About guns - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

By Watermoon
#13206983
When "constitution" was made, what kind of guns are most advanced at that time?
In War of Independence, what kind of guns are mainly used in that time?
By Huntster
#13206995
Most colonists as well as the U.S. Army used Long Rifles.

Image

However, the Ferguson Rifle was developed by Major Patrick Ferguson about 1770, and many British troops were using it. It was far superior to the frontier muskets the colonists used because it was breech loading (instead of muzzle loading) and featured a rate of fire of up to 6 rounds per minute (whereas long rifles were about 1 round per minute). It was likely the first breech loading rifle to be adopted by any organized military force.

Image
By Watermoon
#13207017
Oh, please move this subject to 'military'. Thanks.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13207566
Why, thinking about moving your husband out here so you can handle a weapon? Incidently, what is the Chinese policy on owning firearms?

Anyways, you should move to the Alaskan wilderness so you can hunt large game and snowmobile everywhere.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13207799
Why are firearms so slow to advance? It's perfectly acceptable to use 50 year old guns etc why not make more advanced handheld weaponry?
User avatar
By Zagadka
#13207883
Why are firearms so slow to advance? It's perfectly acceptable to use 50 year old guns etc why not make more advanced handheld weaponry?

For one, what is your bright idea that improves on designs currently in use? Gun tech is one of those areas that jumps ahead in spurts.

And secondly, because most guns are for military and police use, so end up needing to be mass produced in order to be effective. A 50 year old gun can still perform well enough, be produced cheaply, and be easy to maintain and repair, whereas adopting a new design would be more expensive and less reliable (an example of this was the M-16's introduction).
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13209983
In a way, the gun has devolved. Before (Arquabus to late flint lock) the barrel was also a combustion chamber and was thus a necessary componant for actually flinging the bullet (chunk of lead) at the enemy. Currently the gun's main role is that of guiding the bullet into a trajectory and activating the bullet while the power and its release is contained in the bullet.

Take away the gun and we have the bullet: a slug of metal meant to hit and kill/injur some one as it is propelled by an explosion, all contained (along with ignition head) in one unit. The method of killing, sending a small chunk of metal at your opponant at high speeds, could be magnified but then it becomes an exploding bullet or a grenade. The bullet might get an internal guidance system, but thats a missile.

Is caseless ammunition is an evolution, then there is a path for change there. Beyond that, all I can think of are refinements - new powders, jacket material, etc..


I would say the gun has evolved a great dea over the last few decades. The further deveopment of gas blow back and internal recoil compensation come to mind as pretty big. Im not sure how old the pin within a pin concept is (done for high rate of fire weapons) but thats pretty new in application at least.



However much one part "evolves" it must wait for its compliment to catch up. Good for ubiquity and interchangability, but bad for real revolutionary designs as such would need both parts to be revolutionary.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13210893
Thunderhawk, two things-

1) What about the AA-12?
2) What about the emergence of directed energy weapons?
User avatar
By Dr House
#13210908
Igor Antunov wrote:Why are firearms so slow to advance? It's perfectly acceptable to use 50 year old guns etc why not make more advanced handheld weaponry?

It's in the works. Don't you ever watch Futureweapons?
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13211151
1) What about the AA-12?

Automatic shotgun?
Im assuming the automatic feature is from blow back. The shotgun shell/buckshot is still a lot like a bullet.
Its a cool concept, but the automatic shotgun isnt revolutionary (though, perhaps that line is the first time its been successfully done) - its combing two well established and existing concepts.

2) What about the emergence of directed energy weapons?

The gauss rifle/rail gun concept strikes me as a gun - sending a chunk of metal (maybe ceramic) forward, hurled by a sudden release of energy in the gun.

Im not really sure if particle weapons should be grouped with guns. Are they an evolution of the gun or something as distinct as the crossbow? Im actually thinking they have more in comon with the flame thrower..

Which raises an interesting point about our culture. The crossbow is not called a gun. Nor is the flamethrower. The word "gun" was pretty broad initially, but it seems it is becoming an even more generic word for any ranged weapon that has a certain look and is meant to kill/injure what its pointed at.


PS.
As I think about it, this is sort of moot. Igor is talking about an item that has a confining definition. A large advancement pretty much means it is a new thing. A high pressure water gun and a plasma cutter can cut steel rather easily while a knife cannot, but they arent called advanced knives - they are something different and have their own respective names. Also, no one is looking at the knife which hasnt changed much in 2000+ years and saying how it hasnt advanced.
User avatar
By MB.
#13211936
A gun fires a bullet. Directed energy weapons fire intense beams of particles or super-accelerated tungsten. Same difference.

A laser on the other hand is a fucking laser, culturally speaking of course.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13211948
Thunderhawk wrote:Automatic shotgun?
Im assuming the automatic feature is from blow back. The shotgun shell/buckshot is still a lot like a bullet.
Its a cool concept, but the automatic shotgun isnt revolutionary (though, perhaps that line is the first time its been successfully done) - its combing two well established and existing concepts.


Not sure the design specifics, but the fact that it's low-impact, rapid refire shotgun and that it can double as a grenade launcher of the same caliber seems to me to be a major leap forward in gun design.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13212101
Figlio di Moros wrote:it can double as a grenade launcher of the same caliber

Exploding bullets are old technology actually. Within some size range they were outlawed in the Hague conventions. Also, thats an evolution of the bullet.


MB. wrote:A gun fires a bullet. Directed energy weapons fire intense beams of particles or super-accelerated tungsten. Same difference.

A laser on the other hand is a fucking laser, culturally speaking of course.

Gauss/Coil/Rail -guns strike me as guns in their very concept - they are hurling a chunk of mass quickly at a target.

Particle beams have a ~conintuous beam of particles traveling very fast, with damage being done over time. Its very different from a slug thrower, so I view them as not guns.
User avatar
By MB.
#13212133
What is a bullet or a lump of tungsten? A bunch of particles of mass. particle beam weapons are guns or rather the logical successors of guns.

The gun, or rather more specifically, the cannon; fundamentally, the artillery- demonstrates an astounding history of development and evolution stretching back into the first millennium and indeed beyond.

Anyway, weapons are great! Guns! :flamer:
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13212399
What is a bullet or a lump of tungsten? A bunch of particles of mass. particle beam weapons are guns or rather the logical successors of guns.

If your going to be that broad, then lasers, cross bows and Flame throwers are guns - which I disagree with.
I look at a gun as directing the flow of energy to send an object (or loose collection of objects) in a certain direction.

I believe particle beams and lasers/Masers/Xaser, etc.. are advancements over the gun just like the gun was an advancement over the bow and atlatl.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13212422
Thunderhawk wrote:Exploding bullets are old technology actually. Within some size range they were outlawed in the Hague conventions. Also, thats an evolution of the bullet.


None-the-less, is it not a huge advancement of it's own right?
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13212524
A grenade that could be shot at the enemy out of a cannon (explodable shells that didnt detonate when being fired) was pretty big (in that it worked), yes.

But it is an evolution of the bullet, not the gun.

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]