Even the direct impingement gas system dates back to before the 1950s as does the striker fired systems so I can't think of anything fundamental.
Anything really new in firearms since 1950?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
ol' scratch
Member
A big +1. Might I also add that dollar for dollar cheaper and more reliable (for the most part).
Bohemus
Member
That was used (if Iam not mistaken) in one 40/50s Swedish rifle.
holowpoints - just evolution of dum-dum
DAO - vz.38
So i have to agree with exavid - not much of revolution but large inprovement.
Metalstorm electric ignition bullets stacked horizontally across multiple barrels - Ive seen same thing with flintlock igniotion.
There just wasnt such huge change as e.g. muzzle-breech loader.
Cosmoline
Member
No, there's been nothing FUNDAMENTALLY new since 1950 with the exception of the gyrojet and perhaps one or two other true innovations.
In the mean time, nothing fundamentally will change until and unless the basic cartridge, priming and powder changes fundamentally. As long as we're using smokeless in metallic centerfire cartridges, we're stuck with permutations on old--very old--ideas. Even caseless efforts aren't really new. They were used in the Civil War, and still suffer from the issues of fouling and heat. We would need a totally new propellent or other propulsion method to see any new fundamental changes in firearms. And maybe we will never see this, because we've gone as far as we can with firearms. Maybe what comes next won't be a firearm at all.
Virtually all the so-called modern innovations have been tweaks on the basic chemical and engineering advances which were all in place by 1918.
Our cartridge and priming systems date back to the 1860's
Our powders date back to 1884
Most automatic actions date to the 1890's or early 1900's, even if the initial incarnations were unsuccessful.
Projectile designs have seen much tweaking, but the basic shapes and materials were all well in place by the first world war.
Triggers, receivers, barrel design and all the fundamentals were well in place by WWI.
Optics have seen much improvement, but this was due to manufacturing and material advancements not to any core alterations. Scopes all still use the same principles that were in place centuries ago.
In the mean time, nothing fundamentally will change until and unless the basic cartridge, priming and powder changes fundamentally. As long as we're using smokeless in metallic centerfire cartridges, we're stuck with permutations on old--very old--ideas. Even caseless efforts aren't really new. They were used in the Civil War, and still suffer from the issues of fouling and heat. We would need a totally new propellent or other propulsion method to see any new fundamental changes in firearms. And maybe we will never see this, because we've gone as far as we can with firearms. Maybe what comes next won't be a firearm at all.
Virtually all the so-called modern innovations have been tweaks on the basic chemical and engineering advances which were all in place by 1918.
Our cartridge and priming systems date back to the 1860's
Our powders date back to 1884
Most automatic actions date to the 1890's or early 1900's, even if the initial incarnations were unsuccessful.
Projectile designs have seen much tweaking, but the basic shapes and materials were all well in place by the first world war.
Triggers, receivers, barrel design and all the fundamentals were well in place by WWI.
Optics have seen much improvement, but this was due to manufacturing and material advancements not to any core alterations. Scopes all still use the same principles that were in place centuries ago.
Last edited:
bushmaster1313
Member
That is indeed new, and I like them, but I was thinking more in terms of things that make the gun go bang.
I respectfully disagree. The best inventions are those that nobody thought of till someone invented it
Cosmoline
Member
Even the best innovator in firearms right now still has to work with the basic 19th century tools of centerfire metallic cartridges and smokeless powder. Only so much can be done around those fixed points, and I think we've done just about all that can be done.
The basic elements making up the cartridge--the heart of any firearm--must be changed if there's to be any true innovation. That's why there was a flurry of invention from the late 1880's through WWI after smokeless was invented. Most firearms we use now trace their roots directly back to this time period, and most of the rest trace roots back indirectly. The ones that don't go back to the 1890's go back even further to the BPCR era that preceded it. Very little truly new has emerged since the great war. The innovation has all been engineering tweaks around the same basic cartridge system and permutations on the same basic action types. Even the AK and AR, both quite old now, are just tweaks taking advantage of the same basic cartridge system.
As far as what will replace it? I have no idea. That's where real innovation comes in.
The basic elements making up the cartridge--the heart of any firearm--must be changed if there's to be any true innovation. That's why there was a flurry of invention from the late 1880's through WWI after smokeless was invented. Most firearms we use now trace their roots directly back to this time period, and most of the rest trace roots back indirectly. The ones that don't go back to the 1890's go back even further to the BPCR era that preceded it. Very little truly new has emerged since the great war. The innovation has all been engineering tweaks around the same basic cartridge system and permutations on the same basic action types. Even the AK and AR, both quite old now, are just tweaks taking advantage of the same basic cartridge system.
As far as what will replace it? I have no idea. That's where real innovation comes in.
JohnBT
Member
The compensating gas system on an autoloading shotgun. I can't think of a bigger advance than the development of an autoloading shotgun that would reliably shoot all 2.75" and 3" shells without fiddling with something or changing the barrel. Of course, now it's 2.75" to 3.5".
And Ruger's great success with metal casting. Whether you think it was good or bad for guns in general, it has been a successful innovation. The innovation being that they made it work and work in all sorts of applications.
John
And Ruger's great success with metal casting. Whether you think it was good or bad for guns in general, it has been a successful innovation. The innovation being that they made it work and work in all sorts of applications.
John
I still vote for the Dardick's chimera... Nothing like a magazine fed revolver: http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Odd ...0 SEMI-AUTO/DARDICK MODEL 1500 SEMI-AUTO.html
exavid
Member
Guns in general are actually cheaper for the most part than they were in 1965 for instance. If you correct for inflation using the CPI:
Smith and Wesson model 29 was $150 in 1965 which would now be $1071
Ruger 10/22 in 1964 was $56 which translates to 4406 in 2011.
Smith and Wesson model 29 was $150 in 1965 which would now be $1071
Ruger 10/22 in 1964 was $56 which translates to 4406 in 2011.
Frank V
Member
EVERYTHING IS NEW!!!
Just ask the gun manufacturers!!!
Frank
Just ask the gun manufacturers!!!
Frank
armarsh
Member
Several have responded that the operating system of the AR-10 & AR-15 are not new because direct impingement systems have been used in the past.
The AR rifles do not use DI, even though it is convenient to say they do. AR rifles actually use a gas piston which is formed by the bolt carrier and bolt. Eugene Stoner earned patent number 2951424 on September 6, 1960 for this innovation.
Although I can not locate the patent number at the moment, I believe Stoner earned a patent for the straight line recoil concept. This is the reason AR's look the way they do.
So, I would say that the AR's have two design features not seen before. Granted, they are not far removed from the 50's.
The AR rifles do not use DI, even though it is convenient to say they do. AR rifles actually use a gas piston which is formed by the bolt carrier and bolt. Eugene Stoner earned patent number 2951424 on September 6, 1960 for this innovation.
Although I can not locate the patent number at the moment, I believe Stoner earned a patent for the straight line recoil concept. This is the reason AR's look the way they do.
So, I would say that the AR's have two design features not seen before. Granted, they are not far removed from the 50's.
Mr. Farknocker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 120
Actually, i think the 1911 was developed in the 1890s
- Status