Innovative Weapons
- Thread starter mtgale00
- Start date
- Status
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Gattling Who?
Wasn't there some guy named Gattling?
Didn't he do something remotely interesting?
Wasn't there some guy named Gattling?
Didn't he do something remotely interesting?
jerkyman45
Member
What about Smith and Wesson, these guys invented the Cartridge as we know it today. I'd say Dr. Richard Gatling too, nobody else thought to take 6 rotating barrels and make a rapid fire, crank operated weapon out of them. I think Stoner was innovative, not for his direct impingement system, but rather for construction of the entire AR-10 system. He used polymers and lighter weight alloys in a semi automatic gas operated rifle, he basically set the standard for the next half century of combat rifle development.
mtgale00
Member
Claude-Étienne Minié
The lead bullet. Skirted to expand and engage the riflings in the barrel. Something like that....
As to the VP70, I have participated in several threads on HKPro on this issue and the argument will continue to rage. I happen believe the VP70 frame is phenolic (aka Bakelite). This belief is based on the fact that the pistol has a well documented proclivity to crack in several locations on the frame. Especially after select fire use. I wouldn't believe a true polymer frame would suffer from cracking. Just my two cents...
The lead bullet. Skirted to expand and engage the riflings in the barrel. Something like that....
As to the VP70, I have participated in several threads on HKPro on this issue and the argument will continue to rage. I happen believe the VP70 frame is phenolic (aka Bakelite). This belief is based on the fact that the pistol has a well documented proclivity to crack in several locations on the frame. Especially after select fire use. I wouldn't believe a true polymer frame would suffer from cracking. Just my two cents...
ctdonath
Member
FN P90.
Totally new weapon, starting with the bullet.
5.7 ammo is designed specifically to penetrate soft body armor (relatively recent development) with a pistol-sized cartridge.
Seriously high capacity (50 rounds) with full-auto compensates for the relatively low power.
Top-loading horizontal mag with rotating feed, balanced by downward eject.
Exotically ergonomic grips.
One of the few bullpup designs that works well.
Pretty much innovative all the way around. Nothing is new, yet everything is new.
Totally new weapon, starting with the bullet.
5.7 ammo is designed specifically to penetrate soft body armor (relatively recent development) with a pistol-sized cartridge.
Seriously high capacity (50 rounds) with full-auto compensates for the relatively low power.
Top-loading horizontal mag with rotating feed, balanced by downward eject.
Exotically ergonomic grips.
One of the few bullpup designs that works well.
Pretty much innovative all the way around. Nothing is new, yet everything is new.
mtgale00
Member
Good call ctdonath. I own a couple of the 5.7 pistols. It is one heck of a cartridge. What about the 357 Sig?
Geronimo45
Member
I see the 5.7 as similar to the 7.63 Mauser pistol round - but improved a bit. Lower recoil, more advanced bullet design.
Darned few inventions are total departures from previous art, but successive developments leading to a commercial or technical success.
Somebody metnioned Gatling, but I've got a book by Dudley Pope that shows a flintlock gun with revolving cylinder, where square shot was used against Christians and round shot against others... or the other way around, I've forgotten which.
http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm
Even the Centrifugal Machine Gun by Moore (Hatcher, p. 96) could be considered an extension of David's slingshot.
Somebody metnioned Gatling, but I've got a book by Dudley Pope that shows a flintlock gun with revolving cylinder, where square shot was used against Christians and round shot against others... or the other way around, I've forgotten which.
http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm
Even the Centrifugal Machine Gun by Moore (Hatcher, p. 96) could be considered an extension of David's slingshot.
Last edited:
Fosbery
Member
mtgale00, Bakelite is a poylmer. Not a very good one but it's definitely a polymer.
mtgale00
Member
Fosbery,
I am going to disagree without being disagreeable. Bakelite is not a polymer. Polymers are created by chemicaly bonding repeating structural units known as monomers. The whole process being called polymerization.
Bakelite is formed by the reaction under heat and pressure of phenol and formaldehyde added to a wood filler. I agree it is a "plastic", but just barely.
Glock was the first true polymer frame pistol. I will agree that the VP70 was the first plastic pistol and a complete failure at that...
I am going to disagree without being disagreeable. Bakelite is not a polymer. Polymers are created by chemicaly bonding repeating structural units known as monomers. The whole process being called polymerization.
Bakelite is formed by the reaction under heat and pressure of phenol and formaldehyde added to a wood filler. I agree it is a "plastic", but just barely.
Glock was the first true polymer frame pistol. I will agree that the VP70 was the first plastic pistol and a complete failure at that...
Fosbery
Member
The Chemical Heritage Society and National Academy of Sciences disagree 
http://www.chemheritage.org/explore/poly-time5.html
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=203
http://www.chemheritage.org/explore/poly-time5.html
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=203
Dr. Dickie
Member
Bakelite is a polymer. The term means many units. Bakelite fits that definition. I do not think that it is a plastic. As a plastic has certain properties that Bakelite does not have, but since Bakelite is composed of repeat units of phenol strung together with formaldehyde, it is a polymer.
Polymer v non-polymer...
Piffle. Reconsider the definitional domain.
What you really intend to convey is "non-metallic," like Sam'l Colt's first wooden revolver.
I recall reading a sciene-fiction story where one of the premises was that it took place on a planet with no metallic ores --their technology was based totally on ceramics, including the engines (turbines, "'bines" in the story) and firearms. Pete Coors, are you listening?
The use of polymers, in my opinion, was not "innovative" in the sense that the original poster intended, if I may put words in his/her mouth (IIMPWIHM.) It was only a new application of incrementallly advancing technology... which is what I said above i.e, David's slingshot.
Even Da Vinci's "helicopter" was an extension of an ancient Chinese toy.
And the new "heat ray" is an extension of u-wave technology.
Here's a bet for you:
The next "advance" in firearms technology will be toward short-range bullets with low sectional density, maybe aluminum, which runs pretty good on steel, driven at "ultra" high velocities, and with extremely high rates* of spin.
Can the moderators hold the bets for a decade or so?
---------
* I know "spin" is itself a rate. I'm just using conventional mis-terminology, as in "rate of speed."
Piffle. Reconsider the definitional domain.
What you really intend to convey is "non-metallic," like Sam'l Colt's first wooden revolver.
I recall reading a sciene-fiction story where one of the premises was that it took place on a planet with no metallic ores --their technology was based totally on ceramics, including the engines (turbines, "'bines" in the story) and firearms. Pete Coors, are you listening?
The use of polymers, in my opinion, was not "innovative" in the sense that the original poster intended, if I may put words in his/her mouth (IIMPWIHM.) It was only a new application of incrementallly advancing technology... which is what I said above i.e, David's slingshot.
Even Da Vinci's "helicopter" was an extension of an ancient Chinese toy.
And the new "heat ray" is an extension of u-wave technology.
Here's a bet for you:
The next "advance" in firearms technology will be toward short-range bullets with low sectional density, maybe aluminum, which runs pretty good on steel, driven at "ultra" high velocities, and with extremely high rates* of spin.
Can the moderators hold the bets for a decade or so?
---------
* I know "spin" is itself a rate. I'm just using conventional mis-terminology, as in "rate of speed."
Last edited:
mtgale00
Member
Lets not forget the wood filler... Thats real innovation!
the tripping block here is Innovative. True innovation is extremely rare.
Rather, people tend to take existing technologies and tweak them slightly to create an improved version, OR take technology/materials used in field A and apply them to field B, OR take the best technologies in a field and apply them all to a single item.
To use a biology example, take the guys who discovered DNA, watson and crick. The discovery of DNA was a truely innovative change in how we understand life (because DNA wasn't created, well unless you count God or natural selection, it was discovered, but still) Yet when reading on this matter I am astounded about how much knowledge people actually had on the subject (knew there was somethign like DNA, just not what, knew it was in a long twisted stand, helix structure, just didn't know it was a double strand, degree of twist, and a few other minor details...akin to knowing there is something mean and nasty outside your tent, but not the exact species of bear or sex and age of the individual)
Rather, people tend to take existing technologies and tweak them slightly to create an improved version, OR take technology/materials used in field A and apply them to field B, OR take the best technologies in a field and apply them all to a single item.
To use a biology example, take the guys who discovered DNA, watson and crick. The discovery of DNA was a truely innovative change in how we understand life (because DNA wasn't created, well unless you count God or natural selection, it was discovered, but still) Yet when reading on this matter I am astounded about how much knowledge people actually had on the subject (knew there was somethign like DNA, just not what, knew it was in a long twisted stand, helix structure, just didn't know it was a double strand, degree of twist, and a few other minor details...akin to knowing there is something mean and nasty outside your tent, but not the exact species of bear or sex and age of the individual)
Well-said, akodo. Thanks for confirming my position.
Who was it who said, "If I appear to see further than others, it is only because I am standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before me"?
Oh, my crystal ball just told me that someone's going to come up with electrophosphorescent night sights soon.
Moderators, you don't have to hold any bets on that one.
Who was it who said, "If I appear to see further than others, it is only because I am standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before me"?
Oh, my crystal ball just told me that someone's going to come up with electrophosphorescent night sights soon.
Moderators, you don't have to hold any bets on that one.
sierrabravo45
Member
What about the Claymore?
C4 is a innovation
C4 is a innovation
Nah.
Extensions of prior art or mere "discoveries" again. Maybe, stretching it, deliberate "design" of an unstable compound suitable for explosives, i.e., cyclotrimethylene trinitramine.
All you gotta do is attach nitrates, peroxides, azides, amines, etc to some organic stuff (preferably with a bunch of double or triple bonds) and add goo to it to make it bend.
Voila! Plastique!
------
("Goo" is a technical term.)
Deanimator
Member
The United States however, adopted a RELIABLE and DURABLE semiauto service rifle in the 1930s. Those two adjectives could NEVER be applied to the Mondragon, as interesting as it was.
Many innovators don't reap the benefits of success, sometimes it takes a while.
IE the Kalashnikov didn't really 'take off' until the Soviets figured out a cheap, efficient stamped steel receiver. The round was arguably a ballistic copy of the German round, and the AK and STG looked similar, Kalasnikov's genious I think is in simplicity, rather than complexity. You could make a lot of Sten guns in the time it took to make one Enfield. Stamped steel firerams were definitely designed by necessity (ie Sten, STG 44, M-3, PPSH-43) but after WW2, the Soviets were the only ones still pushing that model.
HK's VP70 plastic pistol (I don't think it's bakelite, I haven't seen any of them fall apart, though the early P9 and HK4 may have been) didn't really move the industry the way Glock did. Glock, much like Sam Colt is a marketing genius. The HK was also HEAVY and had a really odd DA only trigger. Made sense for a military arm, but as a belt gun the VP70 is just, odd. Glock solved all those problems, and gave incentives for police forces to get their hands on his pistol.
Browning and Saieve gave us the BHP, a design that still influences handguns today, many still use Browning's lockwork. There were a few hi-capacity pistols out there (Savage for one) but it was a long time before the 'wondernine' revolution--and a lot of that was fueled by the CZ75.
Borchardt may have made the first working auto pistol, Luger made it viable. There are a lot more Lugers than Borchardts out there.
I'd like to add Elmer Keith, definitely a guy who liked to push the envelope of what was possible with a handgun.
IE the Kalashnikov didn't really 'take off' until the Soviets figured out a cheap, efficient stamped steel receiver. The round was arguably a ballistic copy of the German round, and the AK and STG looked similar, Kalasnikov's genious I think is in simplicity, rather than complexity. You could make a lot of Sten guns in the time it took to make one Enfield. Stamped steel firerams were definitely designed by necessity (ie Sten, STG 44, M-3, PPSH-43) but after WW2, the Soviets were the only ones still pushing that model.
HK's VP70 plastic pistol (I don't think it's bakelite, I haven't seen any of them fall apart, though the early P9 and HK4 may have been) didn't really move the industry the way Glock did. Glock, much like Sam Colt is a marketing genius. The HK was also HEAVY and had a really odd DA only trigger. Made sense for a military arm, but as a belt gun the VP70 is just, odd. Glock solved all those problems, and gave incentives for police forces to get their hands on his pistol.
Browning and Saieve gave us the BHP, a design that still influences handguns today, many still use Browning's lockwork. There were a few hi-capacity pistols out there (Savage for one) but it was a long time before the 'wondernine' revolution--and a lot of that was fueled by the CZ75.
Borchardt may have made the first working auto pistol, Luger made it viable. There are a lot more Lugers than Borchardts out there.
I'd like to add Elmer Keith, definitely a guy who liked to push the envelope of what was possible with a handgun.
Fosbery
Member
I think some people are confusing "innovation" with "quality." Something dosn't have to be any good to be innovative.
Threeband touts The Abakan AN94 (Google it yourself-amazing!)
I read the descripton of the AN 94 at;
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm
I think Rube Goldberg invented that in the thirties. Either that, or Nikonov and his team were well-supplied with vodka --or maybe the "contest" judges.
There comes a point where adding functions and complex machinery to achieve some arcane tactical advantage outweighs the benefits.
This-a goes that-away, then that-a goes this-away and they all come together sooner or later with a round in the chamber and then himpleswitch automaticallys senses whether you wanted two-round burst or full auto and flips the dinghop to the sear and fires it again, unless the wankdump is off, in which case the thing goes off again until you take the lunch-hook off the trigger.
I wonder how many UEOTMs they've had. (UEOTM = "Unintended Emptying Of The Magazine")
I also wonder if Swiss Watchmakers would've tackled that design job.
No wonder it's only used in the "elite" forces.
Yep, Threeband (20, 40, and 80?), it's sure "amazing."
As Ben Stein would say, "Wow."
(DE wd0xxx)
I read the descripton of the AN 94 at;
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm
I think Rube Goldberg invented that in the thirties. Either that, or Nikonov and his team were well-supplied with vodka --or maybe the "contest" judges.
There comes a point where adding functions and complex machinery to achieve some arcane tactical advantage outweighs the benefits.
This-a goes that-away, then that-a goes this-away and they all come together sooner or later with a round in the chamber and then himpleswitch automaticallys senses whether you wanted two-round burst or full auto and flips the dinghop to the sear and fires it again, unless the wankdump is off, in which case the thing goes off again until you take the lunch-hook off the trigger.
I wonder how many UEOTMs they've had. (UEOTM = "Unintended Emptying Of The Magazine")
I also wonder if Swiss Watchmakers would've tackled that design job.
No wonder it's only used in the "elite" forces.
Yep, Threeband (20, 40, and 80?), it's sure "amazing."
As Ben Stein would say, "Wow."
(DE wd0xxx)
Strings
Member
>As to the VP70, I have participated in several threads on HKPro on this issue and the argument will continue to rage. I happen believe the VP70 frame is phenolic (aka Bakelite). This belief is based on the fact that the pistol has a well documented proclivity to crack in several locations on the frame. Especially after select fire use. I wouldn't believe a true polymer frame would suffer from cracking. Just my two cents...<
have to ask: have you ever actually handled one?
Large, clunky, horrible trigger... sure. But I never heard of my friend ever having any trouble with the frame of his, and it certainly didn't seem to be made of bakelite
have to ask: have you ever actually handled one?
Large, clunky, horrible trigger... sure. But I never heard of my friend ever having any trouble with the frame of his, and it certainly didn't seem to be made of bakelite
- Status
