Why hasn't the market for a good disposable gun been filled?

[Double Naught Spy]

@ Constitutional Cowboy
You'd be interested in Metal Storm technology. Stacked bullet (end to end) technology with electric ignition. Can produce truely phenominal rates of fire. They're not exactly thriving as a company though, partly because adopting them as a military fire arm would mean the military would completely- and I mean completely - have to dump all their current ammunition for the new electrically fired stuff. Though it's never been broached, I also forsee issues in a battlefield EMP environment without hardening. Surprised I was able to get my stock out at a profit before it took a nosedive.

Don't forget that they are prohibitively expensive. Reloads are abysmally difficult. Soldiers can't reload cartridges/canisters themselves in the field.

Currently, Metalstorm is listed on the ASX as MST and has a stock value of less than 1/10 of one cent per share.
http://203.15.147.66/asx/research/companyInfo.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=MST

 

[Panzercat]

Yep. All of that. But for a civvy one time use, it'd be perfect.

Yeah, their stock tanked hardcore. My shares idled for a bit then news of a loan hit, spiked the price and I sold off everything instantly at a decent price. They died to less than what I had bought within a week.

 

[leadcounsel]

What could possibly be cheaper than a $500 new pistol or rifle that, with a little care, will last 1,000+ years? I would rather have that than a $100 use-once pistol or rifle that would also imply cheap standards of production.

 

[RimfireChris]

how 'bout this?

I think we can all agree that a disposable gun isn't gonna happen, for all the already mentioned reasons, but what about disposable magazines? I was thinking about this the other day, it doesn't seem hard to to make a mag out of polymer, that you could buy on a blister pack at a gun store, already pre-loaded. As for why you might want one, for practice, one could dump the magazine without worrying about any consequences from it hitting the ground, I keep my practice mags seperate from carry ones for this reason. Also, maybe you're goin' someplace , out in the bush say where if you dropped the mag it might not be easy to find, with these it'd be no big deal.

I was even thinking you could make this work for revolvers, but you'd need to design a gun from the ground up to take the disposable cylinder. IDK what you'd use forthe materials on that, but it'd only have to make it through six shots. To keep people from reloading it past its useful life, it could be made sorta like a cap and ball revolver cylinder, with a solid rear and the primers fixed in place. After firing, instead of opening the crane and punching out the empties, just pull the cylinder pin and drop out the old cylinder, pop a new one in. Just my $0.02

 

[goon]

The thing with magazines is no matter what, when it's empty, I'm still going to want to stuff ammunition back into it and use it again.
So I'd just as soon have a decent quality magazine that will last me through years of use.
Plus, why create more trash?
What advantage would a disposable magazine/cylinder system bring to the equation over what we've been using for years? Not trying to be argumentative - I just don't see the practicality of it.

 

[Panzercat]

Actually been looking around and Hipoint Arms is about as close to disposable as you can get. You won't pay more than $150 for one, which is really throw-away in almost any budget.

Quality seems decent and most of the gripes I see are in aestetics and egronomics. Seem to be a tad finicky in terms of ammunition feed, though that appears to be a hit or miss issue. It's a moot point in any case because they offer a no questions asked lifetime warranty.

They can be taken apart, but I've heard you're discouraged from doing so

 

[Seattleimport]

I think the "Flare Gun" and "Emergency Only" posts have the right of it.

I can see a market for a totally-contained gun for emergencies. Completely sealed, so as to be waterproof/grit proof. Perhaps something functionally identical to sealing in light coating of wax. First trigger pull breaks the seals by firing a bullet (which unplugs the barrel). Now it's you've got 9 more shots. As the magazine is completely integrated, there's no way to reload.

I'm seeing something like a hammerless revolver, only the cylinder is completely contained/covered as well. The only opening in the gun is the hole in the business end of the barrel. Even the trigger has a rubber gasket sealing the innards.

It could work, but: why not just get a real gun, and put it in a really good case?

 

[1911Tuner]

Unless I'm mistaken, the stamped SKS carbines were meant to be throwaway arms when the bores began to wear out. So cheap to produce, that it wasn't really cost-effective to rebarrel them, or do more than to occasionally replace a small part or spring. It would make sense...the barrel being the most expensive component. By the time it had been fired enough to require a new barrel, the rest of the thing was likely worn out as well.

 

[RimfireChris]

goon- Well, I named a couple of scenarios where one might come in handy. No, they wouldn't be better than a conventional loading system for most users, I'll admit that. LE might be another group though. I mean, if the cops were to be engaged in say an active shooter type situation, having a bunch of mags that can sit in the patrol rig sealed up ready to go would be handy.

 

[goon]

You mentioned hanging out in the bush, which I do a lot of. However, I also want to know beyond a doubt that any gun I'm carrying for defense or hunting works reliably. A pre-sealed magazine doesn't allow me to test that before I need it. Instead of weeding out a bad one early on, I only get to find out it malfunctions when an angry beaver is bearing down on me. Same story with LEO's who would want to test reliability before going into harm's way.
Come to think of it, what you suggest has already sort of been done with some bolt actions like the Carcano and the M1 Garand.
In the case of the Carcano, people still complain that the gun won't run without the clips, which are ejected after the last round is chambered. It sort of made sense for a military that could presuably keep troops equipped with ammo, but not when you consider that a regular rifle with a charger guide can be reloaded just as fast but can also still use loose rounds if necessary.
And although many love the Garand, one of the its criticisms is the feed system that uses an 8-round en bloc clip. Being able to top off with loose rounds is better. I think the Garand would have been better had it been equipped with a regular box magazine and used stripper clips. Although the Garand is long out of military service, even casual recreational shooters often come to this conclusion.
Even if you were to design a non disposable gun using disposable pre-loaded cylinders or proprietary magazines, many (including me) wouldn't buy it. A turn of the century S&W revolver still works fine - the cylinder is built into the gun. I add ammo, the gun works. But a hundred years after your system was first in use, will your pre-loaded ammo still be widely available? Like .38 Special, .45 ACP, or even .45 LC available?
Or would I be hitting up the places that specialize in obscure ammo looking for a box of .48 whiz-kid? No, not in fifty round boxes! I need those damned ten round RimfireChris clips...

Just my $.02.

 

[therewolf]

The "good disposable gun", brought to you by the folks who also brought you

"Military Intelligence" and "honest politicians".

All kidding aside, like God said about a usable national healthcare plan-

"Maybe it'll happen, but not in MY lifetime..."

I would certainly hope NOBODY would try to manufacture anything cheaper than some of the boat anchors
mentioned(my apology to true anchor manufacturers) in prior posts.

 

[RimfireChris]

I think you missed something. The revlover idea's probably a non starter, you're right about that, and the Garand as well, why they used that reloading system I have no idea. For a semi-auto pistol though, you wouldn't need a whole different gun, only the magazine would have to be disposable, just like a regular say 1911 mag, only made out of polymer. If you wanted to run regular mags through it, no problem. As far as reliability, I can count on one hand the number of times I've bought a magazine that didn't work, how hard are they to manufacture? IIRC, the original ten round mags designed for the M16 were intended to be disposable, they weren't pre-loaded as far as I know.

 

[PT1911]

Because there isnt one.

 

[MistWolf]

I nominate the original post in this thread as "Most Ridiculous Post of the Year"

 

[oldfool]

what, nobody ever heard of zip guns ?
true, so cheap to make, nobody would buy one, just roll their own

(but I think 1911 Tuner nailed it, early in the thread)

 

[ranger335v]

"If there was a true market for what you are talking about it would have been filled. "

There is a market. It used to be fillled; they were called "Saturday Night Specials" by the press and our benevolent gubbermint put so many restrictions on 'em the costs were too great for them to survive as a low cost, moderate quality for infrequent use defence weapons. Which , seriously, is EXACTLY what the Dems who wrote those laws and regulations intended; they didn't want poor people to be able to afford a defence weapon. It has worked exactly as planned too, lots of robbed, beaten or dead poor people to attest to the "success" of those anti-self defence laws.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Funny thing about those Saturday Night Specials. The crooks never lamented the loss of them on the market. They just steal what they want instead. The problem is that honest law abiding poor people lost the opportunity to buy a reasonable defensive weapon.

Woody

 

[Hatterasguy]

It has been, they are called Hi points. You can get them for the price of a decent bottle of Scotch, about $100.

 

[Grunt Medic TXARNG]

I disagree, Woody - with the modern move to everything tacticool and semiauto, the market is fairly well flooded with older but still perfectly serviceable revolvers, lever guns and double shotguns - at cut rate prices, and each will work just fine to deter a bad actor. My opinion only.

 

[stanger04]

To be honest this is why I do like some gun laws. The type of weapon asked for would be the first gun used to kill people. I'm not knocking the OP but there is a reason guns should never be considered disposable.

Guns are a dangerous piece of machinery that can free nations or control them. They should be given respect and handled by people with a sense of morals and ethics, yet are rarely ever used for good (looking at the news).

 

[catchinup]

My 2 cents-

To machine a gun that would actually work well enough for production, for sale to the public, would demand quality standards that would last more than a limited number of rounds. Beyond it's anticipated life span, somebody, somewhere, would try to use it further than designed. People everywhere would search for ways to make it last longer so it wouldn't blow up when they fired it beyond it's service life. Scavengers would try to fix them, and lawyers would be ready when they fail.

 

[Snowdog]

This topic reminds me of a former coworker, who was a bit on the strange side, who swore he would design, manufacture and market (of course within the confines of the law) a disposable handgun. They would be sold in "multi-packs" similar to the inexpensive and colorful plastic squirt guns that are often found in the party isle of your local department store.

For the life of me, I could not think of a single reason this would sell as they would essentially be disposable handguns (think a non-reloading cheap Grendel P10) that would require the same paperwork as a quality handgun.

Considering a 4473 would still have to be filled and submitted for such firearms, it would be wiser (IMHO) to simply purchase an inexpensive yet typical reliable handgun, such as a Hi-point.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Funny thread. A disposable gun.

 

[x_wrench]

personally, the only market i could really see for that would be a criminal market. i really think that most of us enjoy a quality firearm, that will last for years and years with resonable maintenence. you do not have to spend $3k in order to get a quality shooting gun. certainly, there are extreemly high quality firearms out there, that are made to .0001" tollerences. and finely engraved by master engavers, that cost in the $20k+ price range. but even the more dicriminating gunsman can find a very good quality shooter for less than $2000. and everyday good guns in the $200-800 price range that will last decades. why would anyone want to spend $50.00 on a poj to be thrown away after one or two uses. really, even a gangsta would want a better gun than that, if he wants to live. which leads us back to the intended one time use.

 

[ranger335v]

"i really think that most of us enjoy a quality firearm, that will last for years and years with resonable maintenence."

I really think most of US do. Thing is US ain't all there is or even all there should be. A LOT of people with low incomes would avail themselves of an inexpensive defence handgun if they could afford it. None of them need a S&W, Ruger, etc., and few of them can afford to put the going prices into something they may never use but a few times for familiarity.

I do agree that "disposable" is the wrong word for an inexpensive weapon. That term do carry a connotation that goes against the grain for many of us.