1817: >everyone still uses flintlock muskets >repeating

>>34652138
>WHAT THE FUCK WENT WRONG?
Something with you, if you think modern designs are just refined versions of 1917 guns.

>>34652152
They're just the practical versions of 1917 guns, they function the same. Prove me wrong.

>>34652138
you mean what went so right in 1917?

>>34652162
What was the AR15 of 1917?

>>34652138
>2017:
>all firearms are just refined versions of what was available in 1917
>some are still even produced

We do have electric primers and caseless ammo. They are pretty rare outside of military aviation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-301_cannon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_V/L

>>34652162
they don't function the same.
prove they do

>>34652175
BAR came out in 1918. There were already a few automatic rifles before it, 1900 Cei Rigotti being the first.

>>34652180
Yeah, but compared to the leap between flintlock to automatic pistols, it's very petty. Most caseless weapons are still deemed impractical. Electric primers are only useful when you want to make something with pinpoint accuracy.

>>34652196
there's more to rifle design than just being automatic or not

File: 1804 pattern cutlass.jpg (103KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1440x1080px

Small arms are no longer the high-tech part of weapons technology. You stick high-tech stuff to them, but the major development is more about the larger weapons systems and vehicles these days.

The past 100 years in firearms are almost comparable to the 19th century in swords, except the swords arguably regressed in the 19th century while firearms just had more incremental, minute progress.

>>34652196
>BAR
>The same as an AR15
You have to be 18 to use this web site.

>>34652188
>pistols
>rifles
>shotguns
>revolvers
>machine guns
Dude, they already made these shits long before 1900.

>>34652209
there is more to a weapon than what archetype it fits under

>>34652205
this

>>34652162
For starters, the lions share of self loading rifle designs of that day were direct blowback or long recoil.
Basic ideas like locking the bolt directly into the barrel rather than the receiver, were foreign
Most gun designers and manufacturers were thoroughly convinced that drilling a hole into the barrel to tap gas was lunacy and did retarded shit like gas traps instead.

Firearm development is now evolutionary, not revolutionary - but suggesting today's firearms are just refinements is retarded. Go back to /v/ or wherever.

File: The Eiffel Tower in January, 1888.jpg (683KB, 2000x1434px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 2000x1434px

>What is the industrial revolution

>>34652223
the best thing the west ever did for the world

>>34652203
>>34652207
>>34652213
>muh tacticool gimmicks
Gas, springs, open mechanism, closed mechanism, whatever. They're not as impressive as the leap from flintlock to automatic shotguns. If you don't get the idea, you're autistic.

>>34652227
brainless post
>>>/v/

>>34652227
Nigger the only one who's not getting it here is you.

File: Asking-K-for-gun-advice.jpg (87KB, 1052x575px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1052x575px

>>34652196
>Electric primers are only useful when you want to make something with pinpoint accuracy.

Bullshit, they are useful because they are more reliable then conventional primers. See the M61A1/A2 series cannon. You twat.

>>34652138
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Firearms in the late 19th and early 20th century reached a point where they hit a "sweet spot" of design simplicity, functionality, and cost-effectiveness that has lasted to this day. There simply aren't a whole lot of ways to significantly alter the design that don't also come with significant drawbacks such as increased complexity or decreased reliability. At this point, until we figure out a way to kick off a paradigm shift without a stupidly large jump in cost, it's largely a question of tweaking the systems we already have.

>>34652168
1911

>>34652252
sauce

>>34652255
sorry dont have it, found it on gif

>>34652234
>Comparing an aircraft cannon to small arms

File: 1500694061113.png (711KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1024x768px

>>34652138
(((they))) shut it down

pic related

>>34652138
Combined Warfare bitch.

File: 1500683623328.jpg (66KB, 750x893px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x893px

>>34652138
I can agree that their isn't much innovation in the gun world as of right now ,but saying their all 1917 gun designs is quite dumb absurd .
>pic related

File: 1499969302827.jpg (292KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 633x758px

>>34652278
Seriously this>>34652278

>>34652303
>>34652266
Breh please post an imgur link

>>34652235
Firearms and mousetraps

>>34652278
Didn't that piece of shit melt?

>>34652436
summer fag
>>>/v/

>>34652436
It just cooked off.

>>34652223
Very nice picture.

>>34652227
>gas
>springs
"Open mechanism"
>"closed mechanism"

You are from some other shit board arent you?

>>34652138
its because we need to innovate past bullets the way they are now
if we start transferring over to shellless cases and other cool shit like lasers and rail guns is when we get the next big leap

>>34652436
no it just had ammo that would split apart and become unusable under basic temperature swings.

>>34652175
>What was the AR15 of 1917?
Winchester 1907 in .351 WSL. Fired full auto from 15/20rd magazines and was used by the French in WW1. They were also widely used by LEO and the FBI in the USA.

Also a contender is the Remington Model 8 with a similar history.

Nothing eurofags had at the time came close desu.

>>34652196
>BAR
>AR15
>similar
t. retard

>>34652223
A Gimmick

>>34652162
Notice how we don't do long-recoil rifles anymore. Or short-recoil rifles either, except for a very few exceptions.

Notice how many guns use the Blish-Lock? Yeah, none, because it's nonsense.

Notice how it's common today for guns to have double-stacked detachable box magazines.

>>34652196
Aside from having detachable magazines and being self-loading/full-auto, they share precious little in common. For instance, the AR15 is actually good.

>>34652227
Ok.

BAR:
>all steel receiver
>uses a long stroke gas piston
>fires from an open bolt
>bolt rises into a raised housing on the receiver
>recoil spring goes into stock
>action and stock are not inline
>used absolutely terrible 20rd magazines that didn't always like to play ball

AR15:
>aluminum receiver
>has no separate piston, gas is fed into the bolt-carrier to expand and then vent out the ejection port, the bolt carrier basically acting as a piston on itself
>fires from a closed bolt
>bolt has 8 radial locking lugs which locks into a steel extension of the barrel, this is what allows you to have an aluminum receiver
>recoil buffer inside it's stock
>action and stock are 100% inline
>has magazines of all kinds of types, sizes and capacity, there are some very good and dependable ones

File: 1444049247726.jpg (72KB, 300x319px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 300x319px

1817:
>everyone still uses flintlock muskets
>repeating firearms are scarce and impractical

1917:
>centerfire cartridges are very common
>all kinds of firearms are not only repeating, but also available in automatic

2017:
>wars are fought with dank memes over the internet
Are you blind man? the leap has happened already

File: mcr-polymer-ammo-bag-collapsed-stock-.jpg (77KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1000x667px

>>34652677
>Winchester 1907 in .351 WSL.
Why is it that the US civilian market is always one step ahead of everyone else?

>>34652138
>all firearms are just refined versions of what was available in 1917
>some are still even produced
Mechanical Engineer here. What exactly are you expecting to improve?
Is there something faster than fully automatic? Something more precise than bolt action?
AR15's are from Stoner's 1960's model and are much more efficient than the M1Garand from previous years.
The FN Scar is much more efficient than the AR15.
Are you wanting to shoot lasers or something? I don't understand the point of this thread.

>>34652942
>The FN Scar is much more efficient than the AR15
Not really.

>>34652788

>both are automatic weapons fed from a box magazine firing centerfire cartridges.

Stop pretending minute differences in design make up for the lack of qualitative improvements in function. The leap from BARs to ARs was not as significant as the leap from flintlock to semiauto rifles.

>>34652965
>lack of qualitative improvements to function
The AR is fucking light-years ahead of that overweight jam-o-matic. You have never used, let alone held or seen either weapon in person.

>>34652138
>2017:
>>all firearms are just refined versions of what was available in 1917
>>some are still even produced
Replace 1917 with the 1950's or so and you'd have my support.
Firearms have been a mature technology for quite a while now, nothing "went wrong" at all. There's only so many practical ways to make an autoloading firearm.

>WHAT THE FUCK WENT WRONG?

It's the other way around. Shit went right, so we don't need to fuck with it all that much any more.

>>34653002

You're confusing ergonomics and design as functional differences. Both guns will fire a bullet when you pull the trigger and continue to do so until the magazine runs out of ammo, all while ejecting the previous cartridge automatically. A qualitative improvement in function would be a firearm that has no need for an ejection port, or that is fed from something other than a box/tube magazine or a belt.

So unless caseless ammo makes a comeback or we start feeding guns with miniature batteries to power their electromagnets, firearms development has basically reached a plateau ever since 1918.

>>34652234
Yes electric primers are more reliable than mechanical primers. The issue comes in whether it is practical to have small arms with a battery in/attached to them to ignite electric primers. Current easily available batteries are rather fragile and low power density for reliable use as power sources for small arms. That's the same reason you don't see electric triggers on military weapons. That shit is generally either too fragile or too expensive to put on a weapon of war.
The reason they can be used on something like an aircraft is that usually anything that takes out either the gun or the power source(engine) is gonna take out the vehicle itself and the overall complexity of the vehicle warrants the cost of such a system to improve its combat effectiveness.

More like:

2017
>guy with gun made in 1917 gets vapourised by a missile five times his bodyweight,
>guided by a type of radiation that Albert Einstein had only just thought of theoretically,
>launched from an aircraft higher than anyone had ever been in 1917,
>flown from a place further than anyone had ever flown,
>and piloted by a person in real time on a completely different continent

>>34652677
>no it just had ammo that would split apart and become unusable under basic temperature swings.
>>34652632
>It just cooked off.
Both of those problems were fixed by switching over to an RDX derived charge with an improved plasticizer in it. That shit was fixed long before the program was shut down.

>>34652965
>minute differences in design
I wish I could slap you for that.

The BAR is an early and clunky hunk of shit and really one of John Moses Browning's less refined designs, the AR15 was a phenomenally intelligent design for it's day and it still is, things like the modularity, the locking lugs, the ergonomics, it's influencing modern designs, not to mention how many clones there are of the AR15 straight up.

The only legacy the BAR has is scant faithful semi-auto repros, a really retarded 'modernization' of it, and the fact that the bolt is very similar on modern machineguns like the M240B, as well as arguably influencing the AK.


Also you seem to not fucking grasp the stages of development of firearms over time.
The handgonne evolved into the matchlock, that took some fucking time to happen, it was far from immediate. The matchlock would evolve into the flintlock in the 1700s, and stay that way.
Then in the 1800s, not only would the flintlock soon become the caplock (using percussion caps, essentially primers, for ignition), rifling would begin to become a standard feature on all pistols and rifles due to the invention of the Minnié ball and improved manufacturing, these three were monumental alone in the development of firearms, and self contained metallic cartridges would follow, another very instrumental step, especially when it began to include percussion caps in itself, finally there would be the smokeless gunpowder by the turn of the century.
I would argue that the 1800's were actually the odd one out for how many fundamental concepts of firearms were developed and became standard, with the 1900's just taking everything we learned from the 1800's to make the best possible firearms based on concepts like these, with many genial actions and feed designs. We're not as fast as the 1800's, but we're way faster than the 1700's and 1600's.

I fucking HATE you.

>>34652436
No, but it had other fundamental problems.

>>34653110

read >>34653046

>>34653161
THOSE ARE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES
CASELESS IS A RETARDED MEME FOR AUTISTIC CHIDLREN

>>34653061
this

>>34653175

>oh wow, we made our rifle slightly more ergonomic and reliable, surely this difference is as significant as making a musket fire 600 rounds a minute using metallic cartridges.

Literally not functional differences, it's still an individual weapon that fires bullets for as long as the trigger is held while ejecting the previous cartridge without manually operating the bolt, with roughly similar accuracy and rate of fire.

I'm not implying this is a bad thing or that current guns are "bad". We just pioneered this type of firearm and basically there's nothing else to refine at this point, and we should be proud of that. But pretending minute differences that do not revolutionize the way we think about firearms are somehow great leaps in technology is minimizing the efforts of previous firearms designers that actually took risks and revolutionized firearm designs forever.

>>34653242
THAT IS A MONUMENTAL STEP

THE BAR WAS A SHIT EXCUSE FOR A MACHINEGUN

THE AR15 IS AN EXCELLENT INFANTRY FIGHTING RIFLE

THERE IS NO REASON TO STEP AWAY FROM CARTRIDGE FIRING WEAPONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU FUCKING SPERG

>>34652138
Nothing went wrong. That's just the way technology goes. Eventually, any technology gets to be 95% as good as it's ever going to get, and from there on you just get small, evolutionary refinements instead of huge technological leaps. The 55 years from the Wright Brothers to the 707 was a time of technological leaps, but the 777 or A350 you fly around in today doesn't go any higher or faster than that 707 did, and most of the improvements in safety come from better crew training. A friend of mine still has the first car he ever owned - a 1961 Ford Falcon - and we take it out to run errands sometimes. It still runs fine and does everything he needs it to do. His modern Toyota is more refined, sure - it's more fuel efficient and has nice safety features like air bags - but it doesn't really do its core tasks any better. Same for most stuff. In fact, the Great Digital Revolution of 1975-2010 has been over for a while now, and the stuff it produced is now probably 95% as good as it's ever going to be. I remember back in the 90s when the pace of technological change meant that a computer was outdated at 18 months and a doorstop at three years old. I've had my current machine since 2011, I've done nothing to it besides upgrading the RAM and installing an SSD, and it still does everything I need it to do just fine.

That's just how technology works. Be happy - buying a new computer every two years (back when they were REALLY expensive) was a pain in the ass, and I'm just as glad not to have to do it anymore. Consider yourself lucky to not have to replace your guns with some expensive new thing every few years.

>>34653265

Still not a revolutionary change, just a minute improvement in ergonomics and design. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

>>34653282
THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A REVOLUTIONARY STEP

IT'S A MATURE TECHNOLOGY

>>34653296

Thanks for agreeing with my original point, i don't know why it took you so long.

>>34653061
He was clearly talking about small arms, you autistic fuck. And he has a point, a shotgun or a pistol nowadays doesn't differ too much for one that you would use in the 1920's, heck you could even use a 1911 or Hi-Power as a military sidearm and it would fair alright against other pistols.
You can not say the same about a flintlock in 1917.

>>34652138
>1417
Everyone uses pikes
Matchlocks are just starting to be used
>1517
Everyone is using pikes and matchlocks
Swords are still useful
>1617
Everyone is using match locks
Repeating arms are extremely rare and impractical
>1717
Everyone is using flint locks
Repeating arms are scarce an impractical

>what is polymer cased telescoped
>what are continually-computing sights

Those are both revolutionary.

Moderate improvements? Flow-formed barrels, composite barrels, 3d-printed axial flow suppressors, onboard thermal, onboard wall-penetrating radar, active stabilization...

>>34652138
OP is a faggot and a retard
x goes in options

Well the next step would be electromagnetic railguns and the likes. Maybe something akin to mass effect games but thats 20-30 years into the future.

>>34653536

Try 80+ years until miniaturization technology advances enough to let electromagnetic railguns be man portable, for the next 20-30 years it'll just be ship mounted and MAYBE vehicle mounted.

>>34652965
Nigger are you forgetting leverguns?
You are forgetting Breechloaders as well?

I bet you are from /v/.

Welcome to /k/, now git out.

>>34653611
Yes youre probably right but the point is that its in the not so distant future

>>34653665

The fucking BAR is not a lever gun or a breech loader, those designs predate the massification of automatic weapons, do you even know what a technological improvement is?

>>34652138
Actually, the designs we use today are largely just refined versions of what was available in about 1950 but most of the stuff has been around for decades before then.

>Short stroke gas piston
>Long stroke gas piston
>Direct Impingement
>Rotating bolt
>Tilting bolt
>Gas delayed blowback
>Roller delayed blowback
>Short radius notch-and-post
>Long radius aperture
>Optics
>Select fire
>Intermediate cartridge
>Concept of Assault Rifle
>Plastics on firearms

and so on and so forth. In fact imma see what designs I can think up, also giving the year of them.

>Short stroke gas piston
SVT-38 (1938)
>Long stroke gas piston
French M1917 Rifle (1917)
>Rotating bolt
French M1917 Rifle (1917)
>Tilting bolt
M1918 BAR (1918)
>Gas delayed blowback
STG-45 (1945)
>Roller delayed blowback
CETME Rifle (late 1940s?)
>Short radius notch-and-post
Baker Rifle (1800 or 1801)
>Long radius aperture
Sharps Rifle? (1840s?)
>Optics
19th Century probably
>Select fire
M1918 BAR (1918)
>Intermediate cartridge
6.5 Arisaka (1890s probably, ballistically almost identical to 6.5 Grendel, possibly even a bit weaker)
>Concept of Assault Rifle
Federov Avtomat (1915 or 1916)
>Plastics on firearms
TT-33 grips (1933) P38 grips (1938) and I think MP38 and MP40 furniture besides the folding stock? (1938)

These are not when each specific thing was first designed, probably, and in fact I might be incorrect on some, but they're the oldest examples I can think of off the top of my head. The biggest advancements in firearms in the last 60 years have probably been the use of aluminium to make designs lighter, advancements in optics, further use of plastics to make designs lighter, and... what... maybe some minor advancements in ammunition? Experimentation with bullets, velocities, and hat not. Not much progress in powder I dare say, nor primers. NAS-3 casings or whatever it's called seems to be the more promising advancement in ammo technology since smokeless powder in 1886.

OP is a nit-picking faggot.

If you threw an army of soldiers armed with only BAR's against an equally sized army armed with M4's assuming both are equally trained; who wins?

Your argument is like saying we perfected jet propelled aircraft in the 50's. The only thing that changes is how the nozzle is directed. The F-84 was the last major step in jet fighter technology.

They're both equally stupid conclusions.

>>34652138
>WHAT THE FUCK WENT WRONG?
John Moses Browning died.

>>34652223

I can't wait until they put a Minaret at the top.

>>34652138
1517
>everyone uses matchlock muskets
1617
>everyone uses flintlock muskets, a refinement of matchlocks
1717
>everyone still uses flintlock muskets
1817
>everyone still uses flintlock muskets

Get ready for another century or 3 or firearms stagnation. The optimal designs given our materials and manufacturing have been discovered.

>>34653925

The side with better fire support assets wins, infantry weapons are a negligible part of an army's fighting capability, strategically speaking the army with BARs would perform equal to the army with M4s if they had comparable support assets. Now if one army had flintlocks and the other army had BARs, now that would be a significant enough disadvantage that the outcome would mostly come down to one side having inferior infantry weapons even with comparable support assets.

>>34652207
>>34652677
>>34653110
Gas operated firearms were invented over a century ago. Only the stoner internal piston action is more recent, it's over half a century old. Otherwise the AR is little more than a refinement of principles first pioneered decades earlier.

>>34652219
Short recoil locking breach firearms were invented over a century ago.

>>34652726
>Notice how it's common today for guns to have double-stacked detachable box magazines.
Double stack magazines were invented over a century ago. Detachable magazines were invented over a decade ago.

>>34652788
tl;dr: refined design and construction. The only novel feature of the AR-15 was Stoner's BGC/piston. But since that's more than half a century old, you're inadvertantly making OP's point for him.

>>34654000
>1617
>everyone uses flintlock muskets
Wrong. They were quite new by that point and matchlocks were still in widespread use. Still, it's highly notable that tech that came about around 1600AD entered and maintained widespread use right up to the early 1800s. We're at a similar plateau with assault rifles. If there are no major advancements in arms design or ammo design, then platforms like the AKM/AK-74 or M16/M4 will be able to remain in service for generations to come without being entirely overshadowed.

>>34654097
>Detachable magazines were invented over a CENTURY ago.
obviously

>>34654099
Poorfags don't count, otherwise you could say Mosin nagants are representative of firearms tech in 2017.

File: 1500825193388.jpg (51KB, 510x427px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 510x427px

>>34652830
Kek

>>34653897
Pretty sure roller delayed blowback was on the MG42

>>34654069
>M4
>700–950 round/min
>Lighter round = more ammo
>Effective range - 500 m
> 30 round box mag (with larger capacities available)

>BAR
>500-650 round/min
>heavy round = less ammo
>Effective range - 91–1,372 m
>20 round box mag

Equal

>>34654226
He's right though.
Not everything is about individual weapon performance, bubba, especially not in a full scale war

>>34654201
MG42 is roller locked.

>>34654226

Literally yes, and if you don't understand why i'd suggest reading every article you can on strategic effectiveness of an army on dtic.mil

>>34654255
You're right, my apologies.

>>34654272
Just don't let it happen again.

because small arms dont need any more development because vehicles, vehicle mounted weapons and artillery are more effective and therefore get more R&D

>>34652677
>tfw no rimless reliable .3357 magnum semi-auto rifle
.351 WSL (and .401 WSL for that matter) were bother great cartridges and it's a shame they died out
at least .32 WSL was reborn as the .30 Carbine

>>34654119
what about the armies of major powers?
because they didn't have widespread flintlock use until much later either

>>34653427
>Moderate improvements? Flow-formed barrels, composite barrels, 3d-printed axial flow suppressors, onboard thermal, onboard wall-penetrating radar, active stabilization...
I look forward to carrying around a rifle that weighs 25 pounds.

>>34654119
Mosins are representative of firearms tech pretty much up until halfway through the 20th century. By 1950, many nations still had bolt-actions as standard-issue rifles.

1950 Standard-Issue

>USA
M1 Rifle Semi-Auto
Begin to be replaced in the late 1950s with the M14

>UK/Canada/Australia/India
Lee Enfield either No.4 or Mk.III* Bolt-Action
Begin replacement between early 50s to late 60s depending on nation with FN FAL variants

>USSR
M91/30 Bolt-Action
Replacement just beginning with AK-47 and SKS-45 in early stages of mass-production

>France
MAS-36 Bolt-Action
Replacement just beginning with semi-auto MAS-49.

>Sweden
Swedish Mauser Bolt-Action

>Norway
Krag-Jorgensen Bolt-Action

>Finland
Finnish Mosin Bolt-Action

>Japan
Type 99 Arisaka Bolt-Action

>China
Probably some sort of Mauser Bolt-Action

>Korean Peninsula
Mosins for the North, perhaps Mausers/Arisakas for the South

So you see anon, I'm talking about Militaries. Not about poorfags or richfags. Richfags in the 1700s and even some in the 1600s could afford rifled muskets, but issuing rifled muskets to entire Armies? Nope. Also yes I know that SMGs were widely available by the 1950s, but I'm talking about what MOST soldiers got; standard-issue or basic Infantry. Some got SMGs, sure, but not most.

>>34654273
I like it when you talk tough, anon-san.

>>34654546
>America had a semi-automatic rifle, everyone else didn't
Sometimes, it's nations that are the poorfags.

We were using non repeating arms for like 700 years before the advancements in ww1 came about. They weren't all the same design they had different firing mechanisms but it's the same way you talk about modern rifles.

>>34653897
>BAR
>tilting bolt
Are you telling me that a rising bolt lock is the same as a tilting bolt?

>tfw our M4s/M16s will have a service life in excess of the B52

>>34653046
So following your logic automobiles have not had any improvement since a car from a 100 years ago will go when you step on the gas and that's what they do now, computers from 1960s is functionally the same as a computer now they just do some binary calculations

>>34654546
>Arisakas
>in 1950/
By that time, Japan was already armed well enough with US Garands and US military small arms and equipment.

>>34654574
>USSR
>Sweden
>Mexico
>Czechoslovakia
>Germany
>France
>Spain

Some of the nations that had self-loading rifles in use by 1950 but not as standard-issue. While America had standardized a semi-auto rifle with a fixed mag, the USSR was adopting an assault rifle with a detachable mag. By 1959 the USA was getting their M14 standardized and Czechoslovakia was adopting an assault rifle that was even better than the USSR's AK-47, arguably better than the USSR's AKM of 1959.

>>34654675
I don't know anything about vehicles, but has engines themselves advanced at all in the last 100 years other than adding more cylinders and electronic bits?

>>34652942
Who the fuck doesn't want to shoot lasers! Pew pew!

>>34654714
I'm pretty sure Mexico had Mondragóns as standard issued for quite a while post Mexican Revolution

>>34654714
>but has engines themselves advanced at all in the last 100 years other than adding more cylinders and electronic bits
Well yeah. Efficiency as gone through the roof due to booming technology in fuel, oil, lubricant and engine design. The most recent major adaptation was the implementation of engine control units to manage power production by regulating air and fuel combustion

The next thing that's happening now is using small battery packs to induce torque vectoring and giving the car additional power

>>34654762
I don't think Mexico ever had the Mondragon as standard-issue, but correct me if I'm wrong.

>>34654765
Eh, doesn't sound like a whole lot has changed. Still spurting mists of fuel into a chamber, sparking it, and using the subsequent explosion to drive a piston so as to provide power. Modern assault rifles, compared to firearms in 1917 and earlier, are generally smaller, lighter, at least half the accuracy (7.62x39 or 7.92x33) if not basically equal or potentially more accuracy (5.56/5.45/5.8/6.5/6.8), have less recoil allowing the soldier to carry more ammo, several times the ammo capacity, and can rapid-fire 20-30 rounds in a 2-3 second mag-dump while it would take probably 20-40x as long to fire the same amount of ammo from a WWI bolt-action. Even a Lee Enfield being blindly rapid-fired would be lucky to expel 30 rounds in 30 seconds. 2 shots per second and 5 seconds for a full 2-clip reload resulting in roughly 10 shots in 10 seconds with a loaded magazine at the end. Much practice would be required to manage this level of rapid-fire, but it is possible.

Ultimately, by the sounds of it, in the last 100 years we've been perfecting on fuel-injection motors. Similarly in the past 67+ years we've been perfecting on various firearm technologies. ACOG scopes have technology that probably wasn't in existence during WWI, but it is simply another advancement in optic technology. In the end it's still a firing pin hitting a primer that detonates powder that causes a controlled explosion. In the end it's still gasoline being injected into a piston compartment and being ignited causing a controlled explosion. See what I mean, anon?

I state again, I know very little about vehicles, so feel free to disregard my assessment.

>>34652162
1917 guns where just refined 1817 guns, which were just refined handgonnes

>>34654762
>Mexico had Mondragóns as standard issued for quite a while post Mexican Revolution
>>34655085
They couldn't afford them and SIG sold the vast majority to the Germans in WW1 for use on balloons.

>>34653536
At the extreme cost of developing and manufacturing a hand held railgun that doesn't suck cock, what will it do that an infantry rifle or rocket propelled anti-tank grenade can't already do?

File: 1337908475043.jpg (510KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x800px

>forgetting the leap to intermediate cartridges in 1944

but of course all center fire cartridges are the same to this memeing retard of an OP

>>34655210
That's false. What I call the 'Golden Age of Arms Development' from 1886-1950 or so was kicked off thanks to French developing 'Poudre B' better known as smokeless powder. With this cleaner, hotter powder, as well as the necessary widespread use of FMJ (since pure lead bullets can't really handle velocities that are around 2000 ft/s or more to my knowledge), it became more feasible to have self-loading designs with complex actions. Thanks to FMJ and this new powder providing higher velocities, bullet diameter also lowered to 8mm or less while before 1886 it was mostly 10-11mm or more. Eventually spitzer (pointed) bullet design further improved trajectory and accuracy due to aerodynamics and lighter bullets.

C93 Borschardt, C96 "Broomhandle" Mauser, P08 Luger from 1900, the various Colt pistols from the late 1800s to the M1911, all those semi-auto pistols because possible thanks to the improved powder. The first machine guns and LMGs prior and during WWI were also made possible thanks to the new powder. Gatling Gun? That was manually-operated with a crank, so you could muscle it about to keep working even when the action became filthy with gunpowder residue from the black powder.

>>34655378
Smokeless powder is just refined black powder

>>34655391
>C4 is just refined Dynamite

you really need to go drink bleach and stop posting here

>>34655311
I think the Mexicans also had problems with quality ammo, and without quality ammo, self-loading designs often simply will not function reliably, either due to dirtiness, too much pressure causing damage, or too little pressure resulting failure to cycle.

>>34655358
6.5 Arisaka from the 1890s was ballistically almost identical to 6.5 Grendel, which is an intermediate cartridge. 6.5 Carcano doesn't qualify because its standard bullet weight is over 150gr and intermediate ammo must have less than 150gr bullets.

>>34655406
.303 is even smaller than 6.5 Arisaka, does that make .303 an intermediate cartridge?

>>34655400
This whole dumbass thread is based on that type of assumption. If you think the there has been no advances in material science and otherwise in firearms since 1917, you're the one who needs to knock back a Clorox cocktail

>>34652138
You're fucking retarded.

>>34655431
hold your fire, I'm on your side

>>34655426
>.303 smaller than 6.5 Arisaka
How so?

File: 6.5x50mm_Japanese_with_.303_British_&_.30-06.jpg (23KB, 300x375px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x375px

>>34655554
Ariska on the left, .303 in the middle

>>34655085
gas turbine and brushless DC motors are more significant advancements in engine technology.

>>34655406
>6.5 Arisaka from the 1890s was ballistically almost identical to 6.5 Grendel
While being a long-ass cartridge fed in a manual repeater.

I bet you'd call the Fedorov the first assault rifle too.

>>34655391
It's amazing how you revel in your fucking ignorance.

>>34655569
All I can tell you is that 6.5 Arisaka has a bullet weight less than 150gr, and that from a reasonable-length barrel (less than 31.5" which was the Type 38's length) it will have velocities very comparable to 6.5 Grendel. Bullet weight, velocity, and to my knowledge energy, all within intermediate spec. In fact I recall in some ways 6.5 Arisaka was weaker than 7.62x39 if memory serves. Perhaps in energy, but keep in mind how things change when barrel length is affected.

Mk.VII Ball .303 British, used during both World Wars as well as Korea, had a 174gr bullet (too heavy for intermediate cartridges) that went 2440 ft/s from a 25" barrel. Now, if the bullet were made 25gr lighter, the barrel length cut down to 20" or shorter, and if that then resulted in the velocity being within 3100 ft/s and the energy being in the typical range you'd find in intermediate cartridges, then yes, you can turn .303 into an intermediate cartridge.

Similarly, look at the AKS-74U. With its stubby barrel length, that 5.45 has BARELY enough energy to qualify it as intermediate. If the AKS-74U was redesigned to have a somehow even SMALLER barrel, allowing the energy and/or velocity (2000-3100 ft/s) to drop enough, then the AKS-74U will go from assault rifle to SMG, making the 5.45x39 within become pistol ammunition.

The Federov Avtomat has a much shorter barrel than the Type 38. From a Type 38, 6.5 Arisaka is too potent to be intermediate. from a Federov Avtomat barrel, it is within intermediate spec, making the Federov Avtomat an assault rifle.

>>34655666
The Fedorov is an LMG and was used as such, akin to the BAR and Bren.

>>34655617
Yes, I would. With the same barrel lengths, 6.5 Arisaka is as strong or in fact weaker than 6.5 Grendel. Federov Avtomat uses a detachable mag, it's select fire, and with its barrel length the 6.5 Arisaka has perfectly intermediate ballistic qualities. Therefore, the Fedorov Avtomat was the very first assault rifle. That Italian Riggoti design or whatever it's called that I've heard of, I recall it using a fixed mag, which means it cannot be an assault rifle. Similarly, 6.5 Carcano in its standard loading cannot be intermediate because it has a bullet weight above 150gr.

>>34655691
The AK-47 was first used as an SMG in Soviet doctrine, meant for automatic fire when contronting the enemy under cover of the more accurate SKS fire. I'm not talking about that "The AK switch first goes to full-auto and only after it semi-auto so it's more like a machine-gun" bullshit. I'm talking about how the troops were trained to use it. Just because it was used like an SMG of the time, doesn't make it any less of an assault rifle. Also the Fedorov was FAR lighter than the BAR and BREN, and as mentioned, if you rechambered it to 6.5 Grendel it would have roughly the same ballistics in terms of muzzle velocity, bullet weight, and energy, in fact it might even be more powerful with 6.5 Grendel.

>>34655391
But that's wrong you fucking nigger.

>>34652912
Its like gamers vs normies
>One wants performance with the technical autism to make it work at a lower cost
>The other wants something that just works

>>34652226
That and gay sex ;)

>>34653998
Underrated, but it may as well already be one.

>>34655719
>6.5 Arisaka
139gr
2150 ft/s from 20.5" barrel
1935 J

>6.5 Grendel
123gr
2620 ft/s from 20" barrel
2542 J

>6.5 Grendel
130gr
2400 ft/s from a 20" barrel
2255 J

Just for fun...

>7.62x39 M43
123gr
2410 ft/s from a 20" SKS barrel
2151 J

>5.56x45 M193
55gr
3100 ft/s from a 20" M16A1 barrel? (guesstimation)
1591 J

So 6.5 Arisaka is weaker than seemingly most (if not all) standard loadings of 6.5 Grendel and is also weaker than the standard loading of 7.62x39, which are intermediate cartridges, yet the Federov Avtomat would be an LMG if chambered in 6.5 Grendel or 7.62x39?

>>34652138
but we have ICBMs now

>>34656054
>3100 ft/s from a 20" M16A1 barrel? (guesstimation)
3300 fps

>>34652175
>>34652788
Valid. But remember, the ar15 was closer to 1917 than today.

>>34656200
>the ar15 was closer to 1917 than today
You should rethink that statement.

>>34656054
Oh yeah, and about .303 British...

>.303 British
174gr
2250 ft/s from 18.8" No.5 "Jungle Carbine" Lee Enfield barrel
2652 J

Only a cunt-hair over 123gr 6.5 Grendel from a 20" barrel, but even if the energy were within intermediate spec, the bullet weight of 174gr automatically disqualifies it from being an intermediate cartridge even if its velocity and energy were within specific range, and it was being shot from a select-fire firearm with a detachable mag.

>6.5 Carcano
162gr
2170 ft/s from 17.5" barrel
2297 J

But as mentioned, with the bullet weight over 162gr it is disqualified from being intermediate. However, if the bullet weight were decreased and a sufficient barrel length was put on a select-fire rifle with a detachable mag allowing the velocity and energy to be within spec, then the 6.5 Carcano cartridge could likewise end up being intermediate. Similarly if you took 7.62x39, an intermediate cartridge, but replaced its typically 123gr bullet with a 174gr .303 bullet (which is just about of the same diameter) then that 7.62x39 would no longer be an intermediate cartridge. I suppose you could classify it as an incredibly weak rifle cartridge or an incredibly strong magnum 'pistol' cartridge. The idea of a revolver being chambered in 7.62x39 is rather interesting... a bottlenecked cartridge in a revolver, has that ever bin dun befoe?

>>34656143
Jesus... I stand corrected... holy fuck.

>5.56x45 M193
55gr
3300 ft/s from a 20" M16A1 barrel
1803 J

Thanks for correcting me. It makes it all the more intense that the velocity decreases to around 1200 ft/s by the time it reaches roughly 600m. Huge drop. 123gr M43 7.62x39 at 600m from a 16.3" barrel drops to about 950 ft/s. Reflects how much quicker smaller/lighter bullets lose speed than bigger/heavier bullets which retain the velocity more readily in spite of the initially low muzzle velocity. From 3300 to around 1200 and from 2350 to 950. 2100 drop vs 1400 drop in the same distance.

>>34653312
Different anon here.
You're using arbitrary terms to argue a untenable position.
"monumental step" is as good a measure in firearms technology as "living wage" is in conventional economic.
Aka: worthless.
If the AR-15 was designed, developed, produced, and fielded by any single military in 1918, instead of the bar, it would have absolutly dominated by any observable measure.
The country to have it would old an absolute technological monopoly and be the world hegemonic leader.

That is a fucking "monumental step" by any arbitrary standard.

Fuck off.

File: hissAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.jpg (16KB, 307x309px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 307x309px

>>34652138
>>34652227
>>34652965
>>34653998
wow it's almost like guns have evolved over time!!!!!! Stupid gun makers just stealing idea from what actually works and adding onto it. They should have started making new guns FROM THE GROUND UP because improvements in technology are why the indians beat the cowboys.

>>34655666
If the AKS-74U was redesigned to have a somehow even SMALLER barrel, allowing the energy and/or velocity (2000-3100 ft/s) to drop enough, then the AKS-74U will go from assault rifle to SMG
I dont think thats the way weapons are classified but ok

>>34657216
fuck me i cant even post properly, this is what i wanted to post

>If the AKS-74U was redesigned to have a somehow even SMALLER barrel, allowing the energy and/or velocity (2000-3100 ft/s) to drop enough, then the AKS-74U will go from assault rifle to SMG

I dont think thats the way weapons are classified but ok

The HK G-11 would have been the next step up had the Cold War not ended and reduced the need for serious innovation. I think they're just holding off on spending the money and effort to upgrade ancient technology for the time being. Somewhere in the basement of some DARPA lab, autonomous tracked drone infantry are testing out their lasers.

>>34657668
I think the G11 is vastly overrated by H&K fanboys when it really would have been significantly more trouble than it's worth to do something that's just barely better than a 5.56mm rifle (and that's debatable).

There's just too many fucking issues with caseless ammunition, besides heat (which I know was solved).

File: 1495945652426.png (162KB, 276x290px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 276x290px

9,000 BCE:
>everyone starts using bow and arrows
>crossbows and guns are yet to be invented

1500s:
>powerful longbows are used often
>all kinds of bows and crossbows are being used

2017:
>all bows are just refined versions of what was available in the 1500s
>some wooden ones are still even produced

WHAT THE FUCK WENT WRONG?

Oh no we just found better different ways at killing people without accelerating a little shard of metal fast out of a barrel.

One of our millions of kinds of weapons has been left alone to develop slowly and change very little since it's original creation

What did you want out of guns OP? bullets that can track a target and hit it while it's moving?

>>34657762
We do have guided bullets tho.
Many moola and not worth it.

>>34652138
Muzzle-loading muskets were the main form of firearm for 300 years.

When you reach a technological plateau, you can stay there for ages.

File: wüsthof-classic-8-chefs-knife.jpg (82KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 625x625px

>Look at this shit.
>Same design for centuries.
>Literally no improvements.
>Before that there were constant advancements in blade geometry, alloy types, and sharpening materials
>What the fuck went wrong?

Also, like say 120 years ago there was this notion that the rifleman was the core wining battle element in any army. The 20th century brought about a paradigm shift that focuses more so around the bigger capital units in battle like tanks, aircraft, artillery, ICBMs, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. as the things that really win wars. Hence, while we spend huge sums of money to develop science fiction grade jet fighters for instance, the lowly rifleman has been left behind, in the U.S. service for example still carrying a slightly upgraded 1950s era rifle instead of the laser rifle he should in theory be carrying by now, if all things were fair.

File: IMG_0032.jpg (18KB, 480x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x240px

>>34657779
Niggers are modern biological weapons immune to everything except the redpill and jewish manipulation. Yall getting genocided by modern weaponry through yo daughters white boi

File: smiling african.png (508KB, 511x512px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 511x512px

I read this entire thread.
.
.
.
.
haha, naah, jk.
progress for progress' sake is asinine.

>>34655353
Be super fast

>>34657994
5.56mm already goes at like 3000fps
It's also cheap and you can easily carry a few hundred of it.

File: Damn it, Larry.png (74KB, 761x576px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 761x576px

>>34652162
>they function the same
Yes. All those long recoil and blowback guns we're using today. And let's not forget all those toggle-lock actions we're still using! All... of them... Yeah...

Just because you can pull the trigger and have the firearm go "bang" multiple times DOES NOT mean they function the same, you fucking retard.

>>34652138
3500 BC:
>Everyone walking or using sleds

3200 BC:
>Mesopotamian's start using wheels for chariots

2017 AD:
>All wheels are just refined versions of what was available in 3200 BC

WHAT THE FUCK WENT WRONG?

>>34656219
Perhaps you should check your math. The AR-10 and armalite came to being in the mid '50s, 40 years after 1917. We are now 60 years after that date.

>>34654546
Wew lad. More retardation.

>USSR
Mosins still standard issue by 1950? Don't think so. Sure, they were handed out, but even by the end of WWII they weren't the preferred standard of the Soviet Army. This is the same military that fielded entire divisions with automatic self-loading weapons (granted, mostly PPSh-41s). And you're talking FIVE YEARS after the war... in which they were already ahead of the curve with adopting and using self-loading firearms? Stop spouting horseshit. Between the SVT series, AVS-36, SKS, and even the Federov Avtomat being dug out the Soviets were fielding plenty standard issue NON-BOLT-ACTION rifles.

>China - probably a Mauser bolt-action
Except no. China was using plenty of semi-auto ZH-29s during the war, let alone after. A shitload of ZB-26s were also used by both the Nationalist Revolutionaries and the Communists. In fact, a SHITLOAD of countries adopted or adapted ZB-26s before, during and after the war.

>Japan
Didn't have a military in 1950. But as someone else pointed out, were swimming in surplus Garands and other U.S. military small arms because of the re-arming process.

So, realistically, the issue wasn't design and existence... But an issue of cost. And some countries were far behind and others far ahead of the curve. The big Commonwealth (UK/Canda/Australia) states are also notorious for dragging their feet and utilizing obsolete military equipment, so going to them for an example isn't the best idea in the first place.

File: 1492313612060.png (451KB, 467x469px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 467x469px

>>34652278
reading that picture shouldn't arouse me as much as it does
fuck

Why does no one talk about the innovation of the barrel extension/aluminum receiver design on the AR? I thought the ar-10 was the first rifle to feature this.

>>34658839
Johnson did it first I think, though his receiver was steel, the bolt head had radial locking lugs which locked into the barrel extension.

I think he in fact personally told Stoner it was a really good idea and that he should do it.

>>34658910
Looking this up, sounds true. Tho on the Johnson rifle, the barrel in fact moved with the bolt for some distance. Really the design sounds still in infancy when Stoner picked it up, even if he didn't originate it.

It is interesting synthesis of features from other small arms.

>>34652175
I'd say the Remington Model 8. It was a lightweight (for the time) compact semi auto rifle. Granted it was recoil heavy, wonky and overly complex, but the principles of the AR15 were all there.

File: 1-s2.0-S0268003313001204-gr1.jpg (21KB, 360x209px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 360x209px

>>34653330
So what? Why does it matter? That dudes point is that it DOESN'T MATTER. It's like complaining that knives haven't advanced in hundreds of years. We have better weapons.

So there's the answer to OP's dumbass argument. It's because guns aren't the primary wounding method in war. There's no reason to dump money into development like in the past.

>>34652205
Yeah, bingo

>>34655569
303 on the left, Ariska in the middle.

Retard.

>>34652138
They are not just refinements. Firearms are more than a type of cartridge in use.

But to get you hope in your classification system...
What are railguns?
First Gunpowder weapons were very large. Given the technology of the day a 1200kg gun was very large... Maybe we will see gauss rifles in the future.

Be careful though.
>> In 1975 they told me we would have flying cars in 2010.... Where is MY FLYING CAR?!

>>34652138
>WHAT THE FUCK WENT WRONG?
Nothing went wrong. Something went right, so right, in fact, that no more changes were needed.

>>34652175
Winchester 1905. The only meaningful difference was the cartridge.

Quick! Tell me the name of the best commercially available flintlock musket my money can buy!

>>34652227
Keep in mind that the leap from flintlocks to integrated brass cartridges took over a hundred years.

>>34663869
Over 200 years. Flintlock is technology from around the year 1600, and brass-cased cartridges didn't come about until sometime around 1840-50 if my memory serves me. I wrote an essay about how firearm technology has advanced. During my research, I was astounded at just how often France popped up, and ever since having written that essay I have a new respect for the French. That one nation has probably contributed the most ground-breaking contributions to firearm advancements than any other country on Earth.

>Flintlock
I don't think anyone would argue with this being far better than matchlock, but whether it's better than wheel lock or not, that's definitely up for debate
>Minie Ball
Essentially the first step to a bullet-shaped projectile, also improved reload speed, penetration, and accuracy for rifled muskets
>Smokeless powder
Improved accuracy and penetration
>First use of FMJ bullets
Originally a Swiss concept I think, but it allows for higher velocity thus better accuracy/penetration and probably aids
>Spitzer bullets
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain that this too was a French advancement. Improves accuracy/trajectory, not sure about penetration

If you want to take a bit of a stretch, the Chauchat was one of the first widely-used LMGs, the M1917 Rifle was one of the first semi-auto rifles to see intensive use in combat, and the first standard-issue semi-auto rifle was the M1 Rifle which was designed by French Canadian. Work began on it before he gained dual-citizenship with the USA. Ok that last one doesn't really count for France but none the less any gun aficionado who has any interest whatsoever in the history of firearm advancement should be damn thankful of those snail-eating, wine-sipping, 'hon-hon-hon'ing frogs. Vive la France!

>No, I am not French, and I do not know French

>>34663869
Direct archaeological evidence shows that it took roughly 150 years to go from the handgonne to the serpentine lock - secondary evidence indicates roughly 200 years. Secondary sources show it took almost 70 years to develop the serpentine lock into a proper matchlock. The wheellock doesn't show up until the 1500s, and the true flintlock doesn't show until the 1600s. Percussion caps date from 1807 and cartridges a year later; centerfire cartridges were patented in 1855.

Why invest in small arms when large scale ordinance and other tactics matter more

>See nuclear weapons
>See cyber warfare

>>34664510
The Chauchat is more properly an automatic rifle that got pressed into service as a LMG. The official designations of the Chauchat by both the French and the USA were both automatic rifle.