Just Thinking

[jaxenro]

In 1715 the state of the art in handguns was a flintlock single shot muzzleloader

In 1815 the state of the art in handguns was a flintlock single shot muzzleloader slightly more refined than the 1715 version

In 1915 the state of the art in handguns was about a 8 shot semi automatic with removable magazine and the following cartridges were all available

25 ACP
32 ACP
380 ACP
9mm Parabellum
45 ACP

In addition numerous revolvers were available in 38 Special

In 2015 we are mostly using 100 year old cartridges in semi automatics somewhat more refined, and maybe in some cases with a higher capacity, but not too different than 1915

Why the explosion in ideas from 1815 to 1915 and not really much since? I mean the difference between a Colt 1911 and a Glock in 45 caliber is nothing like the difference between a 1911 and a single shot flintlock

[jaxenro]

You see the same thing in airplanes. In 1903 the Wright brothers flew by 1953 the B-52 was flying. 50 years from the Wright brothers to the B52 bomber yet 65 years after that it is still in front line service. Fighters advance somewhat faster but even then we are talking 30 years or more. The F16 came out in 1973 44 ago and is expected to remain another 30 years. That would be about the same time from the WB to the F16

[Hewy]

Similar time frame and span in electronics. The vacuum tube 1904 (approx) and the development of the
Transistor in mid 1950s . Refined and made awhole to smaller , but same as used today.
The industrial revolution produced the greatest accumulation of mans thoughts since the wheel.

[sltm1]

Caplock firearms were introduced which were handier and more reliable then flintlocks. That changed the whole firearm history. From caplock's to cartridges was only 30 years, the jump from a waterproof revolver cylinder to a separate cartridge round was wasn't that big a stretch for Rollin's, in fact he developed the idea went he was a Colt employee, but ole Sam wasn't into new fangled ideas, so the inventor quit and went to S&W. Every development since then grew out of the original idea. A side note here, Samuel Colt was so pissed he didn't use the idea himself that the refused to pay S&W the $1.00 per gun royalty and waited for the patent to expire before he got into cartridge guns......and his company held the line after he died.

[jaxenro]

I wonder if things like guns, cars, airplanes, etc. have a practical limit to development. Laptop and iPhone capabilities are supposed to double every couple of years but at some point like the semi auto I wonder if there won't be a lot of gains to make. I think robots of some type are the next thing that will see phenomonal growth or driverless cars much as I hate the ideas

[45 Dragoon]

I think the biggest reason for the lag in innovation is 3 things. Lawyers, taxes and regulations.


Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

[jaxenro]

I think the biggest reason for the lag in innovation is 3 things. Lawyers, taxes and regulations

True but also demand. The iPhone is innovative but what is the need for a radical change in firearms? Essentially we would need to develop a hand held device that shot a lethal something accurately for 50 yards, held at a minimum 10 rounds, was utterly reliable, and quick to reload. It would have to be comparable price wise both to make and supply. Can you think of anything besides gunpowder and a projectile that fits the bill? I can't do all we can really do is tinker around the edges

[G Dog]

I think the biggest reason for the lag in innovation is 3 things. Lawyers, taxes and regulations.


Mike
www.goonsgunworks.com
Follow me on Instagram @ goonsgunworks

AYO, HOLUP -

I was thinking more “politicians, taxes and regulations.”     

True, lots of politicians are lawyers, but not all lawyers are politicians.  I hang with some excellent trial attorneys that are down right “deplorable & unredeemable”.  You would like the way their minds work, no jive.

[Captainkirk]

Can you think of anything besides gunpowder and a projectile that fits the bill? I can't do all we can really do is tinker around the edges

Ya gots ta think outside the box.
Remember the sci-fi movies from the 60's? Next big jump will be "ray guns" (for lack of a better term) that use no bullets or powder, period.

[Dave Shooter]

I think the biggest reason for the lag in innovation is 3 things. Lawyers, taxes and regulations

True but also demand. The iPhone is innovative but what is the need for a radical change in firearms? Essentially we would need to develop a hand held device that shot a lethal something accurately for 50 yards, held at a minimum 10 rounds, was utterly reliable, and quick to reload. It would have to be comparable price wise both to make and supply. Can you think of anything besides gunpowder and a projectile that fits the bill? I can't do all we can really do is tinker around the edges

Doesn't have to be lethal for most applications (hunting an exception), just has to make them stop.  The TASER tries but falls short in range and capacity.  Also bad guys don't necessarily stay stopped.

[Hewy]

Laser ,is being tested dy the military. That is the Ray Gun.

[jaxenro]

Yup but the problem with ray guns or laser guns is you need a huge power source to be effective. Tasers need wires and are limited in capacity and distance. Lasers don't penetrate water vapor all that well, think rainbow, so a lawn sprinkler would defeat them. Maybe a mini electric rail gun and a 40 round clip but the electric power required would be enourmess

[jaxenro]

Notice most of the military testing is for ships guns. The huge engines on the ships can generate gobs of electric power

[jaxenro]

Also think of the 357 magnum. It isn't longer to hold more powder but so the higher pressure round doesn't fit in led 38 special revolvers. So the gun chambering it is larger than it needs to yet a smaller gun also has trouble being handled due to recoil

So we need a 40 round clip with power equal to a 45 ACP and minimal recoil in a pocket sized package

[ssb73q]

Hi jaxenro, discounting rifle shootings, all one needs to do is put a bullet into an organ or totally through a body to have the largest benefit. Rifle wounds stop by shock, most handgun wounds by bleed out. Any more handgun power than necessary is wasted energy. The bigger the hole the better. Our 1850's BP revolvers have enough energy to take four or more people down if they are standing behind one another.

IMO we don't see significant improvement in handguns because the science is settled, there's little more to discover. Of course small improvements are made with time, but it's like polishing a turd.

However, there's always an effort on how to kill someone faster and better. Too bad.

Regards,
Richard