previous military firearms. That's where most new modern arms technology is born. Be excited about the SCAR and ACR. That'll have to do you for a long time. |
|
In the next 25 years I do not see firearms changing much. They are about as refined in terms of reliable operation and terminal effectiveness as they ever will be. What will change is the user interface-they will become more easy to use with more thought put in to making them more effective to use under stress. Look at how much combat effectiveness has changed with the advent of electronic red dot sights......
Guns will be fully ambidextrous with controls easily placed for one hand operation a-la Robinson XCR. More attention will be placed on things like the sights, sight radius, adjustability of the stock, lasers etc. Some technologies will become more prevalent as economies of scale make them affordable to Big Army-like integrated NV and Thermal but they won't be weapon mounted. |
|
Remember that ATF has decided that anything electronically initiated is construed a machinegun by design. Electrically activated firing mechanisms.
Rail? Electric. Gauss? Electric. Directed energy? Electric. Be happy with gas driven projectiles until the law changes or ATF is reorganized and reeled in. |
|
Quoted:
Remember that ATF has decided that anything electronically initiated is construed a machinegun by design. Electrically activated firing mechanisms. Rail? Electric. Gauss? Electric. Directed energy? Electric. Be happy with gas driven projectiles until the law changes or ATF is reorganized and reeled in. I recall about 15? years ago there being bolt action hunting rifles with an electronic 'firing pin'. What ever happened to those? |
|
The real area for improvement is aiming and target acquisition. Current technology is just fine for getting a lead pill up to lethal speed and impacting something up to a few hundred meters away. The problem is that no one can hit or even see what they're shooting at. Rail guns and the like are mostly just giving you higher velocity, flatter trajectory misses.
Better electronics and optics could upgrade the hit rate. Maybe augmented reality, multi-spectral sensors, auto-compensating aiming devices and the like would bring the miss rate down. This is exactly what happened with higher cost items like tank guns––the projectiles and guns improved some, but the real gains in lethality came from thermal sights and computerized gunnery. You have to wonder what will happen when ridiculous amounts of portable, low power computing are available for next to nothing. The XM-25 is probably the leading edge of the next wave––automatic range computation and fuzing with some simple computing power on the launcher. And it's a lot more reasonable to think that batteries or portable power generation will improve fast enough to power optics and computers than they will to power a rail gun. Think about what could be done if you had ruggedized iPhone like computing device with a very high resolution screen. And, on the bright side, the ATF doesn't regulate aiming devices. Yet. |
|
Quoted: Remember that ATF has decided that anything electronically initiated is construed a machinegun by design. Electrically activated firing mechanisms. Rail? Electric. Gauss? Electric. Directed energy? Electric. Be happy with gas driven projectiles until the law changes or ATF is reorganized and reeled in. Rail and Gauss and Directed energy systems don't have "firing" systems cause there's no fire, hence they aren't firearms. A full auto Gauss gun would be legal under current law |
|
Quoted:
...... I expect sniper teams will have doppler radar available to measure the wind over the traverse to a target, then integrate the measurement into an automated sight adjustment (that also takes the other atmospheric conditions into account). ...... http://www.accurateshooter.com/optics/new-wind-reading-lidar-laserscope/ Not going to search for it now, but I have read elsewhere that our "one-shot sniper system" as referenced in the above article is in an early prototype phase and works pretty well. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Remember that ATF has decided that anything electronically initiated is construed a machinegun by design. Electrically activated firing mechanisms. Rail? Electric. Gauss? Electric. Directed energy? Electric. Be happy with gas driven projectiles until the law changes or ATF is reorganized and reeled in. Rail and Gauss and Directed energy systems don't have "firing" systems cause there's no fire, hence they aren't firearms. A full auto Gauss gun would be legal under current law Destructive Devices. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Rail and Gauss and Directed energy systems don't have "firing" systems cause there's no fire, hence they aren't firearms. A full auto Gauss gun would be legal under current law Destructive Devices. They still wouldn't fall under BATF's definition of a destructive device. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/5845.html Heck a sling shot can be lethal as well as air guns and cross bows, but they're not regulated as firearms or destructive devices. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Rail and Gauss and Directed energy systems don't have "firing" systems cause there's no fire, hence they aren't firearms. A full auto Gauss gun would be legal under current law Destructive Devices. They still wouldn't fall under BATF's definition of a destructive device. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/5845.html Heck a sling shot can be lethal as well as air guns and cross bows, but they're not regulated as firearms or destructive devices. All the ATF has to do is change its mind to make them DDs. |