[The Real Hawkeye]

It took two hundred years from the invention of the smooth bore flintlock musket to the invention of the rifled caplock musket. When the caplock rifled musket replaced it, it was thought that personal military arms development had finally reached perfection, and no further significant development was possible or needed. Less than a century later, we have the AK-47, the M-16, the FN-FAL, etc. Can there be a qualitative improvement in personal military arms comparable to that between the rifled caplock musket and the AK-47. The AK, for example, was first put into production in the 1940s, i.e., about 60 years ago. In the 1840s, the rifled caplock musket was state of the art. One hundred years later, and we have the AK-47. In 2047 will the AK-47 (or a slight variation on it) still be the most commonly used military small arm in the world? In the 1940s, literally no one used rifled caplock muskets as serious military arms. I think the chances are good, however, that the AK-47 will still be in common use in 2047. I personally don't think that development in military small arms can much improve on it, short of the perfection of effective and compact energy weapons of some sort. Propellant detonation projectile weapons have reached their zenith, in my opinion, with possible improvements being only on incidental features, i.e., nothing compared to the difference between the caplock rifled musket and the AK-47. What say you?

[Chipperman]

The quantum leaps now are smaller, but there is still room for improvement.

-- Truly practical caseless ammunition
-- Small arms projectiles with guidance systems
-- Projectiles that will selectively expand, depending on what they are hitting.
-- Improved less-lethal projectiles

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yes, but, in 2047 will the AK-47 (or a slight variation on it) still be the most commonly used military small arm in the world?

PS: As an aside, we may soon discover that Jeff Cooper was right when he observed many years ago that the 1911 auto pistol represented a nearly fully matured technology in combat sidearms, as the one hundred year mark is fast approaching and the US Armed Forces will more than likely not only still issue slight variations of it, but will likely have by then increased its application after nearly abandoning it.

[ceetee]

Chipperman beat me too it. I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems to me that we've reached a plateau that has been defined by the upper limit of our available (and/or affordable) technology.

Just as the transition from muzzle-loading to breech-loading changed the whole picture, the biggest breakthrough needed to come will involve the method of transferring energy into the projectile.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I agree, but they've been working on caseless ammo for the military since the 1960s, and so far I don't see any.

That said, in 2047 will the AK-47 (or a slight variation on it) still be the most commonly used military small arm in the world? I think so. I wouldn't be surprised if the 1911 is still going strong too at that time. These might both be fully matured technologies in combustian-based projectile-launching personal small arms.

They've been working on caseless ammo for forty years. Doesn't look like it's happening. Even if it does, I think the AK-47 will still be more commonly seen on battlefields than the caseless ammo firing weapons in 2047.

['Card]

I think we may be close to reaching the apex of design, but I think the next 50 years will see some major dramatic changes due to improvements in materials. Cleaner, more powerful propellants. Chambers and barrels that can withstand much higher pressures. Much lighter and stronger frames.

As advanced composites, alloys and ceramics become more cost effective, we'll start to see them having more of an impact in firearm design. At first I think we'll simply see improved performance from existing designs, but eventually these new materials will allow completely new designs that simply aren't possible with current technology.

[hub]

ive seen on discovery(future fighting weapons) i think it was that someone has developed a weapon that doesn't need action, firing pin, ect. the bullets stack in the barrel and are set off through an electronic pulse down the barrel. it can shoot one bullet at a time, select intervals, or all at once like a speer for penetration. the guy a prototype pistol that i think he shot, not sure. also said they had plans to put on f-22 joint strike fighter. they also claimed one million rounds a minute which caught my attention, on a land based version. i guess it would be possible if you had enough tubes. maybe someone else here has seen the show and give a few more details.

[rbernie]

We've gotten to the point where we can accurately fire a projectile hundred of meters downrange with adequate killing power. To my untrained eye, there's probably not much more to optimize in that side of the problem other than the methods of manufacture and the materials used in the firing platform and the projectile.

Given the trends I've been seeing, probably the biggest focus for the next fifty years will be on making it easier for the operator of the platform to acquire and engage the target (e.g. sighting systems).

[Outlaws]

I saw that thing with the "million rounds a minute". It had soemthing like 20x20 barrel configuration with about 30 rounds in each barrel. Took like a tenth of a second or probably less to shoot them all off. I doubt they were full power rounds though. But still a interesting technology to come.

Also, these new firearms where they shoot around corners or "smart bullets" that explode before impact and F***S***Up....I would call that a leap forward.

[3fgburner]

It took two hundred years from the invention of the smooth bore flintlock musket to the invention of the rifled caplock musket. When the caplock rifled musket replaced it, it was thought that personal military arms development had finally reached perfection, and no further significant development was possible or needed. Less than a century later, we have the AK-47, the M-16, the FN-FAL, etc.

It's more like 500 years from medieval hand-gonne (http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html) to percussion rifle-musket (http://arms2armor.com/store/product98.html). The next major revolution occurred within 10-15 years: rimfire, and then centerfire, cartridges. From there, you're talking 30 or so years to the Maxim machinegun, and a whole slew of different repeating small-arms. The major breakthrough was the notion of packaging propellant, projectile, and ignition source in one cartridge. Prior to that, the best you could do was capping breechloaders - propellant and bullet in a cartridge with a hole in the base, and a cap on an external nipple.

I figure the next major breakthrough will be something like magnetic projectiles, with linear accelerators in the barrel. That will have to wait for a revolution in miniature power sources.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The current limitations on small arms are weight and heat. Those are two big hurdles to overcome that will give a modern military firearm a significant advantage.

After that will come penetration...already modern body armor is in use that can stop many rifle rounds. With the current emphasis on research, we will soon reach the level where armor is a major factor for a projectile weapon.

I expect we will continue to see evolutionary refinements in design for some time to come. The AK47 of 2047 might have the same gas operating system as an AK47; but it will be noticeably better in terms of performance, ergonomics, and ability.

[The Real Hawkeye]

The AK47 of 2047 might have the same gas operating system as an AK47; but it will be noticeably better in terms of performance, ergonomics, and ability.Considering that the gas operating system is the heart of the AK47, that would be pretty amazing, if true, and I agree that it will in fact be the case.

[Working Man]

Much lighter and stronger frames.

That combination will have to cause a change in how recoil is controlled and
directed. We can make stronger lighter frames and more powerful rnds to go
in them but the fact remains that if a person can not control his weapon
when firing it, the weapon is of little practical use.

Now for mounted weapons or smaller personnel carried weapons its a great
thing to have lighter... within reason. But a person carried rifle that is 30%
lighter with a stouter rnd in it just wont work as well without improved
recoile management.

hub & Outlaws, it is called metal storm.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/06/26/australia.metalstorm/

Check this out.

http://www.metalstorm.com/

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That combination will have to cause a change in how recoil is controlled and directed.

A lot of that is already out there. Look at some of the recoil reduction systems available for shotguns (Like the Knoxx Spec Ops Stock). They are simply amazing in terms of reducing recoil. Add an effective muzzle brake (or a suppressor which is both an effective muzzle brake and reduces noise) and I think you'd be suprised how much recoil can be reduced.

[Chipperman]

That said, in 2047 will the AK-47 (or a slight variation on it) still be the most commonly used military small arm in the world?

I agree, but not necessarily because there won't be anything better by then. It's simple economics. The AK is all over the world and can be bought for pocket change. If something revolutionary in design does come around, how quickly or easily will the warlords in Mogadishu or Darfur equip their men with it?

[Working Man]

I know there is a formula to determine the felt recoil based of the weight of
the firearm and the weight & velocity of the rnd used. Is there a rating
on recoil systems and muzzle breaks that can be used in conjunction with
the recoil formula to gauge how the alteration will affect the recoil?

[otomik]

If something revolutionary in design does come around, how quickly or easily will the warlords in Mogadishu or Darfur equip their men with it?yes, russians have their PPS43, 1945 SKS and 1949 AK, the korean war in 1950 was fought with captured japanese rifles from the previous occupiers and fewer PPS43s and the rare SKS. In vietnam the man in black pajamas had mostly SKS and captured french battle rifles from the previous occupiers.

After the whole ACR program in the 80's someone drafted a white paper that suggested the only way to get a significant enough improvement in lethality to replace the M16 was programable airbursting munitions and that set off the whole OICW thing.

Personally I think we do have enough improvements in technology to justify a big switch to a new cartridge and weapons system. Picture an FN F2000 with AN-94 bursts and the AK-107's and Ultimax LMG recoil reduction system firing a polymer cased 6mm Optimum or 6.8 SPC cartridge. Add on an attachable single shot programmable airbursting munitions launcher and you have a sensible replacement for the M203 and XM25 as well. The chinese have a great rifle in QBZ-95, we should be able to one up them with our higher spending on soldiers and emphasis on low casualties.

[orangelo]

You can keep your crude projectile throwing weapons.

I'll be looking at the plasma rifles in the 40 watt range at the future gun shows. :evil:

[Coronach]

Will the AK still be the most common weapon in the world in 2047?

I would be astonished if it was not. It is cheap, easy to make, easy to maintain, and nothing we have on the horizon will supplant it in world-wide use in the next 30 years. The key is "world-wide"...it might indeed be out of front-line service with major powers by then, but it will almost certainly still be in use in every third world hell-hole for decades to come.

I think that we'll see an evolution (as opposed to revolution) in design for a while, but that the changes will be relatively minor until the next true revolution in weaponry. We might not be at the absolute pinnacle of chemical-propelled projectile design, but we're certainly near the top. Will guns get lighter? Yes. Will they get more rugged? Yes (or, stay as rugged as they are now and be a lot lighter). Will their ammunition get more fancy/lethal and/or lighter? Yes. Will sighting systems get more refined? Yes. Will recoil attenuation systems get more refined, to the point where controllable full-auto is possible in shoulder-fired weapons of greater than .22 caliber? Yes. (;)) Will we eventually end up with some wizz-bang setup where you have integrated helmet HUDs and weapons with various aiming systems attached to them? Quite possibly.

Is all of that a significant advance from what we have right now, in the same manner that a soldier or Marine in kevlar and armed with an M4 and an ACOG and NVD is a significant advance over a Dragoon in a wool uniform armed with a musket?

Not really.

JMO,
Mike

[ArmedBear]

-- Truly practical caseless ammunition
-- Small arms projectiles with guidance systems
-- Projectiles that will selectively expand, depending on what they are hitting.
-- Improved less-lethal projectiles

Unfortunately, caseless ammo, which was supposed to be the next big thing 20 years ago, seems to have been a dud.:o I have a rifle and several handguns that fire caseless ammo. They're functional, but they sure do take forever to load.:p

I'm thinking that, if we can make small projectiles with effective guidance systems, the small arms that fire them will not be rifles in the way we think of them. No doubt someone is working on it.

Selective expansion is an interesting idea for nanotech. It could be defeated with the right kind of armor, though, and it would likely be as verboten as modern JHP's, Hydra-Shoks, etc.

Less lethal is really an area for improvement. I'm afraid of what the moonbats will do to our rules of engagement if they think we have "magic bullets", but the technology would be good to have!

[Lonestar.45]

There is just no way of knowing. All it takes is for a modern age Stoner or Kalishnikov to come along and invent something we can't even conceive of right now. It's been that way going back to the Hawken brothers, Samuel Colt, John Moses Browning, Gaston Glock.....sooner or later someone will build a better mousetrap.

[AJAX22]

Firearm innovation and development is always a result of one mans inspiration and subsequent improvement.

with increasing restrictions on making your own firearms, and regulation, registration fees etc.

I feel very strongly that anything that this country can offer up in the next fourty years will most likely be a designed by comittee piece of junk.

innovation comes out of basements and small shops. turn the people loose on a problem and you'll be amazed.

[Omnivore]

Lonestar.45 is right of course. The problem with predicting invention is that only the inventor thinks of it.

I have a pet saying that I like to throw around in these situations:

Your lack of imagination is proof of nothing except your lack of imagination.

Someone wanted to close down the U.S. Patent office over 100 years ago, because everything (he could imagine) had been invented already.
Heh!

For myself, I think there is great possibility in a caseless system. That no one has done it well yet is proof of nothing. It just leaves an open slot for a good inventor. But of course that in istelf would be no big, huge leap forward.

If you REALLY want to see some development, unleash the power of the human mind by de-regulating the industry. John M. Browning did not have the restrictions that we now have in our faces, perpetrated by the socialists.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Firearm innovation and development is always a result of one mans inspiration and subsequent improvement.

with increasing restrictions on making your own firearms, and regulation, registration fees etc.

I feel very strongly that anything that this country can offer up in the next fourty years will most likely be a designed by comittee piece of junk.

innovation comes out of basements and small shops. turn the people loose on a problem and you'll be amazed.That's why the next great development in firearms design will probably come from a gunsmith in Afghanistan, or some such place, where there really are no government regulations on such activities. Every gunsmith has a free hand to do whatever his personal ingenuity leads him to do.

[Tokugawa]

The problem in the past was how to kill. The problem of the future is who to kill

[Evil Monkey]

Weapons evolve to kill faster and more efficiently in a practical format. Caseless, flechette, air burst, etc, were all built to increase kills. With caseless you can have a shorter weapon action, thus, shooting more bullets in a shorter period of time as accuratly as possible. Flechettes were designed for the same reason and to increase accuracy by unbelievably high velocities. Air burst munitions were designed to get foes hiding behind or under tough barriars because bullets can't turn 90 degrees in mid-air.

The easiest way to enhance weaponry is to take what's already here and mess with it. I guess we'll just have to wait until someone makes a new wonder weapon.

By the way, did any of you hear about a new LMG that was supossed to be used by possibly the Marines or the US Army? It was to be a modified M249 that would fire 5.56mm telescoped ammo!:what: :evil:

[Wes Janson]

But the thing to remember is that there ARE limits to any technology. How old is the knife, for crissake? It's the law of diminishing returns: in the last several thousand years knife technology has inarguably advanced dramatically in terms of materials, designs, sharpeners, etc. All of which is well and good. But realistically, an example of a blade from two thousand years ago is pretty much most of the way to the apex in terms of function. There are always physical limits to technology that aren't liable to change easily, if at all. Is current firearms technology 95% of the way to the top? 98%? 99%? Undoubtedly there will be improvements made for a long time to come, but it won't be from 75% to 90%, it will be from 99.99% to 99.99999%.

The biggest hurdle to overcome with energy weapons ("railguns") seems to be figuring out a way to obtain energy efficiency in terms of mass. Wikipedia says that gasoline has an energy density of 44 MJ/kg of mass. One source online puts gunpowder at approximately 3 MJ/kg. And then you have batteries: lithium-ion at .54-.74 MJ/kg, NiMH at .22 MJ/kg, and lead-acid at .11 MJ/kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density). Assuming the numbers aren't significantly wrong, that would seem to mean that you'd need to quadruple the energy density of the best batteries out there to make them comparable to what we use now. I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that, but from the sounds of it we're still a long ways away from being able to make them efficient enough to compare to smokeless powder, and even further to go to make them preferable. Even if they pull it off, you still have to have a projectile to throw at your target, which means the basic design isn't going to be all that radically different from a Glock or an AK. And ultimately, which is going to be cheaper to manufacture, and less prone to failure in real-life conditions? In the end I suspect there may never be an option quite as all-round effective as the firearms we more or less have now.

[Hypnogator]

But the thing to remember is that there ARE limits to any technology. How old is the knife, for crissake?
Precisely. Since we first learned to poke holes in tasty/ferocious critters and each other with a sharpened stick, we haven't had a heckuva lot of major improvements. Certainly learning to throw said stick wasn't much of a leap; and the bow just lets you throw a smaller stick farther to do the same job. The invention of gunpowder and the discovery that it could cause a really small stick to do the same job at a really great distance was a major leap, but when you get right down to it, we're still killing critters and people by poking holes in them.

I don't see the technology changing much, except for perhaps the use of caseless ammo, which would greatly lighten the soldier's ammo load. Until we invent some kind of "death ray" that will destroy the life process at great range, I think we've about reached the limit of effectiveness for small arms.

[trbon8r]

By 2047 we will be a third world hell hole.

I wouldn't bet against the AK still being in the running as a front line weapon in use by untrained American guerillas. ;)

[Tony Williams]

Some good points in this thread. There is no doubt that the weapon technology based on conventional ammunition is mature (and has been for decades), and is subject only to incremental improvements. OTOH, both electric rail guns and projected energy devices seem to be a very long way away from becoming practical, hand-held weapons. So is there anything that can be done intermediate between the two?

I think three elements can be identified, all of which are in the process of being developed now: different ammunition technology using conventional single projectiles, different types of projectiles, and sighting systems.

The US Army is currently sponsoring a Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) research programme. This is initially focused on a 5.56 mm Light Machine Gun, with the aim of achieving an overall reduction in the weight of the gun and ammunition load of 50% by comparison with the current M249. Prime contractor and system integrator for the programme is AAI. The most interesting aspect is the ammunition, since two competitive approaches are being developed: polymer cased (by ARES) and caseless (by ATK). In both cases, the rounds will be telescoped (i.e., the bullet will be buried inside the round) for maximum compactness. So far, the linked polymer-cased ammunition is delivering a 33% reduction in weight over the standard brass-cased 5.56 x 45, while the caseless version achieves a reduction of no less than 51%.

The initial LSAT LMG project matches the calibre and ballistics of the existing 5.56 mm ammunition in order to make direct comparisons. However, a parallel study is proceeding into a Company Machine Gun to determine the feasibility of a single weapon, using a single round of ammunition, for both the LMG and the CMG; in other words, to replace the 7.62 mm M240 as well as the 5.56 mm M249. If it is to do this job, the new cartridge will need to be intermediate in calibre and power between the two existing rounds, with ballistics perhaps not very different from those of the 6.5 x 38 Grendel. Should this programme eventually result in a service MG (admittedly a big if), the potential for developing a rifle around the new cartridge is obvious. If body armour becomes a major problem (as it is likely to), the new ammo could be configured to fire sub-calibre tungsten projectiles at high velocity, like the Swedish 7.62mm sniper rifle.

Next, the question of alternative types of projectiles. These are already being developed, in the form of the US Army's XM25 project. This is a 25mm semi-automatic grenade launcher which can fired airburst HE projectiles - but it could also fire multiple-flechette loadings which would greatly increase the hit probability at shorter ranges. In fact, Metal Storm technology might have a part to play here. Imagine a basic gun stock and sighting system into which you could slot different barrels pre-loaded with HE, AP, flechette or less-lethal projectiles. Ideally, the gun would take two barrels so you could have an instant choice of projectile type.

Finally, the biggest problem is actually hitting what you're aiming at. Multiple-flechette ammo should help with that (although obviously not much use where innocent bystanders are nearby) but the advanced sighting system developed for XM25 and similar systems also help a lot in sighting conventional munitions.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[mrmeval]

Edit: Misread the whole thread title. This really doesn't apply.

Plasma disrupting electric tank armor.
Liquid body armor.
Micro UAVs as small as a bug and some that are bugs and that can seek out spy on or kill humans.
Networked landmines that are biodegradable based on a fixed time and/or via programmed command.
Landmines that deactivate and return home.
Land mines that move based on enemy movements.
Loitering Air Missle that can stay aloft and automatically identify and kill targets, if it's fuel is expended it returns home.
UAVs which carry more payload than any manned craft.
High energy kinetic kill missles.
Missles with specially formed metal plates and explosives to penetrate upper tank armor even though the missle passes over and not into the tank.
Autonomous 'mules',
autonomous tanks,
portable chemical lasers,
etc etc etc etc

There are at least prototype versions of most of these. BTW we can already target artillery and mortar shells and return fire in an instant and have been able to since 1985. http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/9904f05d636d7a918525627a006fd82b?OpenDocument

This doesn't even touch the navy or the airforce.

[rangerruck]

40 years ago, carbine williams developed a 22 belt fed that is about as big as a calico rifle. it did not rust, and used no lubricant, in fact , he said lubricant makes it worse. he test fired , for a bunch of Army generals, about 22,000 rounds through it with no jams, ftf's, or misfires.
the capability is out there, There are just some people in high places, that don't want us to get our little hands on it.

[otomik]

the capability is out there, There are just some people in high places, that don't want us to get our little hands on it.:uhoh: right, the oil companies stole my 10,000 mpg carborator too!

Wikipedia says that gasoline has an energy density of 44 MJ/kg of mass. One source online puts gunpowder at approximately 3 MJ/kg.
speaking of carborators, wouldn't that be a better caseless system? liquid propellant sprayed into a combustion chamber? think how many rounds you could stuff in an M16 size mag if they were just the size of the bullet and not this whole system of the cartridge being the combustion chamber as well.

Next, the question of alternative types of projectiles. These are already being developed, in the form of the US Army's XM25 project. This is a 25mm semi-automatic grenade launcher which can fired airburst HE projectiles - but it could also fire multiple-flechette loadings which would greatly increase the hit probability at shorter ranges. In fact, Metal Storm technology might have a part to play here. Imagine a basic gun stock and sighting system into which you could slot different barrels pre-loaded with HE, AP, flechette or less-lethal projectiles. Ideally, the gun would take two barrels so you could have an instant choice of projectile type.Airbursting HE might not go too well with Iraq type rules of engagement as you've said. The Australian answer to the XM25 is Metalstorm based, but I still think it's ridiculous, imagine the weight of all those barrels of stacked ammo. I think ATK has some big pull in the military-industrial-congressional complex and that's a the reason why this project hasn't been killed or more significantly downsized ("the man" thinks V22 Ospreys loaded with Space Marines carrying M25 would be super cool). Why hasn't some sane person proposed a more modest single shot programmable 25mm system to replace the M203?

[Tony Williams]

The Australian answer to the XM25 is Metalstorm based, but I still think it's ridiculous, imagine the weight of all those barrels of stacked ammo.
A solution to that might be to keep a metal outer barrel on the gun to take the pressure, and have the MS stack as a lightweight insert; it should be lighter than a magazine. And don't forget that you're achieving multiple-shot capability while saving the considerable weight, space and complexity of an autoloader.

Why hasn't some sane person proposed a more modest single shot programmable 25mm system to replace the M203?
Because they're working on introducing the same technology to the good old 40mm. See my report on Eurosatory for the gen on the IMI MPRS: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Eurosatory%202006.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Lebben-B]

speaking of carborators, wouldn't that be a better caseless system? liquid propellant sprayed into a combustion chamber? think how many rounds you could stuff in an M16 size mag if they were just the size of the bullet and not this whole system of the cartridge being the combustion chamber as well.
Yes, you could stuff more bullets into a mag. But then you've doubled the items needed to replenish the weapon. Also the weight/space savings gained by using mags of uncased bullets would be offset by the weight of the liquid propellant. Then there's the question of where to store the propellant on the weapon. As an aside, my great uncle was a combat engineer in WWII. He told me some pretty gruesome stories about flamethrower operators that got hit. I don't think I'd want to carry a liquid-fuelled weapon.

Mike

[mrmeval]

Also you need a control valve system and a metering system to send the fuel air into the chamber. An exhaust system to vent combustion products. Some way to keep the carbon down. There's not enough potential in energy delivered to target to justify working further on it.

The Navy and the Army have both looked into it, not economical and too prone to error. The Navy is now on track to use rail guns which can send a projectile with 2kilotons of energy 240 miles away.

Oh, potato guns have come a very long way. Some even have all of that loading system. It's still not reliable.

[MechAg94]

It might be simpler to develop more dense propellants. Make a 5.56 X 5 cartridge that has the same performance as a 5.56X45. If barrels can handle higher pressures, would a small bit of high explosive work?

I would hate to see the loading system on a rifle that had to load 5.56 bullets without the cartrige.

The metal storm stuff looks to me like it has possibilities for the future and current applications. If you could make a gun pod for aircraft that had no mechanical parts, you could carry more ammo. Look at the loading system for the gun on the A-10 Warthog? What if the same thing could be done by sliding in barrels full of rounds ready go. Get rid of the 30 feet of ammo belts and gattling gun motors and rotating mechanism. Certainly, 1,000,000 rounds/minute is way to fast. Rate of fire would have to be regulated. Also, the number of rounds fired for each burst could be managed precisely. What if you had a tank or artillery barrel that could stack shots. It could fire a number of rounds very quickly. I don't know if MetalStorm is ready for small arms yet, but I see possibilities.

If would be interesting if they could make a MetalStorm system using smaller calibers that could take out incoming artillery.

I saw a short segment on the History Channel a while back. Apparently, a guy had some frangible ammo that would penetrate a metal plate or armor, but would fragment or expand upon hitting soft tissue and flesh. The company wouldn't say how it works.

- Make caseless powder that burns cooler to avoid heat issue or dumps the heat out with the projectile.
- Make a barrel material that doesn't absorb the heat?
- Sabot or smooth bore guided ammo in a rifle.

[MechAg94]

I'll be looking at the plasma rifles in the 40 watt range at the future gun shows.
I need to watch the Terminator again, but did he say 40 watt range or 40 yard range? 40 watts doesn't seem like a whole lot of power.

[Tony Williams]

I saw a short segment on the History Channel a while back. Apparently, a guy had some frangible ammo that would penetrate a metal plate or armor, but would fragment or expand upon hitting soft tissue and flesh. The company wouldn't say how it works.
I suspect that was the LeMas "Blended Metal Technology". For the low-down on this "controversial" ammo, see: THIS (http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=78&t=001189) :eek:

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[benEzra]

The biggest areas I see for further technological improvements are

(1) sighting systems
(2) firearm size and weight for a given projectile energy/momentum (a materials problem)
(3) bullet construction (another materials problem)
(4) ergonomics

with (1) having the most potential for improvement.

In 2047, a soldier might still be carrying a gas-operated select-fire rifle firing spin-stabilized bullets, but I dare say he/she won't be aiming the thing by lining up two pieces of metal atop the rifle. There may be a floating reticle on the soldier's visor that's slaved to where the gun is pointed (think Halo), integrated with HUD target ID via some sort of IFF to help prevent friendly-fire incidents.

Electronic firing mechanisms that allow the gun to fire at the exact moment the gun wobbles across the target have also been experimented with, as have gyroscopically stabilized rifles to reduce muzzle walk. Dunno if either of those would be practical, but they show another direction things might go.

It's sort of like the situation with military aircraft. Strictly in terms of physical performance, an F-22 is more capable than an F-15, but not THAT much more capable. It may be a bit faster, it has greater range without drop tanks, it is a bit more agile at high speeds, and so on. But it is VASTLY more capable at identifying targets, at hiding from hostile sensors, at analyzing the threat environment for the pilot, and so on. The basic technology of jet fighters is very mature, but they are continuing to improve in areas other than raw performance.

[otomik]

The Navy and the Army have both looked into it, not economical and too prone to error. The Navy is now on track to use rail guns which can send a projectile with 2kilotons of energy 240 miles away.

Oh, potato guns have come a very long way. Some even have all of that loading system. It's still not reliable.You're right, I totally forgot about the HAN-TEAN monopropellant XM-46 thing. Before we see railguns though, I think a baby step technology toward railguns is ETC (Electrothermal-Chemical) propellants.

[Lonestar.45]

I predict we'll see huge advancements in body armor in the next decade or two. That, in my opinion, will make conventional small arms much less effective. At that point, huge amounts of $ will go into weapons research and things will change dramatically.

[otomik]

I predict we'll see huge advancements in body armor in the next decade or two. That, in my opinion, will make conventional small arms much less effective. At that point, huge amounts of $ will go into weapons research and things will change dramatically.I don't see it, americans with body armor might be a reason for Tangos to switch from 7.62 Soviet but 5.56mm, 5.45mm and 5.8mm seem fine for the forseeable future. It sounds more like something FN would say to sell more product in the face of a failed standard NATO PDW.

[Cosmoline]

It's not the guns, it's the POWDER. The last great era of revolutionary firearm design was from the late 1880's to WWI. Almost all of our modern designs either originated in this period or are based on principles established in this period. The reason is simple--POUDRE B. Smokeless powder not only increased potential velocity, it radically changed the way firearms could be made--opening up the way not only to smaller calibers but to all modern automatic and semiautomatic designs. Combined with the existing centerfire brass cartridge system, smokeless powder allowed the creation of almost flawless machines.

We are unlikely to see any radical changes in small arms until a new and better system of propelling bullets is created. And that's no easy task.

At that point, huge amounts of $ will go into weapons research and things will change dramatically.

What change? We already have a myriad of AP designs. Most of which end up being totally useless since the enemy we face doesn't give a wetslap about wearing body armor and never will.

The single most interesting development, and the one with the greatest potential, is the crazy old rocket bullet idea. At the time the notion was first kicked around and put into prototype there were a number of problems with it, but the BASIC PREMISE is sound and fascinating. By putting the propellant in the bullet and making it a mini rocket you solve the single greatest problem of all small arms--HEAT. There's very little combustion in the chamber itself, which means less pressure and less heat to get rid of. This in turn allows the firearm to get a lot lighter and become little more than a miniature rocket launcher. A small charge of powder or even air pressure can kick the bullet out, which then opens its fins and fires up. This system also turns exterior ballistics on its head, as the bullet goes FASTER once out of the barrel. It's possible now to turn a 660 grain .50 cal bullet into a rocket with a small guidance system, allowing it to home in on its target after being fired into the air. Or you can simply fire a volley of dumb rocket/bullets knowing they won't experience muzzle drop for a mile or so.

[Nightcrawler]

I don't see it, americans with body armor might be a reason for Tangos to switch from 7.62 Soviet but 5.56mm, 5.45mm and 5.8mm seem fine for the forseeable future. It sounds more like something FN would say to sell more product in the face of a failed standard NATO PDW.

There are ceramic composite hard armors out there than can easily withstand mulitple rounds of .30-06AP, muchless the intermediate cartridges. They're not going to become less common in future.

Right now, the badguys we're fighting don't wear armor because they're poorly equipped. Does anyone think that every future conflict is going to be a counterinsurgency campaign?

It's possible that miniature shaped charge warheads will replace conventional bullets in small arms. Kinda throws a whole new variable into the stopping power equation, doesn't it?

[Cosmoline]

There are ceramic composite hard armors out there than can easily withstand mulitple rounds of .30-06AP, muchless the intermediate cartridges. They're not going to become less common in future.

Yes they are. Those are just ways for contractors to milk money from the gobment. In reality we've been fighting guys with no armor at all for half a century, all the while spending billions on bombers, heavy armor and assorted tom foolery in preparation for hordes of high-tech foes who will never ever come. AP ammo for small arms is antiquated and only a fool would want to use it against the insurgents.

[Crosshair]

Metal storm will ammount to nothing in the long run. If anything, it will see very limited use. Liquid propellant is impractical because a high energy liquid fuel needs to be precicely controled. You see what happens when a dragster engine blows from the timing being .1 degree off, that's what will happen with a liquid propellant firearm. With solid propellants, all the variables and settings have been set at the factory when the round was made. Liquid propellant also changes burning characteristics very rapidly. A properly made round of 5.56 loaded to be fired at 70 F will work safe anywhere from a 130 F environment to a -10 F environment. The (1997) fuel injected engine on my car needs constant monitoring and adjustment by a computer to ensure that it remains within safe limits. All this high tech stuff is all fine and good until it actualy has to be used in the field.

[mrmeval]

Anecdote:
1970s radar technology is in use in Iraq, it was *finally* ready in 1985 for field use. It's a virtually hand made radar that can detect and find incoming fire.

It can be tied to the artillery and target and fire in very short time. They won't set it up that way. There's a fear of blue one blue fire. So they call every one to get clearance and invariably someone won't respond.

See it's all about 'getting the kill' and some infant-ry team wants it rather than letting the cannon cockers get it.

High tech is only as good as the people behind it.

[Tony Williams]

In reality we've been fighting guys with no armor at all for half a century, all the while spending billions on bombers, heavy armor and assorted tom foolery in preparation for hordes of high-tech foes who will never ever come. AP ammo for small arms is antiquated and only a fool would want to use it against the insurgents.
I have read that some insurgents in Iraq have been discovered to be wearing body armour. Why shouldn't they? The stuff is commercially available and terrorists usually have access to funds. I'm sure that lots of people have been noting the substantial benefits to US forces in Iraq, in terms of lives saved, so it isn't going to go away and its use can only spread.

What makes you say that AP ammo for small arms is 'antiquated'? The modern tungsten-cored bullets currently in US service in 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibres can penetrate impressive thicknesses of armour. Even better is the Swedish Army's high-velocity saboted tungsten subprojectile loading in 7.62mm, issued to their snipers. It was a Winchester-Olin development, so it's available. If the enemy starts turning up in body armour which is proof against ball rounds, only a fool wouldn't use AP against them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[otomik]

I have read that some insurgents in Iraq have been discovered to be wearing body armour. Why shouldn't they?
1. body armor degrades over time with sweat, heat and air
2. insurgents are hit and run, not defensive and never win a standup fight
3. hinders their ability to blend in with the crowd (though you can hid alot under a robe)
4. takes some more advanced body armor to stop .223, ceramic plates with little coverage unless it's something like dragon skin perhaps.

If body armor is a big concern nobody would be talking about a .45 caliber pistol like the JCP. nice info on the programmable 40mm BTW.

[Tony Williams]

If body armor is a big concern nobody would be talking about a .45 caliber pistol like the JCP.
The renewed interest in the .45 seems to have been driven by the specific conditions in Iraq, where (so far) very few of the insurgents have been wearing body armour. I have to say that I am dubious about basing future procurement decisions on one conflict, when the next one may turn out to be entirely different - you never know what's going to turn and bite you.

We in the UK got a sharp lesson in that in 1982, when a navy optimised for mid-Atlantic anti-submarine warfare suddenly found itself in a battle to regain the Falklands. Fortunately it was good enough, but the short-range air defences of the ships were shown to be glaringly inadequate, and the plans to drop medium-calibre guns from future ships were hastily abandoned. General-purpose capability is important....

I do agree with you over the disadvantages of body armour, especially in hot environments. Every step-up in the performance of the armour means extra weight and bulk. However, the problems do seem to be being addressed, with lighter armour and even built-in cooling systems being developed in the USA, so it seems that the armour is likely to improve at a faster rate than the weapons over the next few years. Of course, the USA can be expected to maintain a technological edge over insurgent troops for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean that they won't face problems.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Leonovicz]

Defense Review article (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=361http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=361) on BMT (blended-metal technology) ammunition.
Blackwater (http://www.militarycity.com/blackwater/blackwater2.html) shootout with BMT.
ArmyTimes article (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php) detailing (unpleasant) terminal ballistics and congressional debate on BMT ammo use in the military.

Link (http://www.defensereview.com/water/blendedmetalintro.wmv) to Defense Review's BMT test.

[mordechaianiliewicz]

It's hard to say. But I doubt we'll be switching to phasers ala Star Trek any time soon.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

DocGKR is well known in the field of terminal ballistics. In addition to the link at Tactical Forums explaining some of the major issues with so-called blended metal ammunition, here is some more reading:

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/3021025832/r/3021025832#3021025832
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/517000286/r/429000496#429000496
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/823107126/r/234102308#234102308

[mndfusion]

Bullets filled with toxic lethal shelfish toxin is an improment, right? Well Kennedy might think otherwise?

1.caseless ammo,
2.metals that have memory so they nvr get out of whack. No matter how hard you try to pry that crate open with your rifle!
3.metal storm technology
4. Lazer guns.

[Wes Janson]

I'd really, really like to know the real truth about that BMT stuff. And the only one I believe is my own eyes. ;)

[Cosmoline]

I have read that some insurgents in Iraq have been discovered to be wearing body armour.

Where? I've never seen any confirmation of that. They might put on some old cold war era flak jackets to look studly, but of course that ain't body armor. The terrorists have money, but they spend it on explosives to blow their boys up, not to protect them from small arms fire.

Why shouldn't they? The stuff is commercially available and terrorists usually have access to funds.

Let's be realistic here. *I* can't even afford the kind of body armor we're talking about. And the insurgents go fast and light.

I'm sure that lots of people have been noting the substantial benefits to US forces in Iraq, in terms of lives saved, so it isn't going to go away and its use can only spread.

What's needed more in Iraq are helmets and armor for protection against high explosive shrapnel and shock waves. Moreover, while our guys will continue to wear body armor our enemies will continue to go without it. Trying to devise expensive new ammunition to defeat ceramic plates is an absurd waste of money. AP ammo isn't only pointless in the sand box, it costs lives. An AP .223 loses whatever benefit it might have had from that famous explosive fragmentation. It just punches little .22" holes. This was noted in Somalia long before the current conflict.

What makes you say that AP ammo for small arms is 'antiquated'? The modern tungsten-cored bullets currently in US service in 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibres can penetrate impressive thicknesses of armour.

It's designed to fight the LAST WAR. Indeed, not even that. The war BEFORE the last war. The war that never happened, where our guys fought millions of highly armored Red Army Men. Stupid and antiquated.

I wouldn't hold your breath too long waiting for the insurgents to start wearing body armor.

I have to say that I am dubious about basing future procurement decisions on one conflict

Avoiding AP ammo in favor of something more meaty is not based on one conflict. It's based on every single conflict we've been involved in from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Somalia to the Iraq War. It amazes me how many people *STILL* seem fixated on developing something that can shoot through high tech armor. How many people have to detonate themselves before you guys realize that OUR ENEMY PLACES NO VALUE ON ANY HUMAN LIFE--least of all the lives of their own terrorists. That's not going to change. Like OBL says, Muslims LIVE TO DIE. You don't mire yourself down with heavy armor when you have that attitude.

[otomik]

Stan Bulmer is a charlitan and LeMas Blended Metal is snakeoil, there have been a few threads on this and you're better off searching and informing yourself than lowering the level of discussion here.

Dependence on Tungsten should be avoided because the major resources are in China, this has been true for a long time and in Tank munitions and armor this is one of the reasons Depleted Uranium is favored. If .45ACP's lack of penetration is a problem there are armor piercing bullet types, some that even work well with a large caliber such as Abraham Flatau's Ring Airfoil type. SS109 should be fine until a new cartridge is developed, something that has a better ballistic co-efficient to replace the .308 too, I think something like 6mm Optimum would do even better against body armor. I believe shaped charge 25mm and 40mm exist but I don't think it's possible on a very small scale like a rifle bullet AFAIK.