Has handgun innovation reached a dead-end?

[Tom Servo]

This came up at lunch the other day. A friend pointed out that all the new "innovations" we hear about are really only incremental improvements, and that all the important developments in handgun technology have been made.

When I think about it, I can't really think of anything new that could be done with the platform at this point. Perhaps further advances in mettalurgy, or development of ceramic or synthetic compounds could replace steel somewhere down the line, but what else? The new LDA and DAK type triggers are just refinements on existing principles, and even the Glock built on concepts that came before it.

So, can anybody think of anything that'd really change the industry, or have we reached the pinnacle?

 

[FW]

Handgun innovation came to an end 94 years ago

 

[Mannlicher]

About the only new things these days are materials, and manufacturing. Until we move from gunpowder and lead , things won't change much. Couse, guns work pretty darn good as they are.

 

[Marshall]

If I could think of something truely innovative, I wouldn't be posting it here, I'd be going to the patent office.

 

[porterdog]

If handgun innovation is at an end I'd like my phaser, please.

Even staying within a relatively narrow definition of handgun (explosively propelled metallic object as a means to inflict bodily harm) there's a way to go.


Truly caseless rounds, where the case is the propellant?

A gun where the propellant is gaseous under ambient conditions and is stored in a separate reservoir.

Some type of electromagnetic propulsion? Or electromechanical, like that Dread device that came across here the other day?

Eventually a transition to some type of energy weapon. (But until then I think a paradigm shift in the means of propulsion is most likely...)

Robert

 

[boofus]

How about a handgun that doesn't shoot a projectile but instead teleports it right into the badguy.

 

[Plumber576]

HK did the caseless round...in the G11. It is, for lack of a better term, freaking sweet. I dont know if it ever reached the handgun, but it's jsut one more step. http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm

I beleive that we will see handgun developemnt advance when a major military wants a handgun development.

 

[Boats]

Handgun design is still going strong. Every legislative session in California is a design workshop of late, we just don't care for the developments. :banghead:

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Truly caseless rounds, where the case is the propellant?

Been done -- by H&K and by Daisy in the US (the 152mm round for the M551 Armored Airdroppable Assault Vehicle, the Sheridan was also a caseless design.) In general it doesn't offer much advantage -- the durability and ability to withstand rough handling, the elements, and so on of conventional cased ammo offsets the theoretical advantages of caseless.

A gun where the propellant is gaseous under ambient conditions and is stored in a separate reservoir.

The artillery tried this about a decade or so ago. They went from gaseous to liquid propellent, and finally abandoned the project for safety reasons.

Some type of electromagnetic propulsion? Or electromechanical, like that Dread device that came across here the other day?

All those that exist today are "Battleship architecture." The power and related support systems are so heavy they won't even fit most ground vehicles.

Eventually a transition to some type of energy weapon. (But until then I think a paradigm shift in the means of propulsion is most likely...)

Guns -- especially handguns -- are like bicycles. The technology is "mature" and there really aren't any breakthroughs on the horizon. There will be improvements in materials, manufacturing techniques and so on, but most likely handguns in the next century won't be all that different from those of the early 20th Century.

 

[MikeJackmin]

I'd guess the main impediment to innovation right now is legislative.

Why do we train ourselves to deliver double-taps when a simple two-round burst would do a better job? Why do we wear hearing protection when suppressors are available? Why do we redesign our hollowpoint ammo when explosive projectiles might be far more lethal?

Why can't I buy a cane gun or some other clever design so I can carry my weapon easily and not be detected?

It's all legislative at this point. Get rid of these rules and you'll see some real innovation.

 

[gwalchmai]

Phased plasma rifle.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Why do we train ourselves to deliver double-taps when a simple two-round burst would do a better job?

Have you ever had a pistol double on you? Where did the second (and succeeding) rounds hit?

 

[BondageJaguar]

The argument is that, with a burst fire weapon, you only have time to flinch once, whereas with a double tap, you pull the trigger (and have time to flinch) twice. An individual could do either with practice, but which would take more?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Somebody's working on it even as we sit around lamenting the lack of innovation.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The argument is that, with a burst fire weapon, you only have time to flinch once, whereas with a double tap, you pull the trigger (and have time to flinch) twice. An individual could do either with practice, but which would take more?

Actually with a burst fire handgun, you get one chance to flinch, and the weapon automatically flinches for you on the second round.

I've seen some very good shooters (world class) do some amazing things with submachine guns -- but when backed into a corner, every one I've talked to admitted they could do even better with semi-automatic fire.

 

[MikeJackmin]

If it were legal to do so, I'd bet that we'd see somebody develop a two-round burst for a handgun that sent both rounds downrange before the bulk of the recoil impulse was felt by the shooter. Offhand, you could do it with two barrels that fired at the same time.

Didn't HK manage this with their caseless rifle? I recall reading they managed to get three rounds out before moving parts stopped moving.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Didn't HK manage this with their caseless rifle? I recall reading they managed to get three rounds out before moving parts stopped moving.

That's what they claimed -- but never demonstrated it in the hands of troops.

Even they admitted that it required cyclic rates in excess of 2,000 rounds a minute -- something that isn't practical in a recoil-operated weapon.

Also the mass of the projectile was very small compared to the mass of the rifle. In a handgun, you have a different proposition -- since you are limited in velocity, large caliber and bullet mass have to make up the difference.

 

[Chrontius]

Really? No innvation? What about the Serbu Super-Shorty? 12-ga handgun carrying 3 shells, fits in a tactical hip holster. $200 manufacturer's fee and a $5 transfer fee, though.

And therein lies the problem -- the $200 fee and associated paperwork to make anything that is not a vanilla handgun or rifle.

OTOH, I'm imagining a hollowpoint shotgun slug with a shotgun primer glued into the cavity (over some black powder) right now... Seems like there should be little enough explosive to remain legal...

 

[Sharps Shooter]

"Handgun innovation came to an end 94 years ago."

Well put, FW. J.M.B. set the standard in 1911!

 

[38SnubFan]

Here's an innovation for ya!

How about a pistol, in a caliber starting with "4", that has NO recoil whatsoever!

Such a pistol would take very little practice to become proficient with, and just about ANYONE could become an expert marksman (no flinch, no anticpating recoil, etc.).

Just a thought, and my $.02

-38SnubFan

 

[Plumber576]

That's what they claimed -- but never demonstrated it in the hands of troops.

Even they admitted that it required cyclic rates in excess of 2,000 rounds a minute -- something that isn't practical in a recoil-operated weapon.

Also the mass of the projectile was very small compared to the mass of the rifle. In a handgun, you have a different proposition -- since you are limited in velocity, large caliber and bullet mass have to make up the difference.

They did, and they did demonstrate it. Go to the link and watch the videos.

AS I understand, with it's cyclic rate being so fast a group of rounds could be let off before recoil made a difference.

http://www.hkpro.com/g11.htm


Oh, and I forgot this before...the caseless handgun http://www.hkpro.com/g11pdw.htm

 

[Scottmkiv]

I think there is a lot of room left.

Recoil reduction systems, maybe a reliable gas operated pistol.

Accuracy improvements

Productions costs

Probably a ton of others.

 

[HankB]

I'd guess the main impediment to innovation right now is legislative.

Lot of truth there.

And the main thrust now, thanks to corporate bean counters, is NOT towards making a better pistol; it's toward maximizing shareholder value RIGHT NOW. So cutting cost is #1, which gives us things like stampings, castings, plastic parts and MIM. Cheaper! Cheaper! Cheaper!

There have only been a few paradigm shifts in handgun history -

1. Muzzle loading handguns, when black powder was introduced. Several centuries back.
2. Wheel lock, flint lock, etc., which didn't require a burning rope to fire the gun. 1600's and 1700's (?)
3. Percussion cap, an enabling technology for revolvers. 1800's.
4. Metallic cartridge. 1800's. (Some might argue this was a logical evolution of the percussion cap.)
5. Smokeless powder (1800's) enabling selfloading handguns. 1890's.

The 20th Century saw many improvements and refinements, but nothing that really was a true paradigm shift.

Now, from a technical standpoint, what would be the next likely paradigm shifts?

Assuming someone came up with a battery with several orders of magnitude more performance than what's available today (uhhh . . . that's a LOT more performance.)I could see electromagnetic propulsion being used to fire something like a steel needle at very high velocity. Thing is, it would probably be regarded as "armor piercing" ammo and be banned, and the whole weapon itself might be considered to be a "suppressed" weapon. (On the other hand, if it didn't use propellant, it could be freely sold, even by mail, until the powers that be redefined "firearm.")

Hmmm . . . maybe the concept of the Gyrojet rocket pistol could be revisited?

Barring ray guns or repeal of Newtonian physics, I think we're really at something of a ceiling.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I think we will see new action types. The Glock so-called "safe action" and Para's LDA wereboth developed just within my lifetime. There will be others.

Also we will see new looks, e.g., Beretta Neos. These will not function differently, but will have a "cool" or "futuristic" appearance that will be attractive to a new generation of handgun enthusiasts. We may also see more ergonomics that will reduce perceived recoil.

 

[max popenker]

2 Henry Bowman: the Glock "safe action" is a revork of the 1907 Roth-Steyr, with added Sauer M1930 trigger-safety feature;
The Para's LDA is a development of the FN's fast-action, introduced in late 1970s, and which is now available in FN HP-SFS (Safety Fast Shooting) pistols

new materials:
first aluminium framed pistols were made by Germans in 1930s
first stamped steel pistols - WW2 (if not counting the sheet-steel Jaeger pistol of 1919)
stainless steel - 1960s S&W M60 revolver
first polymer-framed pistol - HK VP70 of 1970

Last "new" locking systems were introduced during WW2 (gas- and roller-delayed actions from Barnitzke and Vorgrimler, both Germans)

Last 60 years were spent for refining the older technologies...