As yet another major firearm manufacturer announces a “groundbreaking, game-changing” product that is anything but, I have to ask – when will we see something that’s truly innovative?
Every new firearm that’s been announced for the last few years – heck, probably more – has been presented to the consumer as if it is nothing short of revolutionary – in fact, that word is often used to describe the new product of the month. Almost invariably, though, this “revolutionary” firearm is simply an amalgamation of previous designs packaged in a new shell with a fancy name.
The Nano does not change any games, despite Beretta’s claims to the contrary. Its major design feature, the removable frame insert, is very similar to what we saw a few years ago in the Sig P250, which is in fact licensed from Steyr in the case of the P250 (Kudos to Steyr for being the originator of this design, even if nothing has really come of it). Even if being able to change grip sizes without changing serial numbers is mildly interesting, Sig has discovered that people prefer their handguns actually function before they think about whether or not they would like to have two grip sizes or change between different calibers.
In the long gun market, we have items like the Benelli Vinci, described as, you guessed it, a “revolution” in shotgun technology. It’s basically the Benelli operating system in an easier-to-manufacture package, with the side benefit of it being more suitable for rapid disassembly. Its most promising technology is the concept of a quick-change tubular magazine that could be manufactured in several lengths, but Benelli isn’t interested in selling this to civilians.
The silver lining for me is that products like the P250 and the Vinci haven’t done very well on the market. Unfortunately, at least in the case of the P250, this has more to do with a complete lack of reliability than the fact that the weapon wasn’t worth buying in the first place.
It’s my opinion – worth what you paid for it – that twenty-year-old – or perhaps even older – specimens of these companies’ firearms are more reliable, durable, and useful than their newer designs. Sig P228, anyone? Benelli M1 Super 90?
I don’t know when we can expect to see true innovation, with the potential for market success, from a firearm manufacturer, but I don’t think it will come from any of the companies that seem to currently be led around by the nose by their P.T. Barnum-like marketing folks. We need another Browning, another Stoner, another Glock. Not another Beretta Nano.
Interesting Andrew. In my opinion, the next big innovation (more like a revolution) will have to come from the energy sector. Once we have obtained a more sustainable energy source we should expect to see some very interesting innovations across the board. Kind of off topic but it’s an interesting topic.
I agree with you on that.
What would be characteristics sufficient to classify a firearm as revolutionary? Never-before-seen firing mechanism? Never-before-used bolt material? TDI’s Kriss has a pretty interesting recoil management solution, and Keltec’s KSG is the bullpup platform applied to the shotgun (though I understand there was an African design that predated the KSG doing the same thing). But I am not sure if those approach revolutionary status. What, in your opinion Andrew, needs to be on the list of innovations for a firearm to be truly revolutionary? I am seriously interested, not picking a fight.
For me, something like a not-yet-seen method of cycling a centerfire automatic rifle (or pistol, for that matter). If the KRISS design was adapted to something that was actually useful, I would at least give them credit for making something different, if not quite revolutionary. Sorry, I would give you a more in-depth answer, but I am not 100% at the moment.
At this point firearms are as mature a technology as steam engines, so we can’t expect anything radical until a different energy source comes along. A radically different chemical propellant, perhaps?
But isn’t it significant that we’re making some of the old revolutionary ideas cheaper, more reliable, and fit for mass production?
It took half a century for the first semi-automatic rifles (1885) to turn into the Garand. We’re finally reaping the fruits of all those Cold War innovations: bullpups that aren’t awful, telescoped and caseless(?) ammunition, and especially electro-optic sights!
Have to second ecurb – firearms design has been stricly Evolutionary for probably 40 years. We’ve had plastics and polymers replace metals and wood where possible, but the basic recipie of primer+case+propellant+projectile hasn’t changed since the 1800’s. Any weapon whose purpose is to throw a slug of metal using the recipie must conform to certain standards – form follows function so all weaponry has been derivative. Everything is merely a refinement of previous concepts.
That ANY firearms manufacturer can still make unreliable junk today floors me given the above. I’ve got a Hi-Point (my first handgun when I was broke), it’s awkward to shoot, unbalanced, and not concealable, but it goes bang the same as my carry Glocks. If they have figured out the formula, why should anyone else still have trouble?
I guess what we’re waiting for is a cheap, easy to disassemble, easy to maintain (yet functions properly with very little maintainance) caseless rifle with cartridges the size, weight and recoil of a .22 LR, yet surpassing the range, power and accuracy of a .338 LM.
But that’s probably not gonna happen in our lifetime. Atleast not the first three criteria. A caseless weapon with large cartridges and a big bore diameter would do the trick. You’d be able to make light, high velocity CQB loads, as well as long range match loads and heavy subsonic loads, and fire them from the exact same weapon.
I think you pointed out exactly the problem.
I’ll add Colt, Browning, Stoner, Glock. Design engineers, not companies. As long as companies are focusing on churning product development, not ensuring quality and reliable design, we get the junk we deserve. After all, we’re buying it.
What’s ironic is that it can go the other way, too. Ruger. Once the firm moved to marketing guns the public wanted, we got the LCP, and Mini-14’s with 30 round magazines. About 20 years late on the latter, but they make up for it offering an AR15 variant.
The Army is looking for a significant new Improved Infantry Carbine – it’s going to take a designer, not a company, to get their attention. Most of the competition is the same ol same ol – AR lower in polymer, extruded aluminum monolithic upper with rails, and where the piston winds up, it’ll work. Had the LSAT been the brainchild of just one remarkable engineer, it might already be in service. Apparently no one wants one guy to get credit on it, and it lumbers along, a corporate stepchild.
These guys pop up every 50 years or so, not all in the industry. Gaston Glock was a furniture hardware manufacturer. It seems we get the interesting stuff when somebody outside the industry is able to get a platform, and that’s because the corporate behemoth stifles individuality. The great names and makes in auto racing didn’t start as factory test drivers on the payroll.
Don’t look to the mainstream makers, look at the fringes where individuals can get a foothold
It seems to me that historically, all large leaps in firearm technology (“revolutions”, as you say) are centric upon the ammunition and/or firing mechanism. Obvious candidates for the next big thing in small arms ammo are case telescoped and caseless ammunition, though they’ve been around for decades and not yet caught on. Electrically primed ammunition, while interesting, is something of a solution in search of a problem.
There’s also the potential for improved barrel materials based on metallic ceramics and perhaps nanotubes as well, but aside from improved service life (and potentially better sustained fire rate), it isn’t really a quantum leap.
Man-portable energy weapons (lasers, mass drivers, etc) are in the very far future unless a massive breakthrough in energy storage is achieved, and I’m aware of nothing even close on the horizon.
Metal Storm/J. Mike O’Dwyer is doing some really interesting stuff with stacked projectiles. They’re rethinking caseless ammunition, which I think is going to be the next big in how firearms operate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalstorm
H&K had a working system in the 1970’s for an infantry rifle. Too expensive at the time, but US looked at it too.
It is possible that some one out there will invent the next big thing in firearms. But more likely we have reached the same stage that steam engines did, that propeller driven aircraft did. Even with today’s materials prop airplanes still have physical limits that can not be over come that are inherent to the design. I’m not holding my breath for “energy weapons”. When it come to efficiently transferring energy to a target it is very difficult to be a rifle in terms of cost and reliability. Maybe they will make man portable Gauss cannons or rail guns some day but there will be many problems with that
It is possible that some one out there will invent the next big thing in firearms. But more likely we have reached the same stage that steam engines did, that propeller driven aircraft did. Even with today’s materials prop airplanes still have physical limits that can not be over come that are inherent to the design.
I’m not holding my breath for “energy weapons”. When it come to efficiently transferring energy to a target it is very difficult to beat a rifle in terms of cost and reliability. Maybe they will make man portable Gauss cannons or rail guns some day but there will be many problems with those systems.
Of course if they ever create a power source that is light enough and small enough for a person to carry that can power a rail gun then we will probably already live in a brighter and better world where everyone has cheap and abundant energy.
And the roads are paved with gold, no one is fat, and we all have satisfying jobs.
I believe we’ve pretty much maximized the development of the current materials and technology combination of primer, cartridge, propellant, bullet, bolt, chamber and barrel. Everything that’s come out or will be coming out is just something lighter, more reliable, ambidextrous, larger caliber, compactness, modularity, etc.
There’s also the problem of firearms’ companies focusing their R&D for military/LE purposes whose results can’t cross over to the civilian market.
I agree with the idea that we need more outside thinkers to come into the industry. We need more designers than the profit driven corporate machine.
My guess for the next revolution would be caseless ammunition that’ll allow for a relatively sealed weapon. Oh, and a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
“Hey, just what you see, pal!”
I’m going with man-portable rail guns for being the next genuine revolution. Yes, caseless ammo is much closer, BUT caseless ammo is still basically traditional firearms design besides there no longer being a case for propelllant. A “rail rifle” could potentially be the first firearm with no moving parts, plus of course the potential for scaleable power requirements on an individual weapon could really put the battlefield on its’ head. Need to silently kill someone? Figure out how to suppress the crack and only provide enough power for the round to move at subsonic velocities. Need to punch holes in an armored vehicle? Increase the power output and have a round made of tungsten or DU.
http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/marsoc-wants-new-pistol-with-old-design.html
And here ya go, deja vu all over again.
I think the next big “revolution” will be in propellants. By getting the same power to mass ratio with a “button” or pellet in a much smaller contained cartridge case manufacturers will exceed current magazine capacity.
Caseless ammo, eh not so much. Good idea and all but they are extremely fragile, hard to carry, ultimately you will need a magazine type carrier to safe guard them. Also, caseless ammo requires an ignition system that may or may not be primer initiated. Also, how do you prevent fouling and flame overs?
And criminy, how many old timers are still sitting around at HQ or some staff reminiscing about their 1911 days in the PI? Or GE? or…. you get the idea. So there are some sacred cows that have to be bbq’ed.
Machining is where manufacturers will make their money. How few (or many) times do they have to turn a lathe? or hammer forge a barrel?
Sooner or later this M-4 fascination will burn it self out and we will be looking for the next greatest latest.
When will DoD in mass go to .40?
I thought Glock was working on an all-ceramic gun, undetectable on airport metal detectors. I think it was the model 7?
Of course it probably costs more than the Chief of Police at Dulles Airport makes in a month…
Exactly, I agree, there aren’t a lot of new guns that are significantly better than their older counter-parts.
How close are the US Marines to fielding the M41A1? If what I have heard is correct, it will fire the standard 10mm caseless, light-armor piercing explosive-tipped round.
Seriously, this is a complaint looking for a problem that does not have a need. What kind of gun do you want? There are multiple suppliers for it, the local gun shop has several on display, and if you have a few weeks they can custom order the exact weapon you want. As a matter of fact, the government credit card at the nearest SF unit will bear witness to that. The revolution is not design but availability and variety. Those guys on Sons of Guns can say “if you can dream it, we can build it” because their are few dreams left un-built in the weapons arena. As previous commentors have pointed out, current technology has been maxed out. When new technologies are available, we will see another round of integration.
The gunsmiths at Metal Storm are working on truly revolutionary weapons. The firing rates are astronomical. But we may or may not see a handgun or rifle come out of it. But it is not from lack of trying. Some technological advances take time.
But I still say, the real revolution is availability and variety. Whatever gun you want is probably at your local gun store. My platoon ordered Glocks as reminders after our last tour. Each soldier who ordered a gun was able to pick the caliber, frame size, color, sights, and exterior finish. Whatever a soldier wanted, it was available.
Andrew, could you expand a bit on the poor reliability of the p250 a bit please?
I ask because I have the 9mm in compact and have yet to actually experience any poor reliability from it. This is after putting around 300 rounds through it.
Rampant extraction problems.
There are reports (good and bad) in the comments on TFB:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/12/15/sig-sauer-p250/
It’s just the normal curve of technology maturity, combined with some corporate marketing silliness. Same reason why just about every car produced today is a 4-stroke gas or diesel water-cooled engine. Pretty much every aspect of firearms technology is already as good as it could realistically get, and there’s no room for it to get better without some sort of major revolution, probably involving weapons using something other than projectiles. They all shoot as many projectiles as you can physically fit in the handle / carry around as fast as you can pull the trigger and control recoil. We’ve also got pistol weight down pretty much as far as it can go without affecting function, and actions have mostly settled down to all either striker-fired or single action, with a few proper double actions still hanging around. Accuracy seems to be pretty well known too, and about as good as people can really use and are willing to pay for. There’s probably still some room for optics and sighting systems to improve, but I think that’s about it.
A real revolution in small arms would probably require something like laser weapons, and getting anything like that good enough to be competitive with modern firearms still looks pretty far off. A laser powerful enough to cause at least as much damage as bullets in a sturdy, portable package with a power source that’ll handle at least dozens of shots and has a size, weight, durability, and ease of replacement comparable to magazines…
Maybe not qualified for the revolutionary title but I do believe that keltec ksg is quiet innovative again maybe not ground breaking but innovative a bullpub dual tube 12 gauge pretty cool
Too bad Kel-Tec can’t seem to manufacture guns fast enough to meet demand. The KSG seems almost mythical, given how many people on Calguns ask “Hey does anyone have the KSG?” and the only replies they get are “No but I really want one.” I’m almost ready to start questioning if the KSG (or RFB for that matter) actually exist.
The firearms industry is not mature except in years. It would be more accurate to call it stagnant, stunted, malnourished, lazy or even redheaded. Case in point, around 1911, there were two other industries that were just starting off…Airplanes and automobiles. In the last 100 years, automobiles still have 4 wheels and airplanes still have a wing on each side. Yet those industries have not even finished their maturity curves. There is constant innovation and invention within them. Why? Because they never forgot what was required components for the airplane to fly and the automobile to move, the rest is just fluff.
The firearm industry has forgotten what makes a firearm. It is a barrel, a propellant, a projectile and an ignition system. That is where firearm design, innovation and invention starts. The industry has spent all of it’s time on the fluff. Materials for components, colors, finshes, some efficiencies but hardly any innovation and invention. Now the airplane and automobile industries spend resources on those things but they realize that those are just details, not the things that will sell more airplanes or cars…that comes from innovation and invention.
If you were to go out and buy a new automobile or airplane and the most popular car was the Model T Ford and the most popular airplane was the Wright Brothers Model B…well, we surely wouldn’t have computers, the internet, space travel, etc., etc., etc. But what is the most popular sidearm in America…the 1911. This speaks heavily of the progress of the firearms industry.
To say that the firearms industry has matured to a point that there is no longer anything new possible is only to buy into the marketing “spin” of the manufacturers. They don’t want change or innovation or invention and most of all they fear disruption. They just want to make the same stuff, put some Alabama flash (innovation) on it and sell it for a higher price. There is absolutely no differentiation among the firearm manufacturers. They all sell predominantly the same products just under different brand names. How many “new” 1911s have you seen recently? They all have them and they all say theirs is “new”. And how about those “new” AR15s??? What drives innovation and invention? Competition!
There is so much potential for change, innovation, invention and disruption within the firearms industry that it constantly surprises me that someone hasn’t jumped in and stirred things up. In any other industry, the 1911 and AR15 would be a commodity. Since it can’t be made better, the total focus would be on what it would take to build it easier, more efficient and cheaper which is very doable with today’s manufacturing technology.
But that’s not the firearm industry’s way to do it. It would just be wrong to have 1911s priced at $150 and AR15s at $250. They would in any other industry. Well…maybe not…I don’t know of any industry that still manufacturers the exact same product from 50-100 years ago.
And about the steam engine…new patent came out with a steam engine using modern day components that won’t wear out and that can easily fit in a closet. Hmmm…a steam engine in every home that could generate all of the electricity that the home would need…oh, forgive me…I was just dreaming…
WHAT’S IT GOING TO TAKE PEOPLE???