19th century firearms development

[TNK]

When reading about the history firearms from 1825 to 1900, I am amazed how in the span of an average lifetime we went from percussion cap rifles to automatic weapons. I would like to think that the laissez-faire politics and economics of the 19th century played a meaningful role in this development. Also, by the same reckoning, the Statist policies of the 20th century have had a deleterious effect to such a degree that we now are no more technologically sophisticated when it comes to firearms than we were in 1903.

What do you think? Do you technologies develop regardless of the political environment of which they are a part?

[TGS]

I certainly disagree.

On the firearms part alone, I believe we are much, much more technologically advanced. While still automatic weapons, there's a biiiiiig difference between the capabilities, characteristics and manufacturing/materiel of an 1895 Potato Digger and an HK121. There also weren't any successful semi-automatic battle rifles by 1900.

We also didn't have 30mm depleted uranium tank busting rounds in 1900, and guns that could fire them at 6000rpm. Ditto 40mm grenade launching machine guns....or grenade launchers at all! Tungsten rounds? Nope. Nor a plethora of other firearms-related technologies, that I don't even think needs to be mentioned. Finally, have you been keeping up with current/recent firearms development that is still in the works? I don't believe they had 1 million rounds-per-minute machine guns in 1900, either.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ummm, that 30mm uber cannon is just a big Gatling gun with an electric motor.

Just sayin.

[LHS]

I certainly disagree.

On the firearms part alone, I believe we are much, much more technologically advanced. While still automatic weapons, there's a biiiiiig difference between the capabilities, characteristics and manufacturing/materiel of an 1895 Potato Digger and an HK121. There also weren't any successful semi-automatic battle rifles by 1900.

We also didn't have 30mm depleted uranium tank busting rounds in 1900, and guns that could fire them at 6000rpm. Ditto 40mm grenade launching machine guns....or grenade launchers at all! Tungsten rounds? Nope. Nor a plethora of other firearms-related technologies, that I don't even think needs to be mentioned. Finally, have you been keeping up with current/recent firearms development that is still in the works? I don't believe they had 1 million rounds-per-minute machine guns in 1900, either.

Ever heard of the Maxim Pom-Pom?

[Tamara]

I certainly disagree.

On the firearms part alone, I believe we are much, much more technologically advanced.

Less than a lot of people think, though. Compared to the advances that permeate so many other technological fields, firearms have been a very mature technology for a very long time.

The only technological advances in man-portable firearms since the 1930s have been in materials and construction methods. I am unaware of any completely new operating mechanism after roller-locking recoil. Certainly the gas-operated, rotating-bolt, box-magazine-fed rifles which arm our troops would be instantly identifiable to John Browning in his 1890s Utah workshop, although the machined aluminum forgings and plastic furniture might seem novel to him.

A SIG P-226 would only be "exotic" to Le Maitre in its use of stampings in place of machined forgings. Other than that, it's a short-recoil tilting-barrel box-magazine-fed self-loader, still shooting a cartridge developed for the Imperial German Army in the first decade of the last century. (Just think about cartridges: Of the major martial firearm chamberings, only 5.45, 5.56, 7.62x51, and .40S&W were developed after 1945, while .50 BMG predates the last World War and 9x19, .45, and 7.62x54 predates the one before that.)

[Tamara]

I don't believe they had 1 million rounds-per-minute machine guns in 1900, either.

Metalstorm = Superposed flintlock with electronic ignition.

[jetfire]

Metalstorm = Superposed flintlock with electronic ignition.

It also blows up sometimes.

[Tamara]

It also blows up sometimes.

Just staying faithful to the original.

[ford.304]

When reading about the history firearms from 1825 to 1900, I am amazed how in the span of an average lifetime we went from percussion cap rifles to automatic weapons. I would like to think that the laissez-faire politics and economics of the 19th century played a meaningful role in this development. Also, by the same reckoning, the Statist policies of the 20th century have had a deleterious effect to such a degree that we now are no more technologically sophisticated when it comes to firearms than we were in 1903.

What do you think? Do you technologies develop regardless of the political environment of which they are a part?

I'd expect it had much more to do with the fact that you had first world countries constantly at each others' throats during the time period, and that infantry were still the primary force of warfare between those states. That's where the reward for research and development was. Sure, many advances got into civilian hands before they were standard issue, but the major jumps were produced in the hope of getting a military contract.

This century has seen tremendous advances in tanks, airplanes, bombs, and missiles. We've gone from dropping a grenade out the side of an airplane to Norden Bombsights to laser/GPS guided missiles from an unarmed vehicle that you can drop down a shielded ventilation shaft and nuclear weapons that can destroy a city from the far side of the planet. These are the technologies that will decide a war between major powers today, not the fire rate of muzzle loader versus a needle gun, or whatever the equivalent improvement over an M-4 would be.

The wars today where an advancement in small arms technology would matter are being fought by backwater countries using imported or secondhand arms. There's little to no incentive for technological development in those fights.

[Tamara]

These are the technologies that will decide a war between major powers today, not the fire rate of muzzle loader versus a needle gun, or whatever the equivalent improvement over an M-4 would be.

The wars today where an advancement in small arms technology would matter are being fought by backwater countries using imported or secondhand arms. There's little to no incentive for technological development in those fights.

Well, there's that, but more importantly, there are certain limits to what you can do with a metal slug propelled by a chemical explosion fired from a launcher small and light enough to be man-portable yet low-recoil enough to be usable, and we have been bumping up against those limits for fifty years now. The next revolution is going to depend on a better way to store and release energy than current batteries or little flakes of powder.