Future trends in firearms?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-10-04 08:34pm

This is for the Cyberpunk RPG campaign I'm getting ready to run on the G&C forum (and no this post doesn't belong in that forum). I'm wondering where gun development is heading in the next 30 years. Will we still be dealing with pretty much the same technology (albeit with user recognition and all that computerized jazz), or is there some crazy new stuff on the horizon that I should be aware of?

Most futuristic universes I've looked at have the same (wrong) ideas for what guns will be like. They seem to think they will all use caseless ammo (overheating city), excessive caliber (13mm SMGs and shit are pretty standard), gigantic magazines, etc. Ugh.

So what are some significant improvements on firearm design and technology that are likely to surface within the next 30 or so years?

P.S. I'm looking for opinions by people who know what they're talking about (Sea Skimmer, etc.). If this turns into a thread full of idiots touting unrealistic wank-tech, I'll unleash large, hungry, vicious dogs.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-10-04 08:41pm

Most external elments would be made of plastic like substances and designed to be lighter so more features could be added. That tends tobe the current trend. Also, drastically improved ergonomics. though they're seem to be exceptions for some major powers. But for 3rd world poor armies it maybe improved firepower, but no major improvements. Sea Skimmer, Vympel, and Shep know more than I so try and ask them.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-10-04 08:49pm

Cartridge size will continue to shrink while firepower continues to inrease. Its generaly most valuable to try and fit more firepower in a smaller package. This makes the weapon lighter and allows larger magazine capacity.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 08:55pm

Alyeska wrote:Cartridge size will continue to shrink while firepower continues to inrease. Its generaly most valuable to try and fit more firepower in a smaller package. This makes the weapon lighter and allows larger magazine capacity.

What of caseless rounds?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-10-04 09:10pm

Alyeska wrote:Cartridge size will continue to shrink while firepower continues to inrease. Its generaly most valuable to try and fit more firepower in a smaller package. This makes the weapon lighter and allows larger magazine capacity.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if we've already hit the point where we can't really go any farther? 9mm is notorious for failing to drop perps, even if they're not armored and not drugged up. 5.56mm NATO sometimes typically needed 13 shots or more to drop Iraqi's (FMJ ammo limitation due to Geneva Convention, I know, but the point remains). The new, ligher, wonder cartridges like 5.7mm, 4.6mm, and the like haven't really been tested much if at all. We know they are great at armor penetration, but stopping power has not been demonstrated, and frankly I would be surprised if these cartridges are as effective as, say 7.62 Soviet or other intermediate rounds. Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't necessarily see the continued shrinking of cartridges as a trend that will continue.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-04 09:12pm

I don't think there will be much change, barring some revolutionary (i.e. unpredictable) skewing of firearms knowledge. There will always be some large guns (there already exist 13mm semi-automatics and revolvers, allowing for rounding) designed to be sold to people who want to have the biggest gun on their block. The most likely improvements will be in propellant (cleaner, faster burning charges). Some parts will be replaced with tougher, lighter composite materials in more expensive weapons, in order to keep them light. For Cyberpunk, there would also be the possibility of redeveloping the Deringer, a one- or two-shot pistol designed to be easily concealed. Such a gun would be in the largest feasible caliber for concealment (1800s versions ranged generally from .22 to .32. I could see .38 as a possibility, given the improvements in gunsmithing).

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-04 09:13pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: Just to play devil's advocate, what if we've already hit the point where we can't really go any farther? 9mm is notorious for failing to drop perps, even if they're not armored and not drugged up. 5.56mm NATO sometimes typically needed 13 shots or more to drop Iraqi's (FMJ ammo limitation due to Geneva Convention, I know, but the point remains). The new, ligher, wonder cartridges like 5.7mm, 4.6mm, and the like haven't really been tested much if at all. We know they are great at armor penetration, but stopping power has not been demonstrated, and frankly I would be surprised if these cartridges are as effective as, say 7.62 Soviet or other intermediate rounds. Maybe you know something I don't, but I don't necessarily see the continued shrinking of cartridges as a trend that will continue.

Shrink rounds but fill them with hollow-points, make exploding bullets, etc.

That way, you can kill better but shrink rounds.

But then again, it depends on what your target is. If you want penetration, have sharper rounds. If you want to stop people, have more blunt rounds with explosive tips or hollow-points.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-10-04 09:16pm

BWS Nuke .50

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 09:22pm

aerius wrote:BWS Nuke .50

Best. Gun. Ever!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-04 09:23pm

aerius wrote:BWS Nuke .50

LOLOL

Impossible concept aside, very funny.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-04 09:24pm

Captain Lennox wrote:Most external elments would be made of plastic like substances and designed to be lighter so more features could be added.

Actually, side bonus is, you don't need gloves to hold the damn thing in
a desert or in a blizzard...metal freezes or gets boiling hot...plastic
handguards do neither.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-04 09:25pm

Alyeska wrote:Cartridge size will continue to shrink while firepower continues to inrease.

Bullshit. Many people are complaining of the 5.56mm's poor stopping
power and utter lack of range in Iraq and Afghanistan. Expect
next generation infantry weapon to be a 6mm to 7.62mm weapon.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-04 09:31pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Cartridge size will continue to shrink while firepower continues to inrease.

Bullshit. Many people are complaining of the 5.56mm's poor stopping
power and utter lack of range in Iraq and Afghanistan. Expect
next generation infantry weapon to be a 6mm to 7.62mm weapon.

They complained about that in Vietnam, too. The M16's been bitched at since it was first put into use, but it's still there thirty years later. The OICW is expected to use a dual 5.56mm/20mm system (instead of the M16/M203's 5.56mm/40mm).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 09:37pm

But, Shep, with 5.56mm NATO you can carry much more useless rounds than big, clunky, effective 7.62mm.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-10-04 09:43pm

This is why you use something like 6mm or so instead of the 7.62.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 09:52pm

phongn wrote:This is why you use something like 6mm or so instead of the 7.62.

Wasn't H&K working with Nobel to make a version of their caseless ammunition in 6mm?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-10-04 09:52pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Cartridge size will continue to shrink while firepower continues to inrease.

Bullshit. Many people are complaining of the 5.56mm's poor stopping
power and utter lack of range in Iraq and Afghanistan. Expect
next generation infantry weapon to be a 6mm to 7.62mm weapon.

That is partly because of geneva convention problems. The 5.56mm is a very capable round and you can put a fair amount of power behind it. Furthermore with smaller rounds you can carry larger ammo capacity fairly easily. The 7.62mm is overly large and, well, clunky. It makes good support ammo for MMGs and good for sniper weapons.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-10-04 09:53pm

That's why you use the Nuke .50, 1 shot, 5000 kills. It's like carpet bombing with a single bullet, it'll only take a pocketfull of those to kill everything within miles.

But seriously, I think explosive rounds will be the way to go. You can still cause massive trauma with small caliber rounds, but the problem is small light rounds don't have as much range as larger heavier ones. It won't be a problem with handguns and SMG's which are short ranged anyways, but with assault rifles you'll still need those big heavy rounds for range.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-10-04 10:07pm

aerius wrote: But seriously, I think explosive rounds will be the way to go

Too bad they're banned for antipersonnel use by the geneva convention.

Of course, you could always claim it was in an antimaterial use by aiming
at your targets belt buckles

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 10:10pm

I think those conventions put a damper on many ideal designs for warfare, but it can't be helped. Ideally we'd all be using explosive and hollow point rounds in warfare.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-04 10:11pm

How is bleeding to death any worse than having rounds explode in your chest?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-10-04 10:12pm

How well could the EFMJ concept be applied to the 5.56 NATO? Honestly, I'd rather it be applied to the 7x43mm cartrige designed for the Enfield EM-2. Incidentally, most hunters like to use the .270-.300 range of bullets for deer targets, which represents a relatively human-size target.

And besides, while Remington made an excellent varmint rifle cartridge, it's not really meant for armed human targets which are far more dangerous (read: need to be completely incapacitated NOW!!!) than any deer ever encountered...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 10:20pm

Uraniun235 wrote:How is bleeding to death any worse than having rounds explode in your chest?

It's one of those humane things. Just the other day I was arguing with someone who found it perfectly okay to nuke a nation and vape people instantly or give them radiation based injuries offering a nice slow and painful death, yet saw biochem warfare as atrocious.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-10-04 10:22pm

Uraniun235 wrote:How is bleeding to death any worse than having rounds explode in your chest?

Cause a normal round just makes a clean hole through you, which surgeons, with effort, can patch up.

A round exploding inside you, on the other hand, causes lots of collateral damage that cause extra bleeding, shock, and potentially permanent damage or organ destruction. And less chance of recovery too, which means that one enemy soldier you killed you most likely won't be somehow seeing again a few months later on the battlefield.

EDIT: misread your post, but my point stands.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-04 10:24pm

Shinova wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:How is bleeding to death any worse than having rounds explode in your chest?
Cause a normal round just makes a clean hole through you, which surgeons, with effort, can patch up.

A round exploding inside you, on the other hand, causes lots of collateral damage that cause extra bleeding, shock, and potentially permanent damage or organ destruction. And less chance of recovery too, which means that one enemy soldier you killed you most likely won't be somehow seeing again a few months later on the battlefield.

Could always put poison in the rounds. Assassins have used quicksilver in rifle rounds to ensure death even if the round hit nothing vital.