What Guns in Production Today Will Still Be in Production 100 Years From Now?


PDA






FMJMIKE
December 4, 2009, 11:09 PM
What Guns in Production Today Will Still Be in Production 100 Years From Now ???

If you enjoyed reading about "What Guns in Production Today Will Still Be in Production 100 Years From Now?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ridgerunner665
December 4, 2009, 11:11 PM
1911's...:)

BrianB
December 4, 2009, 11:12 PM
Wow, this will be an interesting list. I'll get us started with the classics & popular:

1911
AK-47
M1A1
AR-15
UZI
Glock
FAL

Liberty1776
December 4, 2009, 11:19 PM
Model 94 Winchester, in 30-30
Remington 870 Wingmaster
Marlin Model 60 .22 LR
Ruger 10-22
Savage Model 11 in .308
Ruger semi-auto pistol in .22 LR (by then, it'll be the MK XV...)

mljdeckard
December 4, 2009, 11:28 PM
I think that in 100 years, firearms will be a historical tinkerer's hobby, and that projected energy weapons will be used for defense and offense. If this is correct, then the guns that people will be most curious about will be those with historical interest attached to them, with the lore that comes with war and cop stories. I think there will still be Colt SAA replicas out there, 1911s, Glocks, S&W revolvers, Hi-powers, Winchester lever guns, and ARs aren't going anywhere anytime soon. ARs will go down in history as the original modular, do-it-yourself gun that was the U.S. issue rifle longer than any other rifle before it. There will be hobbyist clubs and publications for them like there are hot rod magazines for Model As, Ts, and Mustangs now.

wrs840
December 4, 2009, 11:29 PM
As far as "current classics"?

AK-47
1911
BHP

In that order of probability.

My Guess.

Les

wgaynor
December 4, 2009, 11:45 PM
Ruger 10/22

ClayInTX
December 4, 2009, 11:51 PM
I go along with mljdeckard—to a degree...

There are rumors that Projected Energy Weapons are in existence now, and I will not dispute that. I recall seeing a demonstration back in the 1960s of a laser cutting steel and heard rumors that a laser was used during the Nicaragua stint to capture Noriega.

The problem with lasers is a power supply light enough to be portable by a person. Of course if that ever happens we will have to register our flashlights (electric torches to you Brits) as assault flashlights, and those olive drab ones carried by the Boy Scouts will certainly make the evening news.

News cast:
“And now we switch to John Brown at the site of yesterdays mass shining at the Westside Mall. John, are you there?”

“Yes, Sally, it seems as if a lone shine-man walked into the local Sears and started flashing everyone in sight. Here’s an eye witness. Mam, you say you were here when the flasher walked in? What happened?”

“Well, he dropped his pants...”

“Back to you, Sally”

Oro
December 4, 2009, 11:55 PM
Model 94 Winchester, in 30-30

As much as I like them, I hate to point out that it can't be on the OP's "list." He said "in production today" and, unfortunately, they are not (except in Mossberg copies and Marlin variants). I heard there may be a limited edition made next year, but no regular production is foreseen - it's been gone since 2006. Now in reality I bet once they've been out of production a few more years, used prices will skyrocket and production will come back.

I disagree that "guns" as we know them will be gone in 100 years. Chemical powered firearms as we know them are cheap. They are powered by cheaply made chemicals that require no maintenance or impressive engineering. "Laser weapons for everyone" by the end of the century is sort of like flying cars were in the 1950s.

mljdeckard
December 5, 2009, 12:02 AM
Clay, I think about this too, but remember, there is a lot of industry pushing for longer-lasting, more compact power sources in a LOT of different devices. A hundred years is ETERNITY in technological years.

thebigc
December 5, 2009, 12:12 AM
walther ppk. browning high power

Isher
December 5, 2009, 12:13 AM
Keith Richards and cockroaches.

No guns.


isher

ClayInTX
December 5, 2009, 12:31 AM
mljdeckard, I agree. In my post, above, I was going to expand on the laser but the brief newscast scenario popped into mind and I just couldn’t resist.

Yes, power sources will certainly get smaller and more powerful. Also, lasers will get a tighter beam to concentrate the power.

But I have to acknowledge Oro’s logic. Chemicals contain a lot of power, as demonstrated by attempts to make a viable electric car. A six pound gallon of gasoline contains more energy than can now be pumped into a 400 pound storage battery. And a few grams of gunpowder packs a wallop.

However, I sometimes wonder if in 100 years we’ll be disassembling our rifles and using the barrels as clubs.

But...
Back to the OP’s question. Most revolvers, or minor variants thereof, will be in production. Automatics will change to the point that these cannot truly be called a continuation of a current model. The same philosophy will apply to rifles and shotguns.

Now if I could just stick around to see if my predictions are correct.

ms6852
December 5, 2009, 12:37 AM
1911 acp
marlin 30-30
marlin 336 35 remington
ruger 10 22

wrs840
December 5, 2009, 12:46 AM
marlin 336 35 remington

OK. I have one and like it... but pray tell, what's your logic on that one?

I'm looking forward to being an Omniscient trail-blazer.

Les

Deus Machina
December 5, 2009, 12:49 AM
Well, I think 1911's and AK's are likely the only ones to be manufactured, in the same configuration they are now, and even then likely in very much the same way they make black powder guns now. Probably some others, like the lever-actions in .30-30, and AR's, other military-looking stuff, probably mostly as curiosities.

Now, assuming the laws don't prohibit us much more...

I don't think that we will have concealable beam, sonic, or railgun-type weapons in any worthwhile manner. Ammunition is very space-efficient, completely self-contained, and doesn't care how you handle it, if you get it wet or use it in a vacuum or room full of inert gas.

Energy-based weapons of any kind, so far, are very fragile by comparison and will likely never be as durable as a good handgun. Even if they are, you're also relying on the fact you will have a good battery and stuff like a capacitor (in a railgun-fashioned weapon) won't have been cracked or popped.

Even in a lot of my favorite sci-fi, vehicles (largely space ships) rely heavily on beam weapons, plasma is available, but missile and projectile weapons still play a large part (beam weapons don't explode on contact). Handheld weapons are still often firearms, with new-technology ammunition.

I think we're more likely to move to caseless ammunition than we are to ditch the firearm. And I do think we're likely to move to much smaller calibers at much higher speeds, once we make a few more jumps in hollowpoint or explosive-expansion technologies. Really, why carry a .45 ACP at 950 fps, when we may have 4mm Federal Caseless at 4200fps? They may very well both expand to .9" by that point.

Oyeboten
December 5, 2009, 01:10 AM
S & W Model 10-whatever...

1911s

Repop Colt 'Navy' and probably Remington Cap-n-Ball Revolvers...'Walkers'...Dragoons...

FourNineFoxtrot
December 5, 2009, 01:22 AM
I'm not at all sure that energy weapons will replace projectile weapons, soon or ever. Frankly, there's more of an impetus toward developing non-chemical propelled projectile weapons (i.e, rail-guns, gauss guns, etc.) than toward actual energy weapons like lasers and whatnot. I could certainly be wrong, I don't have much of a scientific background, but that's what I'm hearing these days.

I will say this, though. The power output requirement of either energy or non-chemical-propellant weapons is going to be high. I'm thinking there may be a significant advantage for old fashioned boomsticks for quite a while, since they don't need power packs or constant recharging at a power supply, and ammo can be manufactured cheaply and easily (comparatively, anyway).

Maybe wealthy nation-states will arm soldiers with something more advanced than guns in the next century, or maybe not. But I think when 2109 rolls around the weapon of choice for hunting, self-defense, and probably most countries will still be some manner of firearm.


As for guns I think might survive the next 100 years?

The 1911 will never die. Never. In a thousand years somebody's dress uniform will include wearing them on their belt like the Marines and the Mameluke Sword today.

The AK-47, or some little-changed variant. There are so many of them around, and they do their job so well, I don't see them going away soon. Especially in the Third World, where they do not (and maybe never will) have the manufacturing capacity or energy production and support infrastructure for anything fancier. I would bet money that a century from today there will be factories in Africa laboriously churning out AKs.

M2 Browning Machine Gun. The venerable Ma Deuce has been around near a century without change. There are faster machine guns, lighter machine guns, bigger machine guns, but there's still nothing that does what the M2 does any better than the M2. If the year 2109 has need of machine guns at all, it will have need of the Ma Deuce.

Probably many of the bolt-action hunting rifles we know today will still be around. I suspect we've reached the apex of how much technology it's worthwhile to hump along to take a deer. Or at any rate, while the hunter of the 22nd century may have a Ghillie suit that makes him literally invisible or something, he'll probably still make the shot with a rifle we'd all recognize.

Hold My Own
December 5, 2009, 01:24 AM
1911's and AK-47's will always have a place on this Earth in my book.

nwilliams
December 5, 2009, 01:25 AM
Who knows what will still be in production, probably nothing since by then we'll all be slaves to our robot overlords.

Not sure what will still be in production but I imagine AK's will still be around and still widely used in 2110, the AR platform will probably be in abundance as well.

zombienerd
December 5, 2009, 01:50 AM
I really don't think we'll see too many "firearms" 100 years from now. Technology is moving past gunpowder, and besides a few "classics", I'm betting that only a few of todays weapons would make it that far.

We would probably see directed-energy, electromagnetic, solid-fuel, etc weapons. I'm hoping I live to buy a Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range. Although I must say that 40 watts doesn't seem to be enough energy to do much damage, hell, a 40 watt lightbulb can barely burn you after an hour :)

As soon as fusion is figured out, we'll be seeing portable units small enough to wear. With that kind of power on tap, things like the ADS (Active Denial System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System ) could be made to be carried.

Extremely Pro Gun
December 5, 2009, 02:08 AM
Guns will be banned by then. We will only have what we have now.

Billy Shears
December 5, 2009, 04:32 AM
I think that in 100 years, firearms will be a historical tinkerer's hobby, and that projected energy weapons will be used for defense and offense.
I must disagree with this statement entirely. I don't think we'll see such weapons for centuries yet. The problem is one of power. Even assuming you can make a man-portable laser or microwave emitter capable of killing another human being, and durable enough to stand up the the rigors of military service, what are you going to use for a power source? Battery technology is a LOOOOOOOOONG way from meeting the energy needs of such a weapon. We can't even make batteries today that will make electric cars truly competitive with internal combustion engines in terms of overall utility and practicality. When do you think we'll have a battery capable of providing multiple shots for a sufficiently lethal energy weapon, and that will occupy a space no larger than the magazine of a conventional firearm, and that can be changed as quickly as a firearm's magazine? Until there is such a power source, firearms will not be supplanted by energy weapons; they won't be supplanted for precisely the same reason electric cars have not taken over from gasoline-engined ones (despite the fact that they've been around just as long) -- overall ease of use, practicality, and versatility are not as great as with the "old-fashioned" technology.

A hundred years from now I'd fully expect most military and law enforcement firearms (sadly, I think civilian ownership will all too likely be gone) to use some sort of caseless ammo. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a return of the gyrojet for some applications. But energy weapons? Not by then. It's going to take incredible advances in power generation & storage technology before we see practical weapons like Star Trek phasers or Star Wars blasters. The closest I think we'll have is precisely what FourNineFoxtrot said: some kind of rail gun or gauss gun that uses some other form of energy than chemical to launch projectiles -- but will still launch solid projectiles.

FuzzyBunny
December 5, 2009, 08:45 AM
Well, 100 yeats ago they called you nuts if you said there would be folks flyiing around. Like 300 people in a aluminium tube going 500 mph.

If you could project 40 watts to a humans "sweet spot" in a neuro center you could drop them fast. How many laser watts does it take to blind someone? Who knows where we will be in just 50 years?

To stay on topic I think the 1911 might still be made just not on the scale they are now.

wishin
December 5, 2009, 08:53 AM
The Single Action Army will always be produced by someone, if only to make westerns.

armoredman
December 5, 2009, 09:23 AM
Railguns and directed energy weapons will be de riguer, as our tech base of knowledge doubles every 8 months or so. We'll have the power source figured out by then.
Civilian ownership depends on us, but if trends continue, the US and some other countries may have almost unregulated ownership while a UN dominated world attempts to cut us off from the rest of the world. But the pendulum is swinging back the other way for personal firearms ownership in the US. Africa may collapse entirely, and be the worlds only producer and user of the venerable AK pattern. We'll have combat matches of classic pistols of the 21st century, such as Glock and 1911, and I can hope my beloved CZs, but it will be a hobbyist thing.

Tinpig
December 5, 2009, 09:58 AM
Well, 100 yeats ago they called you nuts if you said there would be folks flyiing around.

1903 The Wright brothers achieve powered, controlled flight at Kitty Hawk.

1904 The Wrights start flying the Flyer II and ultimately make 105 flights.

1905 The Wrights fly the Flyer III, the world's first practical airplane.

1906 Lieutenant Frank Lahm wins the Gordon Bennett Cup.

1907 The Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps is formed.

1907 Paul Cornu makes a short free flight in an experimental helicopter.

1907 Louis Blériot flies the Type VII, the first aircraft with a tractor engine, enclosed fuselage, a rear-mounted tail, and a two-wheel main undercarriage with tailwheel.

1907 Curtiss Motor Vehicle Company, the first U.S. airplane company, is formed.

1908 Flight trials of the Wright military plane begin.

1909 The first Gnome rotary aircraft engine appears.

1909 Henri Farman becomes the first to fly a distance of 100 miles.

1909 Glenn Curtiss wins the Gordon Bennett Cup with a speed of 47 miles per hour.

1909 Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin founds Delag, the world's first commercial airline.

Tinpig

Neo-Luddite
December 5, 2009, 10:09 AM
S & W Model 10 (in some form)
1911
Reminton 870
Colt Model P

Another question, maybe, would be what firearms that exist today will be servicable as weapons in 100 years and beyond in quantity. My bet is that a massive number of SMLE's, AK's, Mausers, Garands, Mosins (to name a few) will be on firing lines.

oneounceload
December 5, 2009, 10:25 AM
As someone else posted, in 100 years, guns of today will be relics and non-shooters displayed in museums. Any NWO will have eliminated them and some form of energy-pulse will be the standard for LE and military use, not civilian

bigalexe
December 5, 2009, 11:02 AM
I'll add another vote that the primary weapons being used in 100 years will be non-firearms. Currently Coil-Guns are being built very small and as batteries and electronics get smaller their capabilities are going to continue to increase. Also Lasers can be built to be very dangerous and the same laws of limitation apply to them.

Alternately I would like to add the Einstein quote that I think is appropriate: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." I think its someone's sig line.

Anyway On-Topic
- AR-15 platform will maybe last as long as Muzzle-Loaders have
- Glocks
- AK-47 Platform Rifles
- Not sure what model but Bolt-Action high-power rifles, those are going to last till the end of time.

mljdeckard
December 5, 2009, 11:31 AM
Again, those of you thinking that a power source will be the hangup, we're not talking about ten years from now. We're talking about a HUNDRED years from now. When you tout the advantages of chemically-powered weapons, you are forgetting to consider that with an energy-based weapon, you will have few if any moving parts, you won't have to worry about feeding and ejecting, or even wind.

And I agree that the government will try to find a way to make sure that soldiers can have them but citizens can't.

JellyJar
December 5, 2009, 12:07 PM
I can't imagine the Ruger blackhawks and like single actions not still being made a hundred years from now. For some one who wants a simple, durable, rugged, reliable handgun and doesn't need or want high capacity, speed reloading or fast firing, they are hard to beat.

When it comes to the Glocks I don't think they will survive in their current configuration for much longer. They are a 20+ years old design that today is surpassed in ergonomics by many newer polymer frame handguns. ( They are kind of blocky ) I have heard rumors of a new generation of Glocks coming out but we will have to wait and see.

geekWithA.45
December 5, 2009, 12:20 PM
I make 3 predictions regarding the state of the art of personal arms over the next 100 years:


1) No ray guns. There simply isn't enough energy density to power a sidearm in the foreseeable future.

2) Nanotech weapons. Some exotic future sidearms will be more like nano projectile launch platforms, laser target designators for wasplike flying things that deliver chemical, electrical, kinetic, or explosive payloads. Think of summoning a swarm from the trunk of your car.

3) Chemically propelled cartridge arms will continue to be important.
.......3A) Designs will stabilize around an ideal, which I think we're approaching now: lightweight single and double stack autodecocking double action autoloaders with triggers that are consistent from first to last shot.
.......3B) Methods of manufacture will be radically different: expect stronger/better polymers, and possibly even molecular fabrication.


So, in conclusion, we'll have something that looks very much like a Glock...but isn't.

The most popular "legacy" designs will still be valid and produced.

Billy Shears
December 5, 2009, 01:07 PM
Well, 100 yeats ago they called you nuts if you said there would be folks flyiing around. Like 300 people in a aluminium tube going 500 mph.

If you could project 40 watts to a humans "sweet spot" in a neuro center you could drop them fast. How many laser watts does it take to blind someone? Who knows where we will be in just 50 years?

Railguns and directed energy weapons will be de riguer, as our tech base of knowledge doubles every 8 months or so. We'll have the power source figured out by then.

Again, those of you thinking that a power source will be the hangup, we're not talking about ten years from now. We're talking about a HUNDRED years from now.
I have not forgotten this. What you have forgotten, it seems, is that battery technology is something that has been around, and been developed for over a hundred years already, and we are still not appreciably closer to a battery that can make an electric car more practical and more versatile than an internal combustion engine that we were a century ago when the first generation of electric cars disappeared from the roadways for this very reason.

It's simplistic to say "our tech base of knowledge doubles every 8 months or so, so we'll have the power source figured out by then" because if that statement applied to battery technology, we'd already have a power source capable of providing the energy for a hand-held energy weapon, and we're clearly nowhere close yet. We haven't got a battery that will give electric cars the range of a gasoline-powered car yet either, despite a century of trying to come up with one. That's why hybrids made their appearance; it was an attempt to compensate for the shortcomings of electric vehicles -- shortcomings imposed by the limits of battery technology.

Remember, it's not enough to have something that will do the job. It has to do the job better, or at least as well, as the thing it's replacing before it takes over from the previous technology. Again, look at electric cars. Sure there are practical ones. Plug in electrics with a 300 mile range that you can plug in to recharge every night when you go to bed, and commute in all day the next day. But can you hop in the things and take a long road trip? Not really, they don't go as far as gas-powered cars. And when your gasoline-engined car's tank runs dry, it takes you five minutes to fill it back up again, not the thirty minutes to several hours it will take you to fully recharge the battery on an electric vehicle. Until electric cars offer drivers the convenience and versatility of internal combustion engine cars, the ICE cars will still be on the road. And I remind you, even after a century of development, this is a nut they still haven't been able to crack, and the sticking point is battery technology.

You won't see energy weapons replacing conventional firearms any time soon for the exact same reason. And before they do, they also have to offer users at least as much convenience and versatility as the current technology does. They may, possibly, develop some sort of battery that will power a laser for a few shots. But if that battery is a so large you have to wear it on your belt and connect it to your weapon with a cable, then it's going to be less convenient, and the weapon will not replace guns. To do that it has to be no larger than a pistol magazine, provide the user with as many shots as a pistol magazine, and be as quick to replace as a pistol magazine, and then on top of all this, it has to do this for no more than the cost of a pistol magazine and the bullets inside it. We have a long, long way to go before we see this.

ClayInTX
December 5, 2009, 01:23 PM
How apropos to this thread.

I just received it and here is part of one of the articles in it:

* * *
Popular Mechanics Magazine
January 2010 Issue
Page 13

A Million Times More Powerful Than An Ordinary Battery

Engineers at the University of Missouri recently unveiled a nuclear-powered battery that is about the size of a penny—and they hope to produce one thinner than a human hair...
The batteries harvest electricity from the emissions of decaying radioactive isotopes.
* * *
Okay, so I’m going back and forth. In an above post I said six pounds of gasoline has more energy than 400 pounds of battery. Well, that’s the present day batteries.

If they do get one as thin as a hair and it gives only 1/10 volt, a 1 inch stack in series will put out 100 volts. If the current is only 1 milliamp, 100 stacks in parallel will put out 1/10 amp. This is enough to charge a capacitor to a healthy state. Recharge time will depend on the internal resistance and permissible current flow of the batteries, unavailable data at this time.

Just for grins I once built a capacitor with two rolls of aluminum foil and two rolls of plastic wrap around a wooden dowel. It made a package about 2 inches in diameter and 12 inches long. I charged it with 120 volts AC through a rectifier bridge. It packed enough wallop that I decided I didn’t want to fool with it anymore. The reason for doing it was a bit off the wall and not germane to this discussion.

This indicates to me that a power-pack powerful enough, small enough, and light enough to be carried as a backpack as a laser power supply is feasible. Not right now, but down the road not many years.

Perhaps laser guns aren’t that far away after all.

Billy Shears
December 5, 2009, 01:40 PM
This indicates to me that a power-pack powerful enough, small enough, and light enough to be carried as a backpack as a laser power supply is feasible. Not right now, but down the road not many years.

Perhaps laser guns aren’t that far away after all.
We'll see, but just to keep things in perspective, I have a copy, somewhere upstairs, of a 1991 Popular Mechanics featuring the Moller Skycar. The inventor had a full size vehicle already constructed, and there were photos of it in the article, as well as photos of him actually flying his earlier testbed vehicles. Reading the article, you'd have thought a working car was no more than a couple of years away. Yet here we are, nearly twenty years later, and Mr. Moller is still perfecting his vehicle, and they are still nowhere close to going on the market.

Such a battery would be revolutionary in so many ways, and would affect so many technologies, it could change things almost as much as the automobile or the personal computer did -- and given this, I'd expect to have heard about such a battery in more than a single article of PM. I hope they have developed such a battery, but I'll believe all the claims when I see it work.

ClayInTX
December 5, 2009, 02:39 PM
Billy Shears,

The reason the Moller Skycar hasn’t succeeded is because it has not been able to get off the ground with 2-1/2 tons of chain. (That’s how much chain it takes to keep the average “volunteer” aboard the thing should Moller ever try to take along a passenger.)

However, I must agree with you that sometimes a very promising technology seems to become unpromising in just a little while. Then there are times when it is just too far ahead of other technology to succeed.

Radio: The principle of electron emission from a heated wire was known to Edison in the latter 1800s when he developed the light bulb. It was an annoyance to him. We were well into the 20th Century (wasn’t it about 1914?) when DeForest used that phenomenon to invent the vacuum tube.

Transistor: The principle was known back in the 1800s, IIRC, and was even used, after a fashion, for the crystal set radios. Then Bell Labs learned how to control it and from then on it was off and running.

Sometimes it just takes a while. The Land Anchor, however, was a flop. A spear-like device which attached to the rear axle and plunged into the ground should your brakes fail.

Jim K
December 5, 2009, 02:49 PM
I'll bet none, but I will let you know.

Jim

rocinante
December 5, 2009, 06:00 PM
Regardless of what whiz bang future tech competitors arise our current batch of firearms will survive just they fill their niches so well. Many folks still prefer revolvers even when auto loaders are a later technology. A good analogy I think is books have not disappeared even with the internet and these new e-books? Why? They are inexpensive, portable, brilliantly simple and always works when you pick them up.

The original premise was what here today will still be in production. I think the answer will depend more on politics and social realities much more than technology. Our current arms have many virtues of low cost production, reliability, and utility.



5 shot 38 special revolver

pump action shotgun like 870

bolt action rifles especially savage

wrs840
December 5, 2009, 06:18 PM
A good analogy I think is books have not disappeared even with the internet and these new e-books

Great point. Pens, pencils, knives, handsaws, wheelbarrows, bicycles, and boat paddles are still in common use too, even though those technologies have been eclipsed by modern advancements.

Les

rogertc1
December 5, 2009, 06:20 PM
I will never make 100 years.... damn

oneounceload
December 5, 2009, 06:49 PM
Great point. Pens, pencils, knives, handsaws, wheelbarrows, bicycles, and boat paddles are still in common use too, even though those technologies have been eclipsed by modern advancements.

But those items do not, in the opinion of certain political groups, pose a threat to mankind the way that guns do.....

wrs840
December 5, 2009, 07:08 PM
The Pen will.

Les

zoom6zoom
December 5, 2009, 08:41 PM
Ma Deuce. No batteries required, still works when the power goes out.

sixgun_grunt
December 5, 2009, 11:30 PM
im thinking Ruger single six, there will also be many different companies making 1911's, AK's and 12g pumps, but i think the single six will still be the "Ruger" single six in 100 years

Deus Machina
December 6, 2009, 12:45 AM
I'm thinking a large part of why firearms will never fade completely is because of advancing military tech.

Some we already have, to limited extent: EMP emitters.

I don't care how well something is shielded, unless we find an inert superconductor, it will always be possible to fry electronics.

In an age of electronic weapons without chemical propellants, whoever could guard against and set off an EMP blast first would unconditionally own the battlefield.

Orthonym
December 6, 2009, 01:09 AM
I would say, Colt SAA and M1911. The former because of cowboy movies and the latter because it's so iconic and American. Heck, Honor Harrington uses a 1911 2000 years in the future to kill some evil pirates, because it doesn't have an electronically-detectible power supply. Of course, that's from a space opera which takes place in a different universe from the one in which we live.

I do think our country is turning into the People's Republic of Haven.

gatorjames85
December 6, 2009, 01:31 AM
Right now, "fotay" = 40 S&W
In the future, "fotay" = Phased plasma rifle in the forty watt range

Magnum357
December 6, 2009, 01:47 AM
AK-47 or some variant
AR-15
M1911 (its just too good to die)
Glock will probably still be around
M2 .50 cal, shes brought us through WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars

jim in Anchorage
December 6, 2009, 04:45 AM
Keith Richards and cockroaches.

No guns.


isher

:D I follow the Keith Richards diet-meat, cheese, alcohol and cigarettes. Every day when I wake up I check the internet to see how Keith is doing.

If he's alive I figure I am still alright.

Ky Larry
December 6, 2009, 06:51 AM
I have no idea what kind of weapons we will have in 100 years. However, everybody seems to be missing a point about weapons of the future. The civilian sector is about 25 years or more behind what the military is up to. I knew people in the Air Force in the mid '70's who were working on projects that still haven't made their way to us civilians. I saw a demonstration of a laser cutting thru a tank in 1978. The demo was on educational TV.The military has spent trillions on black projects. We just don't have a clue yet what they got for our money. I sure would like to get a peek behind the curtain.:what:

Neo-Luddite
December 6, 2009, 10:36 AM
And the zip gun in its many variations where 'real' guns can't be had by the citizen.


Another prediction; via thread necromancy this this thread may still be going by then....

JN01
December 6, 2009, 12:06 PM
If the Planetary Government still allows us peons to own weapons:

1911
SAA
DA revolvers
Lever action rifles

All made entirely of plastic. :evil:

mgkdrgn
December 6, 2009, 03:10 PM
What Guns in Production Today Will Still Be in Production 100 Years From Now ???

You mean -other- than those designed by John Browning?

TRX
December 7, 2009, 11:17 AM
>Clay, I think about this too, but remember, there is a lot
> of industry pushing for longer-lasting, more compact
> power sources in a LOT of different devices. A hundred
> years is ETERNITY in technological years.

Technological progress doesn't always move along smoothly. Sometimes it just makes a few giant steps and stops.

Take a look at a cartridge. The cartridge is technology. It incorporates a whole set of other technologies - the forged brass case, the use of an encapsulated primer, a propellant based on nitrated cellulose and maybe nitrated glycerine, and a flat or tapered base bullet, possibly jacketed. That's a long, long way from ramming a round ball down on some black powder and setting it off by scraping a rock against a piece of steel... and that cartridge is no different technology than one made 120 years ago, or 140 if you discount the powder.

Those subtechnologies I referred to are, in turn, based on two primary lines of technological development - the forging of metal, and modern chemistry. Hammered metal goes back to prehistory, but chemistry only goes back two or three hundred years, depending on where you want to place the origin.

We have so *much* technology, and it comes to rapidly, that sometimes it's easy to forget that it all depends on a smallish number of breakthroughs, which mostly come along by accident.

Richard Feynman was a young physicicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. Shortly after the war the Army called Feynman to the Pentagon and he met with a group of generals who wanted to know if he wanted to run his own mini-project. The Army wanted to him to find a way for them to run engines on dirt. The modern mechanized Army was dependent on trucks and tanks, and not only was it a hassle to get fuel up to the front lines, it was flammable and therefore dangerous to people occupying vehicles that were under enemy fire.

If all their equipment burned dirt, all they would need was a bunch of PFCs with shovels, and they were good to go.

The generals were all intelligent, well-educated men. They'd been briefed on the atomic bomb. And what they were asking seemed entirely reasonable to them - if scientists could spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make bombs of exotic metal that exploded really good, it should be simple enough to make dirt burn. It was just technology, right?

Well, no. Unfortunately, there's a lot of wishful thinking out there, some driven by unscrupulous grant-whores in white lab coats, some simply parroted by media flacks who don't know any better. Typical subjects are batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells. The technology for all of these is pretty much pushed to the limit. The only thing that's going to make more than an incremental change is a basic breakthrough, and not only can they not be predicted, sometimes they don't come at all. There *might* be a breakthrough that would let you shovel dirt into your Blazer and drive it to work, but you'd be better off waiting to win the lottery and hiring a chauffeur-driven limo; at least it *might* happen.

ClayInTX
December 7, 2009, 11:54 AM
TRX,

Yes, technology doesn’t always move along smoothly. It can also be halted by events not technical in principle. Nuclear technology is an example, both bombs and power; bombs halted (well, supposedly) by treaty, power by ecologists (some with reason—I’ve worked in Nukes). Note: I’m not taking sides for either one.

Another example is the “Great Interruption”—AD400 to AD1400. Have you ever considered that had the Great Interruption not occurred that we might have put a man on the moon in AD1100 instead of riding off on a Crusade? A full millennium of possibilities wasted.

Guns still in production a century from now will probably be more a result of non-technology than of engineering. Even though I did express a technological opinion.

Clay

Xzyl
December 8, 2009, 12:26 AM
A 100 years a of time for change especially when you have the means to make changes rapidly.

It took less than a 100 years to go from the first powered flight to the first space flight.

It took less than a 100 years for automotive technology to displace horses in common use.

It took just over a 100 years for telephones went from simple devices that could only send and receive sound, that needed to be plugged in and needed a human operator to manually complete the connection to being a wireless device that sends and receives sound, pictures, video, data with most of the functionality of a computer that easily slips into a pocket and can be used almost anywhere. Some nations had completely skipped landlines for the most part due to their late development. (Sorry about the run on paragraph)

For a gun in production today to still be in production in 100 years there must be a profitable enough customer base to keep them in business. Note that I said profitable enough not large enough. Todays production gun may in 100 years only exist as a reproduction even if the original manufacturer is still in business. It may have to be ordered through the custom shop. Or the only maker may be a small one man shop that only builds them one at a time and will cost you more than a new car for a bare bones model. Then there will be the joy trying to find ammo or components that either have not been made in decades or are only custom made cost you over a days pay to fully load the reproduction.

At the other end of the spectrum all that may be required to buy a current production gun 100 years from now is to walk over to your fabricator and letting it know that you want it to build a firearm whose patent has expired. It checks to see if there are grounds for refusing you a firearm. LE confirms that they have no grounds for denying the firearm. The fab downloads blueprints, if there is more than one type it asks you for which version you want, and takes care of the ATF paperwork. You select the one you want and the fabricator determines if it has sufficient raw materials to build it. If it does not you will have to be loaded with whatever additional raw materials it needs. And it builds a faithfully copy, minus the 3d bar code that is its AFT issued serial number.

Balog
December 8, 2009, 01:28 AM
Assuming all tech will always advance at whatever artificially inflated rate you happen to assign to it is silly bordering on disingenuous.

I'd think SA and DA revolvers will be largely unchanged, as will lever actions. They are effective enough to be wildly popular while being anachronistic enough people don't generally feel the need to totally redesign them all the time.

RP88
December 8, 2009, 01:52 AM
I don't see directed energy weapons for a very long time; we've been working on artillery railguns for 50 years and just got told that it MIGHT be ready by 2040. Unless someone can come up with a viable power source that can revolutionize modern weaponry like how the lithium ion battery revolutionized electronics, we will be lucky to see the standard cartridge get phased out within the next 100+ years.

skoro
December 8, 2009, 08:15 AM
S&W 38spl Snub
1911
Remington 870
Winchester bolt action M70
Ruger MkXI 22lr auto

Mandolin
December 8, 2009, 10:07 AM
In Star Wars, with all the cool laser guns, missiles are stil around and jedi use swords. The AK, AR, and such like will be around, but laser rifles arn't happening. Way too many issue to work out first. And, guns are much simpler.

If you enjoyed reading about "What Guns in Production Today Will Still Be in Production 100 Years From Now?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!