The Future of Small Arms

[CAS700850]

I was talking to a detective this morning about his recently completed Taser training. He was impressed by the ability of the Taser to work on mentally ill and drug/alcohol impaired subjects. As we talked, the two of us both bemoaned the fact that, in its current form, the Taser is a single shot weapon, even though it allows for multiple shocks of a subject connected to the wires. Miss, and you need a new cartridge.

This got me thinking about the future of small arms technology. Do we think that laser guns are realistic options, or do we think that technology will be developed which will allow for the wireless transfer of electrical energy to a designated target, sort of a wireless Taser? Or, do we think that technology will be directed towards the advancement of projectile weapons? Is "less lethal" the future, or a passing phase?

Mind you, I'm not thinking in terms of anti-aircraft, or anti-tank. I'm thinking solely of anti-personnel weapons. And, i realize that we are talking about two different goals for weapons. Military weapons are meant to kill. Law enforcement weapons are meant to stop. Our own weapons...you fill in the blank as you choose.

Where do you all think we are we headed, be it militarily or otherwise? Are we going to need a Phaser/Blaster section on THR in the future?

 

[Puppy]

There is a local company here in Anderson Indiana who has developed a wireless taser, its still in the R&D phase and the effective range is only about 12 feet at the moment.

But I do believe that this will be the future, on a side note they have also been developing an electrically charged, ionized gas, that can be released like tear gas canisters for crowd control.

Some interesting possibilities, I certainly would adopt a non-lethal option over the lethal one I currenty carry, if they could meet certain criteria.

It would have to have a range of at least 50', it would have to beable to discharge multiple times, it would have to incapacitate the target for at least 20 seconds.

 

[Third_Rail]

Nikola Tesla certainly thought that the wireless transfer of electrical energy was possible and would be the weapon and tool of the future.


I don't think firearms as we know them are going anywhere, but there will be another tool to hang off the belt, for sure.

 

[cookekdjr]

I don't expect the firearm to be supplanted in my lifetime (I'm 35). I'm no scientist, but in practical terms I don't see any other option that is as accurate, lethal, portable, versatile, or capable of firing multiple shots.

 

[jefnvk]

Don't see why not. You offer the right incentives to the right people, and it will get done.

 

[Mikul]

Energy weapons will really take off when more dense power supplies are available. We're going to need something at least 1,000x more powerful than our current batteries. I see us have portable power generators about the size of a handgun magazine that could power a laptop for a month.

Until then, it will be chemical weapons, like current bullets and powder. What I can't believe hasn't happened is the next wave of propellants. How about a semtex-type propellant that would allow us to have our .223's (or 6mm's) in cases no longer than a .17 HMR?

 

[Telperion]

The next big thing in firearms tech is probably not in the guns themselves, but in sighting/optics. Right now there are a lot of new high-end combat optics in the market, being presently field-tested in the sandbox. How long before we have combination day/night/thermal vision optics in an Aimpoint-sized package, or scopes with autorangefinding reticles with load and BDC information digitally uploaded? For the short term, I think this is where the future is.

On energy weapons, we haven't really found a better way to store energy more compactly and easily tappable than chemicals, or a better way to release it than pushing a projectile at the target. These are fundamental problems that need to be solved before energy weapons can be viable.

 

[CAS700850]

Mikul, my thought with propellant technology is that there is not much incentive for very efficient burning, due to the fact that a case must be at least the diameter of the projectile, and long enough to properly function in the mechanism. Why create a "powder" that needs only 1/10 the volume of current powder, when there is already so much space available in the shell? Frankly, I expected to see a little more interest in caseless technology, but HK found few buyers for that option.

As for battery/power cells, I would not be surprised to see continued size reductions. When I went to Scout Camp 25 years ago, I carried a 3 D cell flashlight that isn't close to being as bright as one of the Surefire lights, and not much brighter than the ASP keychain light in my pocket. Plus, this is a technology that will be universally applied, and not limited to weapons, so the incentive is there. The current Taser has a battery in the grip which is capable of multiple discharges. Imagine changing a battery like you would a magazine...

What I see as the biggest issue right now is creating a package capable of aiming and accurately firing the energy pulse at a target, without having the energy level greatly diminished by range. Think about the concept of accurately aiming lightning.

 

[Third_Rail]

without having the energy level greatly diminished by range

Can't easily be done due to the nature of energy, though I think you mean even with a plasma conductor as in lightning.

Think about the concept of accurately aiming lightning.

Nikola Tesla again... tungsten and/or mercury particles, sped up and blown by a high speed fan, electrified slightly, blown in a small stream to a target and electrify more along the way (only a few milliseconds between events). The original "death ray" is old... 1930s old.

 

[Jacobus Rex]

I think that the first generation of practical energy weapons will most likely use a chemical power source. In other words, a "blaster" that uses a chemical reaction to generate the necessary power. You would have ammo without bullets!

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Mikul, my thought with propellant technology is that there is not much incentive for very efficient burning, due to the fact that a case must be at least the diameter of the projectile, and long enough to properly function in the mechanism. Why create a "powder" that needs only 1/10 the volume of current powder, when there is already so much space available in the shell?

Are you kidding? That development would be HUGE.

If your powder charge could be 1/10th the volume while still delivering the same "oomph", you could have .308 class rifle rounds that are no bigger, and no heavier, than current 9mm handgun rounds. .223 could be downsized to .22 rimfire size/weight, and handgun round would be all manner of miniscule.

Just think of the magazine capacities these new mini-rounds would make possible. Mag capacity would have to be measured by the dozen.

Consider how much smaller a rifle could be if the action didn't have to be long enough to handle a 3 or 4 inch long cartridge. You could have a full-powered rifle with an action no longer than those found on .22s today.

 

[White Horseradish]

I think that the first generation of practical energy weapons will most likely use a chemical power source. In other words, a "blaster" that uses a chemical reaction to generate the necessary power. You would have ammo without bullets!

Winona, here we come.


I wanna raygun, dammit!

 

[MrTuffPaws]

The problem with ballistic weapons is that they are just too damn good. They work, and they work really well. The only area left IMO is caseless ammo. Maybe the Metal Storm will catch on.

As for non lethal, there is lots of work being done. They already have prototype laser weapons that sends out two beams to ionize the air and transmit electricity to the target and back, not to mention sonic and non lethal microwave stuff.

As for the lethal stuff of the future, I don't think laser will ever really catch on. A dust cloud will make them ineffective. Unless, of course, it is an X-ray laser. Then you just want to take your things and go home, because if you don't you will be dead along with everyone you are with.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Why create a "powder" that needs only 1/10 the volume of current powder, when there is already so much space available in the shell?

Smaller cartridge cases would mean more cases per magazine—or perhaps no cartridge cases at all. How about a hollow-based bullet with the charge and primer built in? It'd work for me.

 

[M67]

How about a hollow-based bullet with the charge and primer built in? It'd work for me.

Just don't try to patent the idea. It was first tried more than 150 years ago.

 

[Dave R]

What I can't believe hasn't happened is the next wave of propellants. How about a semtex-type propellant that would allow us to have our .223's (or 6mm's) in cases no longer than a .17 HMR?

I could not agree more. We've had only small, incremental improvements since the turn of the century when smokeless powder was invented.

And for my fearless prediction--caseless ammo will NEVER HAPPEN. At least not on a commercial basis. I know its been tried, but never caught on. And I predict it never will. For 2 reasons:

1- Heat transfer. When you eject that brass, you take a lot of heat with it. If there was no case, all that heat gets transferred to the action.

2-Cleanliness. Look inside a fired case. See all the gunk? Should it stay behind in the action? I dunno how you'd keep an action operation for many hundreds of rounds if all that crud stayed in. Bores don't get nearly so dirty because the passing bullets and gas blow them (relatively) clean. But actions don't have that self-cleaning mechanism.

So caseless ammo won't be feasible. It'll get leapfrogged by energy weapons.

But powder with more energy-density? There's gotta be a way, before energy wepons become viable.

BTW, some enterprising sould could probably graph how much battery energy density has increased over time, and calculate how much energy would be required by an energy weapon, and also graph the shrinking size and cost of lasers and other energy emitters, and see where the lines all intersect. My guess it would be a fairly accurate prediction.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Remember the Gyrojet?

Never did 'take off' though.

 

[P95Carry]

"The Future of Small Arms" ........ I wanna know about the future of large legs too!

My main concern would be in simply having an effective tool against those that wish me (or mine) harm. The prerequisite for me is at least parity with what the bad guy has or may have.

If he had some means of taking me out reliably at much longer distances then I too want to be similarly or better equipped. For now tho, I doubt the ''less than lethal'' tools will replace what most of us use for carry these days. I reckon OC too will be around a long time yet.

Not having a crystal ball either I'm not at all sure what we'll see even in another short ten years - hard to predict at some levels. Just hope I am lucky enough to still be here, and hopefully still carrying too.

 

[71Commander]

I wanna scrooch gun. Wanted one for over 40 years. Saw Marvin with one on a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

 

[Markheck1]

Yeah, but Bugs defeated it with a carrot!

 

[armoredman]

Wanna railgun.....pistol and rifle.....

 

[oswulf]

I'd think caseless ammo would be a possibility if the propellent force was electromagnetic. Picture a barrel lined with pulsed electromagnets accelerating a steel or steel jacketed lead projectile, much the way bullet trains accelerate. High speed,efficient and clean, not to mention silent. I know I heard something about this concept years ago but maybe the technology will catch up with the idea someday, probably sooner than a true laser or other energy weapon.

Oswulf

 

[Preacherman]

It's all going to boil down to a cost/benefit analysis. Our existing technology is cost-effective: in other words, it's the cheapest possible way to do (and do well) what current small arms do. Any replacement would have to do one (or both) of two things to succeed:

1. It'd have to do the same job, as well as or better than existing technology, for significantly less cost;

2. It'd have to do a significantly better job than existing technology for the same or not much higher cost.

You'd have to define what you mean by "significantly", of course. In terms of costs, you'd have to save enough to justify the expense of buying the new platform(s). In terms of ballistics, if (for example) a technology is measured by how fast, or the ultimate speed to which, it can accelerate projectiles, that's one thing: but the terminal effectiveness of those projectiles (i.e. "stopping power") is also a factor. We know, for example, that a 17gr. bullet like that in the .17 HMR, if projected at 20,000 fps, would have an enormously high energy figure: but it would probably be very inefficient at transferring that energy to a target in a "stopping" sort of way, particularly if it had to defeat cover and/or concealment on the way.

I remember reading a very interesting article by a weapons scientist in a classified study some years ago. He postulated that an electromagnetic "gun" could be developed that would shoot steel "needles" weighing only a couple of grains at an incredibly high velocity, somewhere in the 30,000 fps range. He postulated that each grain would be relatively ineffective on target, as it would simply "blow up" on impact: but if the weapon could be made to fire them full-auto, a stream of them arriving on target would literally eat their way through anything, even the armor of an M1 Abrams tank. He also admitted that there would have to be some way of preventing the "bullets" from burning up in mid-air due to friction...

 

[c_yeager]

If your powder charge could be 1/10th the volume while still delivering the same "oomph", you could have .308 class rifle rounds that are no bigger, and no heavier, than current 9mm handgun rounds. .223 could be downsized to .22 rimfire size/weight, and handgun round would be all manner of miniscule.

Yes, but the casing can't get any narrower than the bullet anyways. It would make a slight difference with bottle necked rifle cartridges but straight wall cases arent going to be able to shrink at all as far as diameter. Since magazine capacity is dependent on diameter you arent going to get any more gains at all by reducing the length of the cartridge. I think that we are about as effecient as we are going to get as far as chemical propellents in small arms. Besides we arent even filling our current casings to capacity today. There is empty space in just about all commercial ammunition. And we have propellents today that are low enough in volume that one can fit beyond-max charges in just about any cartridge. Maybe this advancement will allow more shorter cartridges (i.e. .45GAP) but there is no increased capacity with shortening a cartridge.

I wonder how the new wireles taser works if we could project that kind of energy through the air we would be halfway to enery weapons. I suspect that in truth they simply send the power source along with the darts and it is activated remotely from the gun.

 

[jpIII]

If we can see an increase in battery power as discussed earlier, I think we'll see guns using electrical solenoid type actuators for the firing pins in guns.

When that is accomplished, true smart gun technology that can't easily be bypassed will be atainable.

The problem is that to get that type of mechanical motion using just solenoid type electronics a big energy dump is needed for each shot. As far as I know, the only convenient way at the moment is to charge capacitors to high voltages from a low voltage source (like a battery). This takes some time to charge up, and makes follow up shots REALLY slow.

BANG...(low pitch whine)... (higher pitch whine).... (really high pitch whine)... (green light) BANG...