PDA

View Full Version : I thought big guns like this where in impossible?


sweat209
10-30-2014, 11:25 PM
Being a scfi buff I came across this web site of future big guns for the military. I thought big guns like this where in impossible?

Look like we have big guns like that now.
http://tacticalfanboy.com/category/guns/page/2/

Has it is now some guns the kick is too great a bigger gun like in video game Doom or other video game and scfi movies would break your arm.

How does these big guns deal with kick? Or do you have to be a big 250 to 300 pound strong guy to use big gun like that.

Future big guns for the military.
http://tacticalfanboy.com/category/guns/page/2/

Cool big looking guns future big guns for the military.

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140114-143419.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140116-064259.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03034.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03020.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC01579.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC01634.jpg

drachillix
10-31-2014, 12:49 AM
Being a scfi buff I came across this web site of future big guns for the military. I thought big guns like this where in impossible?

Look like we have big guns like that now.
http://tacticalfanboy.com/category/guns/page/2/

Has it is now some guns the kick is too great a bigger gun like in video game Doom or other video game and scfi movies would break your arm.

How does these big guns deal with kick? Or do you have to be a big 250 to 300 pound strong guy to use big gun like that.


Most of these are using present day ammo that people already shoot tons of.

Loach
10-31-2014, 06:35 AM
There used to be a 20mm anti-tank rifle (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gPhSxDwhTIA). 50cal sniper rifles are routinely used. It really depends on how you want to use them and how mobile you need to be.

Isilder
10-31-2014, 07:09 AM
There used to be a 20mm anti-tank rifle (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gPhSxDwhTIA). 50cal sniper rifles are routinely used. It really depends on how you want to use them and how mobile you need to be.

And what you are doing with them,
eg do you want the accuracy high ?

If you are not going to put your eye down to site along the barrell, and ARe going to have a nasty recoil banging on your shoulder, you are going to be giving up on fine accuracy..

Baracus
10-31-2014, 07:36 AM
Cool big looking guns future big guns for the military.

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140114-143419.jpg
While it may look cool, this one is only a .22. I don't think we will see any soldiers running around with it any time soon.

JKilez
10-31-2014, 07:38 AM
Being a scfi buff I came across this web site of future big guns for the military. I thought big guns like this where in impossible?

Look like we have big guns like that now.
http://tacticalfanboy.com/category/guns/page/2/
Are you thinking that those slides at the top of the page are guns? The rest of the photos look like standard caliber rifles or carbines.

Xema
10-31-2014, 07:43 AM
I thought big guns like this where in impossible?
I'm puzzled - is this supposed to be read as "guns like this were impossible" ??

tapu
10-31-2014, 07:45 AM
I'm puzzled - is this supposed to be read as "guns like this were impossible" ??

Since he said it twice, I thought it must be what he means to say but I can't parse it either.

Bear_Nenno
10-31-2014, 08:23 AM
Nothing in the OP makes sense to me. I am so confused.

Alessan
10-31-2014, 08:29 AM
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03034.jpg

That, I think, is the 9mm version of the TAR-21 Tavor. I've handled one, and it weighs about the same as an M-16A2 (although the weight is better distributed).

silenus
10-31-2014, 08:57 AM
Those aren't big guns. This is a big gun (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/043/c/1/Aether_Hand_Cannon_by_JohnMalcolm1970.jpg).

Lemur866
10-31-2014, 09:04 AM
None of the guns in the your links are particularly large, or fire particularly high caliber ammo.

Of course there have been guns that fire gigantic rounds. And these are generally impractical/ridiculous to use as a standard soldier's weapon. They are support weapons, like the anti-tank rifles mentioned above, or sniper rifles.

Or they're just made as apparent practical jokes, like this .577 caliber rifle (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wrImp-ek3bI). You wouldn't want this even if you were hunting elephants, unless it was on a bipod mount.

Absolute
10-31-2014, 09:06 AM
Those are all totally ordinary guns that any reasonably healthy person, including children, could shoot. They're not as large as they look and most of the bulky black material is plastic.

running coach
10-31-2014, 09:09 AM
Or they're just made as apparent practical jokes, like this .577 caliber rifle (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wrImp-ek3bI). You wouldn't want this even if you were hunting elephants, unless it was on a bipod mount.

Good gun for children. Adults fire this. (http://guns.com/2013/08/02/jdj/) :eek:


:D

Gray Ghost
10-31-2014, 09:15 AM
Something like the High Impulse Weapon System (http://military.com/video/logistics-and-supplies/military-equipment/high-impulse-weapon-system/659673446001/) might be up the OP's alley. Video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HyAl9qK3Rlg) of it being demostrated. Blog (http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18289) posts (http://securityarms.com/forums/showthread.php?t=545) with a bit more data. It was basically a hand held 76 mm mortar that wouldn't take your shoulder off. Per the links, it could throw a 3.5 lb shell around 600 m. Never made it into production, AFAIK.

Alternately, you could be like this guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gdbMpLHE8ww), firing a 60mm mortar from the hip...

As to the 'big guns' being exhibited at SHOT, muzzle brakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_brake) make life a lot easier for the shooter (and much more unpleasant for anyone around the shooter. Wear your earpro.)

kopek
10-31-2014, 09:29 AM
Those aren't big guns. This is a big gun (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/043/c/1/Aether_Hand_Cannon_by_JohnMalcolm1970.jpg).

Sorry about that dinky little thing; maybe if you water it it could grow some? Now, on the other hand, punt guns -------

http://bluerockheritage.com/images/Punt%20gun%20Knapp-6.jpg

I got to fire one once and I made stickies in my shorts.

running coach
10-31-2014, 09:37 AM
Sorry about that dinky little thing; maybe if you water it it could grow some? Now, on the other hand, punt guns -------

http://bluerockheritage.com/images/Punt%20gun%20Knapp-6.jpg

I got to fire one once and I made stickies in my shorts.

That looks perfect for the open-carry types.

naita
10-31-2014, 01:20 PM
Being a scfi buff I came across this web site of future big guns for the military. I thought big guns like this where in impossible?


Maybe you could explain what you meant by "guns like this", as all your links apparently go to guns that are A) possible and B) have never been considered impossible.

sweat209
11-01-2014, 01:31 AM
And what you are doing with them,
eg do you want the accuracy high ?

If you are not going to put your eye down to site along the barrell, and ARe going to have a nasty recoil banging on your shoulder, you are going to be giving up on fine accuracy..

True I don't even see big guns like that in scfi movies or video games like doom.

That is better at being a mount gun than gun you take with you.



While it may look cool, this one is only a .22. I don't think we will see any soldiers running around with it any time soon.

It looks like big gun and some thing out of the video game Doom.

sweat209
11-01-2014, 01:33 AM
Maybe you could explain what you meant by "guns like this", as all your links apparently go to guns that are A) possible and B) have never been considered impossible.

They look more like futuristic guns you you see in scfi movies or video games.

They look futuristic and big gun.

Morgenstern
11-01-2014, 01:49 AM
I read the OP and was thinking Railgun. (http://wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/) But that's probably more than the average guy can fire from the shoulder.

sweat209
11-01-2014, 01:52 AM
Cool big looking guns future big guns for the military.

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140114-143419.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140116-064259.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03034.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03020.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC01579.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC01634.jpg

I'm puzzled - is this supposed to be read as "guns like this were impossible" ??

I thought these guns where scfi and not possible borderline being too big.

So no army people in the future will not have guns like that.

naita
11-01-2014, 02:03 AM
They look more like futuristic guns you you see in scfi movies or video games.

They look futuristic and big gun.

But they aren't. They're normal caliber, they're not heavy, they don't have unmanagable recoil, and they exist today.

You're correct that guns that are too heavy to lug around and/or have too much kick to put to your shoulder will not be the personal weapon of the soldier of tomorrow. But the real world examples here just a r e n ' t s u c h g u n s.

They're normal caliber, they're not heavy, they don't have unmanagable recoil, and they exist today. (repeated for emphasis.)

naita
11-01-2014, 02:05 AM
I thought these guns where scfi and not possible borderline being too big.

So no army people in the future will not have guns like that.

And you were wrong. They're normal caliber, they're not heavy, they don't have unmanagable recoil, they exist today, and guns similar to them will be in use by future armies.

sweat209
11-01-2014, 02:36 AM
And you were wrong. They're normal caliber, they're not heavy, they don't have unmanagable recoil, they exist today, and guns similar to them will be in use by future armies.

May be it is the plastic that is giving to the illusions it is big and futuristic. It looks a lot like some scfi movies than the plain gun that look so 20 century http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/storymaker-weapon-firearm-us-infantry-army-rifle-pictures-12040911-514x268.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/11/files/2012/03/0312_afghan-shooting.jpg

http://spotimg.com/us-army-soldier-wallpaper-4975/

engineer_comp_geek
11-01-2014, 03:37 AM
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140114-143419.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140116-064259.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03034.jpg
http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DSC03020.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC01579.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DSC01634.jpg

Pictures of the above actually being held by people so you can see how big (or small) they really are:

Anschutz MSR RX 22
http://all4shooters.com/en/articles/rifles/2012/Anschutz-Rx22-MSR-shooting-rifle/Anschutz_Rx22_MSR-8.jpg

Kriss Vector CRB
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yV0P4WlOjDo/maxresdefault.jpg

Kel-Tek RFB
http://guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/erika_RFB_169511.jpg

This is what is known as a "bullpup rifle". It looks weird and futuristic if you aren't familiar with the type (google bullpup rifle for lots of images from different manufacturers) but it's really just a compact assault rifle. By placing the trigger in front of the magazine the overall length is reduced, which makes it easier to swing around while sweeping through buildings and such. While technically the weapon has the same barrel length and should be as accurate as a traditional assault rifle, the forward way that you hold it affects your aiming and reduces the long distance accuracy. The overall weight of the weapon is reduced since the design essentially eliminates the stock on the rear end of the rifle.

The next image is another bullpup so I didn't bother finding someone holding that. Bullpups are small. That's the whole point of their design. They are short so you don't whack the barrel against the door frame as you rush into a room.

Sig MPX
http://files.tactical-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Preview-Sig-Sauer-MPX-Gun-Review.jpg

These are all relatively small weapons.

sweat209
11-01-2014, 03:58 AM
Pictures of the above actually being held by people so you can see how big (or small) they really are:

Anschutz MSR RX 22
http://all4shooters.com/en/articles/rifles/2012/Anschutz-Rx22-MSR-shooting-rifle/Anschutz_Rx22_MSR-8.jpg

Kriss Vector CRB
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yV0P4WlOjDo/maxresdefault.jpg

Kel-Tek RFB
http://guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/erika_RFB_169511.jpg

This is what is known as a "bullpup rifle". It looks weird and futuristic if you aren't familiar with the type (google bullpup rifle for lots of images from different manufacturers) but it's really just a compact assault rifle. By placing the trigger in front of the magazine the overall length is reduced, which makes it easier to swing around while sweeping through buildings and such. While technically the weapon has the same barrel length and should be as accurate as a traditional assault rifle, the forward way that you hold it affects your aiming and reduces the long distance accuracy. The overall weight of the weapon is reduced since the design essentially eliminates the stock on the rear end of the rifle.

The next image is another bullpup so I didn't bother finding someone holding that. Bullpups are small. That's the whole point of their design. They are short so you don't whack the barrel against the door frame as you rush into a room.

Sig MPX
http://files.tactical-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Preview-Sig-Sauer-MPX-Gun-Review.jpg

These are all relatively small weapons.

Okay it is good to know that those guns you listed and my list you quoted above are not more powerful than the guns they have now.

I think it is the cosmetic look that give a illusions it is big and futuristic and like in in sci movies.

Alessan
11-01-2014, 06:34 AM
Another example. (http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/5B68ED24-92C1-4581-8C8E-3E1EAB19DE6A/0/DSC_0378Small_cropped_big.JPG)

It may look all futuristic, but it's basically the same size and weight as a "regular" rifle, and works more or less the same.

Learjeff
11-01-2014, 10:04 AM
I remember reading an article in a dentist's office about a new Colt revolver. It was a whole new frame & design, complete with ammo designed for the new shell, intended to have the most muzzle energy of any handgun.

Evidently, the history of big handguns took a sharp upward turn thanks to the movie Dirty Harry, where Harry explains to some punk about the amount of energy imparted by his big Colt 45. That started a trade war between American handgun makers to increase muzzle energy (mass times velocity squared), reaching the point of this new handgun that was effectively an elephant gun, requiring substantial new technology, and very strong arms to fire with the most powerful ammo. No doubt most folks would load it with lower-energy ammo just to avoid hurting themselves.

It was fascinating to read how the handgun (revolver) frame and ammo were co-designed to achieve maximum energy, and how many technical issues had to be addressed. The article explained that the frame would be used for a whole line of different revolvers with different features (all of which I no longer recall, but more significant than pearl-inlaid versus plain handle inserts).

But most amazing wast the statement that it actually packed more punch than a typical elephant gun! In a .45 revolver!

Leo Bloom
11-01-2014, 12:00 PM
I read the OP and was thinking Railgun. (http://wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/) But that's probably more than the average guy can fire from the shoulder.
Exactly. Sort of--I was taught by a hollering Drill Sergeant (or was it Navy) in a movie, never to use the word "gun" with a handheld weapon.

Is that true?

Anyway, here's (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon) the "gun" I thought of when I saw OP hed. With same proviso.

engineer_comp_geek
11-01-2014, 12:04 PM
Evidently, the history of big handguns took a sharp upward turn thanks to the movie Dirty Harry, where Harry explains to some punk about the amount of energy imparted by his big Colt 45.

Minor nitpick: Dirty Harry's gun was a Smith and Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum.

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow you head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

(often misquoted as "Do you feel lucky, punk?")

After the movie, Model 29s became scarce. People were buying them faster than Smith and Wesson could make them.

Harry Callahan uses the Model 29 throughout all of the Dirty Harry movies. In Sudden Impact, he switches to an AMP Auto Mag Model 180 after his Model 29 is kicked into the water.

The movie did kick off an arms race of sorts between pistol manufacturers, exactly as you describe.

Scumpup
11-01-2014, 12:22 PM
When was this arms race? S&W developed the .44 magnum cartridge. Ruger, through shit-ass good luck or industrial espionage depending on your POV, got a revolver to market ahead of them. The .44 mag remained the most powerful production handgun cartridge for a long time. Freedom Arms,a boutique manufacturer, legitimized the .454 Casull from its wildcat status and, eventually, some other manufacturers started making guns to use it as well. Then, in recent years, S&W introduced a couple crazy powerful cartridges for use in a revolver big enough to be crew served. This all took place over a span of fifty years or so. Colt was never even a player in any way that mattered. Less of an arms race than just S&W wanting to keep the handcannon fans buying, IMO.

Leo Bloom
11-01-2014, 01:12 PM
Always handy Wiki on weaponry in movies and television. (http://imfdb.org/wiki/Main_Page)

DinoR
11-01-2014, 02:14 PM
Exactly. Sort of--I was taught by a hollering Drill Sergeant (or was it Navy) in a movie, never to use the word "gun" with a handheld weapon.

Is that true?


You are probably thinking of Full Metal Jacket. The used gun differently than I will in that scene and the were using "rifle" instead of the more generic "weapon."

Individual weapons are "weapons" or something more specific like pistol, rifle, or nomenclature. A crew served weapon can rightly be called a "Gun" in the Army. Things like a medium machine gun can be hand carried but are technically crew served so you can get away with calling it a gun. I never saw someone have a cow about calling an actual gun a weapon though. The other way... it's a weapon!

"This is my rifle! This is my gun! This is for killing! This is ..."

Dallas Jones
11-01-2014, 02:21 PM
And then there are the Herstal FN 5.7 guns. The P90 is used by the US Secret Service because the weapon is concealable under a jacket and the 5.7mm round is very powerful for a small bullet. The P90 does not look like a typical rifle. Top picture in random link:

http://blog.zombiepandemic.com/Forum/tabid/65/aft/4137/Default.aspx

The FN 5.7 pistol is light and very accurate, I have one and it is the most accurate pistol I have ever fired. I can reliably hit targets at 100 yards, beyond the accurate range of most other hand guns. It holds 20 rounds, 30 with the extended magazine, and has been referred to as an assault rifle in pistol form.

Learjeff
11-01-2014, 03:17 PM
Minor nitpick: Dirty Harry's gun was a Smith and Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum.Thanks for the correction and the tidbits!

When was this arms race? S&W developed the .44 magnum cartridge. Ruger, through shit-ass good luck or industrial espionage depending on your POV, got a revolver to market ahead of them. The .44 mag remained the most powerful production handgun cartridge for a long time. Freedom Arms,a boutique manufacturer, legitimized the .454 Casull from its wildcat status and, eventually, some other manufacturers started making guns to use it as well. Then, in recent years, S&W introduced a couple crazy powerful cartridges for use in a revolver big enough to be crew served. This all took place over a span of fifty years or so. Colt was never even a player in any way that mattered. Less of an arms race than just S&W wanting to keep the handcannon fans buying, IMO.Obviously I misremembered a lot of the details from an article 10 years ago. I bet this is the article I read:

http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/recreation/1277336

engineer_comp_geek
11-01-2014, 04:23 PM
When was this arms race?

The success of the Smith and Wesson Model 29 after Dirty Harry did eventually lead to quite a few hand cannons being developed. You've got the .50 cal. Desert Eagle, the Zeliska .600 Nitro Express, and the Magnum Research BFR, for example. Ok, maybe "arms race" is a bit much to describe it, and admittedly now that I think about it a lot of the hand cannons have come from Smith and Wesson. However, before the Model 29 there wasn't much out there other than the old Colt Peacemaker .45-70. Hand cannons in general got a great big boost from Harry Callahan.

Scumpup
11-01-2014, 04:37 PM
The Zeliska and Magnum Research offerings are cartoonishly proportioned pieces that use rifle cartridges. They are handguns only in the sense of lackng shoulder stocks. This discussion has a point only if we are discussing cartridges designed to be used in handguns from their beginning.
The .50AE is a respectably powerful cartridge, but its main claim to big gun status is the whole .50 caliber thing. In terms of performance, it is no better than middle of the hand cannon pack.

Scumpup
11-01-2014, 05:05 PM
The Colt SAA (Peacemaker) was never chambered in the .45-70. .45-70 is a 19th century military rifle cartridge. Colt did offer their revolver in the much smaller .45 Colt aka .45 Long Colt. Until the advent of the .357 magnum (developed by S&W) the old .45 Colt did rule the roost as most powerful production handgun cartridge. That word "production" is a key point here. There have been all manner of very powerful wildcats or commercial failures (like the Mars pistols) along the way.

engineer_comp_geek
11-01-2014, 06:03 PM
The Colt SAA (Peacemaker) was never chambered in the .45-70. .45-70 is a 19th century military rifle cartridge.

It wasn't made by Colt. It was the Peacemaker design chambered in .45-70, which as you noted is a rifle cartridge. That was the whole point, a big, oversized rifle cartridge in a handgun.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/worlds-largest-pistol/

I don't know how many were produced, but it was more than just a one-off.

The woman in the picture better hope it's not loaded, because it looks to me that if she actually fires it the way she's holding it, she's going to get seriously hurt. :eek:

My point was that this was one of the few hand cannons with oversized rounds available, and things like this were pretty rare until after Dirty Harry came out.

Scumpup
11-01-2014, 06:09 PM
You are the one who cited such a thing as a .45-70 Colt Peacemaker in post #37. Colt made no such revolver. Lots of companies have made revolvers of the SAA pattern or variants of it. Only one made by Colt is a Colt, though.

sweat209
11-05-2014, 10:50 PM
Guns have not really changed much in the past 50 years. They are not more powerful or better. And it does not look like guns will change much in the future or get more powerful.

Lemur866
11-07-2014, 01:08 AM
I'd much rather have a modern M-16 than one from 50 years ago.

You're correct that the basic technology of firearms hasn't changed much in 50 years. No phased plasma rifles in 40 megawatt range are going to be available any time soon.

Even things like caseless ammo don't offer much improvement on the basic technology. Chemical explodes here, propels a lead slug there. That's been the constant for 500 years.

We've gotten new propellants that are much better than the black powder they used 500 years ago, we have new ignition systems that are much better, we have cartridges, we have automatic loading. And what more do you want?

The problem with any ginormous gun that either fires giant bullets or a bajillion bullets isn't technological, it is logistical. A human being can only carry so much weight around. Of course we have weapons much bigger than a human can carry, but those need to be transported by something other than a human being. And we have guns that can fire a bajillion rounds a second, the reason soldiers don't carry them is they can't carry bajillion round magazines around with them.

Remember that man-portable minigun Jesse Ventura used in Predator? Those things actually exist. Except they're no good as a weapon, because it would weigh 65 pounds, not including the truck batteries to spin the barrels, the recoil would spin you around like holding on to a rocket, and you'd need a truck following around behind you to hold the ammo. If your rate of fire is 2000 rounds a minute, you'll empty even a thousand round wheelbarrow magazine in 30 seconds.

So if you want a ginormous gun that shoots a ginormous number of rounds you need a truck to carry the gun, along with another truck to carry the ammunition. Or you have a crew served weapon like a machine gun, which is luggable by a squad of guys. Or you go down to a very light machine gun, like the M249 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun), which is carried around by one guy and can use regular rifle ammo in an emergency. That's the closest you'll get to the sort of weapon you could use 80s action-movie style. But note this is a lot heavier than a regular rifle, and if you actually fired it 80s movie style you'd run out of ammo in literally a few seconds.

sweat209
11-13-2014, 01:15 AM
As a scfi buff it is a bit disappointing guns have not changed much in over 50 years and no new technology coming out.

I think when people think of future guns they picture it like

http://media.indiedb.com/images/articles/1/75/74957/auto/fY3Tc.png
http://future-weapon.dealopia.com/images/F2000.jpg
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gzjewle9q7vjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg
http://kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070403-F-3293G-004.jpg
http://e-techgadget.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/0cb96da2b900x217.jpg
http://earthhopenetwork.net/pain_ray_gun.jpg

https://248a3682fa7eb872a80d-878a7bb6bc7355b417e51e1882bab67a.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/0000020899-Sci-Fi-Gun-01-LA1.jpg

http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/img/universe/sidearms_02.png
http://popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/ny/sar-21-470-0708.jpg

But these guns are impossible to make because of kick.But than on other had people in the US are getting fatter and in 100 years from now, most people may be over 250 pounds so than these big guns may be possible.

sweat209
11-13-2014, 01:32 AM
I'd much rather have a modern M-16 than one from 50 years ago.

You're correct that the basic technology of firearms hasn't changed much in 50 years. No phased plasma rifles in 40 megawatt range are going to be available any time soon.

Even things like caseless ammo don't offer much improvement on the basic technology. Chemical explodes here, propels a lead slug there. That's been the constant for 500 years.

We've gotten new propellants that are much better than the black powder they used 500 years ago, we have new ignition systems that are much better, we have cartridges, we have automatic loading. And what more do you want?

The problem with any ginormous gun that either fires giant bullets or a bajillion bullets isn't technological, it is logistical. A human being can only carry so much weight around. Of course we have weapons much bigger than a human can carry, but those need to be transported by something other than a human being. And we have guns that can fire a bajillion rounds a second, the reason soldiers don't carry them is they can't carry bajillion round magazines around with them.

Remember that man-portable minigun Jesse Ventura used in Predator? Those things actually exist. Except they're no good as a weapon, because it would weigh 65 pounds, not including the truck batteries to spin the barrels, the recoil would spin you around like holding on to a rocket, and you'd need a truck following around behind you to hold the ammo. If your rate of fire is 2000 rounds a minute, you'll empty even a thousand round wheelbarrow magazine in 30 seconds.

So if you want a ginormous gun that shoots a ginormous number of rounds you need a truck to carry the gun, along with another truck to carry the ammunition. Or you have a crew served weapon like a machine gun, which is luggable by a squad of guys. Or you go down to a very light machine gun, like the M249 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun), which is carried around by one guy and can use regular rifle ammo in an emergency. That's the closest you'll get to the sort of weapon you could use 80s action-movie style. But note this is a lot heavier than a regular rifle, and if you actually fired it 80s movie style you'd run out of ammo in literally a few seconds.

I wonder if future technology will allow guns to be strong and lightweight and less of a kick.

Even allowing future guns being more powerful but the size being the same. If guns gets bigger you have problem with kick.


A big gun like this today the kick would be a major problem.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/178/6/1/Oh_My_What_A_Big_Gun_You_Have_by_kuroi__ookami.jpg

But than in 50 years from now there may be technology to deal with kick problem.

Reply
11-13-2014, 03:24 AM
I am still so confused by this thread. Those are completely normal-looking rifles. Have you ever played Doom? :( Doom's weapons are not measly little things like that. Anybody could carry those weapons.

They're not even particularly plasticky. Look at the XM8 (http://inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/XM8/XM8_carbine.png) space marine pewpew gun or the OICW (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/OICW_Posted_arm.jpg) motion-tracking-see-around-corners-and-explode-grenades-above-people rifle for fancy futurustic toys.

naita
11-13-2014, 03:46 AM
I am still so confused by this thread.

Read the heading for this site, particularly the parenthetical. Over time that might cure your confusion.

Alessan
11-13-2014, 05:25 AM
But than in 50 years from now there may be technology to deal with kick problem.

I believe Isaac Newton would like a word with you.

Scumpup
11-13-2014, 07:14 AM
There is already technology to deal with "the kick problem." Has been for a while, too. Compensators, buffers, hydyaulic mechanisms, and other solutions have been used singly and in tandem. What hasn't been got around is that ammunition has bulk and mass. This often comes up in debates about power armor. The guy wearing the power armor may be "strong" enough to fire a howitzer from the shoulder, but howitzer ammo is heavy and takes up a lot of space. How and where does he carry enough of it to make himself really useful on the battlefield? Failing development of radically new propellants and explosives, this isn't going to change.

Alessan
11-13-2014, 07:25 AM
There is already technology to deal with "the kick problem." Has been for a while, too. Compensators, buffers, hydyaulic mechanisms, and other solutions have been used singly and in tandem. What hasn't been got around is that ammunition has bulk and mass. This often comes up in debates about power armor. The guy wearing the power armor may be "strong" enough to fire a howitzer from the shoulder, but howitzer ammo is heavy and takes up a lot of space. How and where does he carry enough of it to make himself really useful on the battlefield? Failing development of radically new propellants and explosives, this isn't going to change.

You just have to think more small-scale. A soldier who can carry three Javelin missiles on his back is a lot more effective than a soldier who can carry just one.

Lemur866
11-13-2014, 08:40 AM
Yes, but three soldiers who can carry one missile each are more effective than one guy in a multi-million dollar exoskeleton that barely works who can carry three.

Lemur866
11-13-2014, 08:52 AM
And I still don't understand why the OP insists that guns "like these" are "impossible" and then links to actually existing guns that are actually in use.

Yes, some of these are pictures of guns in video games or cosplay guns. But only some of those are giant hand-cannons, others are just regular style guns with bits of plastic styling glued on.

The question has been asked and answered.

"Why don't soldiers carry around really huge BFGs?"

Because they're heavy and awkward, and you only need a small bullet to put a hole in a human soldier, and if you need larger holes you need a larger weapon, which could be vehicle mounted or luggable, but can't be carried around and fired from the hip by a soldier on foot patrol. Also, ammunition is heavy and a gun that fires lots of ammo or really heavy ammo requires a huge weight of ammo that one person can't effectively lug around.

Also note that soldiers routinely carry other sorts of weapons other than their rifle, if you need a bigger bang you can use a grenade launcher or RPG, which are totally things that really exist.

Scumpup
11-13-2014, 08:54 AM
That is an excellent point. I remember a similar point coming up back in the '90s when the US was developing a self-propelled howitzer that was supposed to use liquid propellant and heavily computerized fire control. A big selling point for the system was that by controlling propellant amounts and the angle at which the gun was fired, it would be able to loft several rounds in quick succession and have them all land on target simultaneously. Its proponents claimed it replaced an entire artillery battery. Clearer thinkers recognized that if anything happened to the vehicle, you effectively lost the entire artillery battery all at once. Lots of things can happen to complicated tech on a battlefield, not all of it even due to enemy activity.
Power armor is one of those things that just seems so cool that we want to see it fielded basically for the coolth. IMPO, by the time problems like a reliable, compact energy source for the armor are solved, there will be no need to have it as power armor. The tech could be put into play as remotely piloted ground drones just as effectively, if not more so. The whole thing gets a lot smaller and less complex if we don't have to worry about fitting a meatbag inside it and keeping that meatbag intact.

sweat209
12-13-2014, 01:05 AM
I am still so confused by this thread. Those are completely normal-looking rifles. Have you ever played Doom? :( Doom's weapons are not measly little things like that. Anybody could carry those weapons.

They're not even particularly plasticky. Look at the XM8 (http://inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/XM8/XM8_carbine.png) space marine pewpew gun or the OICW (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/OICW_Posted_arm.jpg) motion-tracking-see-around-corners-and-explode-grenades-above-people rifle for fancy futurustic toys.

Read the heading for this site, particularly the parenthetical. Over time that might cure your confusion.

I think you and naita are getting hugged up on the word big. I don't know any scfi movie or computer game showing big guns like http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D7xbU-aELjA/UUXadO-WXkI/AAAAAAAAGtE/_t_tZCD7Aig/s1600/51919.jpg or http://s731.photobucket.com/user/grenochka3/media/D_linderman_n-1.jpg.html or http://mid4.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/texans_with_big_guns.jpg or http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K_ZYmjjhyiw/TY8UOSlUXwI/AAAAAAAAAtw/qtJPfTLKr5I/s400/big_gun_girl_1.jpg or http://s128.photobucket.com/user/brooklynbadboy75/media/Wacky/big_guns.jpg.html or http://dimensionalarea.net/myfiles/cons/otakon2004/2004-07-30_010_Otakon_Woman_with_big_gun.jpg or http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/345/5/f/Big_Gun_by_Al_xSith.jpg

About the biggest I seen is http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/288/7/c/Big_Gun_____by_DeZomB.jpg or http://yourprops.com/movieprops/original/yp4ee39a7bd429d2.47220443/Doom-Chain-gun-Rotary-cannon-1.jpg or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Vulcan1.jpg or http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/3079880-2.jpg or http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/lrywiyyuczh4164h8bxf.jpg or http://cache.graphicslib.viator.com/graphicslib/media/59/the-dunc-with-a-big-gun-photo_1085017-770tall.jpg or http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/178/6/1/Oh_My_What_A_Big_Gun_You_Have_by_kuroi__ookami.jpg

And all these guns even if it where possible in 50 years from now with new breakthrough in technology is about the biggest you want.Even than it is almost too big even if weight and kick is not a problem.

You really don't want a gun bigger than your arm length or it is too hard to work with even if weight and kick is not a problem.And two or three arm length is just silly .


I would not take any gun bigger than this into http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/178/6/1/Oh_My_What_A_Big_Gun_You_Have_by_kuroi__ookami.jpg combat or http://photos.oes.org/albums/userpics/10002/normal_MIB_BigGuns.jpg

Other thing I would take into account if I was transported into a Doom like world with evil creatures a big gun with 10 to 15 bullets or smaller gun holding 50 or 100 bullets.You don't want to run out of bullets so may go with a smaller gun.

sweat209
12-13-2014, 01:36 AM
Those are completely normal-looking rifles.

I think you and some other members are trying to saying if it is not two or three arm length it is not big.

I also think you and some other members here are trying to say those pictures I posted of guns before are not any bigger than standard guns they had all along, that it is the plasticky giving too a illusion it is big and future gun.

That these guns.
http://dtacomlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Truth-About-Guns-Demo.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/OICW_Posted_arm.jpg
http://inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/XM8/XM8_carbine.png
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/110/d/f/vector_assault_rifle_grenadier_by_redzaku-d4w2x7a.jpg

http://tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/20140114-143419.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/02/4a/07/024a074974c25cc51a892c7ad01330b4.jpg

http://thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Advanced-Tactical-SOC-1.jpg

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_10_2009/post-16915-1255639880.jpg
http://thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARX100_Tricked_Out.jpg


Are the same standard guns they had all along, it just plastic and new look that gives to a illusion it is bigger gun.


So really guns have reached a mature technology level and will not really get any more powerful:(:(:(:(:(:(:( because to do that guns would have to be two or three arm lengths and that just silly and not practical, even if weight and kick is not a problem.

So really there is no other way to make guns more powerful.

I think in the future we think hand guns like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Walther_P99_9x19mm.png would be replaced with a future hand guns like http://geeky-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/custom-steampunk-guns_1.jpg or http://writeups.org/img/inset/WLOCK_Imaginarypistol_h.jpg or http://th09.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2011/084/9/1/energy_handgun_by_peterku-d3cfpl5.jpg or http://s3.amazonaws.com/gamervision_production/1242350232Pr0y7k04Nx.jpg but it not any more powerful just a illusion.

sweat209
12-13-2014, 01:50 AM
And I still don't understand why the OP insists that guns "like these" are "impossible" and then links to actually existing guns that are actually in use.

Yes, some of these are pictures of guns in video games or cosplay guns. But only some of those are giant hand-cannons, others are just regular style guns with bits of plastic styling glued on.

The question has been asked and answered.

"Why don't soldiers carry around really huge BFGs?"

Because they're heavy and awkward, and you only need a small bullet to put a hole in a human soldier, and if you need larger holes you need a larger weapon, which could be vehicle mounted or luggable, but can't be carried around and fired from the hip by a soldier on foot patrol. Also, ammunition is heavy and a gun that fires lots of ammo or really heavy ammo requires a huge weight of ammo that one person can't effectively lug around.

Also note that soldiers routinely carry other sorts of weapons other than their rifle, if you need a bigger bang you can use a grenade launcher or RPG, which are totally things that really exist.

Lemur866 I'm sorry I'm not in army or worked with guns so my my knowledge level is shaped by the uneducated public seeing Hollywood movies and video games that guns like these are future and more powerful http://i.imgur.com/YEeW9.jpg or https://graemehobbs93.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/clan_arena___sniper_concept01_by_jimsvanberg.jpg or http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YmXJ3V5fa8k/UYOLpTb9xBI/AAAAAAAAGLI/p8yXD6eNlxA/s1600/m41a.jpg or http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1ad8ced6ab86e1a8214db8dcafe93626?convert_to_webp=true or http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/12/23/guns-future.jpg?itok=IoB0X6TN or http://guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/tavor_bullpup_a_good_baseline_for_the_bullpup_rifle.jpg or http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uhron05s1Ng/maxresdefault.jpg or http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gzjewle9q7vjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

Is all a illusion it is more powerful it just the plasticky and new look that looks of future but really the gun is not any more powerful than what they had.

enipla
12-13-2014, 08:27 AM
Really don't know what you are saying Sweat209. NONE of those guns that you posted pictures of are bigger than the standard military rifle issued in WWII. The M1 Garand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

The newer guns are lighter and shoot smaller rounds too (typically).

They are more powerful in that with a smaller round (bullet) the solder can carry more ammo. That's a big generalization, but that's sort of what it comes down to.

enipla
12-13-2014, 08:35 AM
ETA - I'm talking about the guns in your OP. Some, if not all of the ones in your last post are from Hollywood. But frankly, aren't too out there. Haven't looked at them all though.

Scumpup
12-13-2014, 09:50 AM
I'm not going through link by link, but most of those links were to pictures of people clowning around with oversized non-firing display guns or to cosplayers with non-firing replicas of oversized weapons from ultraviolent Japanese porn cartoons. Not sure what they bring to the discussion.

sweat209
12-23-2014, 08:14 PM
I get what most members here are saying, 95% of the pictures I posted here the guns are not big is the plasticky that make it look big.

I just think it some thing Hollywood and game makers think future guns will look like and be more powerful.

I don't know any Hollywood movie or game maker that think future guns should be two or three arm lengths.

Most Hollywood movies or game makers think future guns will be more powerful and look more like they are from the future.

But from what I get here from people that understand guns that for guns to be more powerful it would have to be two or three arm lengths!!! That would be hard to hold the gun in combative even if the kick was not the problem.

So the answer is no guns in the future will not be more powerful because to do that the gun would have to be two or three arm lengths!! And that would be hard to hold the gun in combative even if the kick was not the problem.


And all those hollywood movies or game makers are dead wrong:(:(:(:( those guns may look like they are from the future but will not be any more powerful than what they have now.

enipla
12-24-2014, 08:47 AM
Huh?

Ethilrist
12-24-2014, 09:06 AM
People who are in the business of making entertaining movies aren't necessarily involved in weapons design. If you want a normal-sized weapon to have a lot more effect, all it takes is to have a friend in the Special Effects department.

For the time being, if you want a more powerful weapon than what is commonly carried, it will need to be bigger.

Thrasymachus
12-25-2014, 06:17 PM
Wanted to point out (as suggested also by Lemur866 and Enipla) that small arms evolution over the last few centuries has made the individual infantryman more "powerful" in the sense of increasing his/her effectiveness, not in having a bigger gun.

In fact, the opposite has generally occurred - developments favoring better rate of fire and lightweight weapons.

A 19th century musket fired a 69 or 75 caliber ball, and might be supported en masse by a 6 pound cannon (http://taylorsbattery.com/6pdr4.jpg) or two.

In the middle of the 20th century armies used 7+mm ammunition in fairly heavy and mid-range battle rifles like the M1 Garand, Mosin-Nagant, and K98k.

Compare to an infantry squad today with M4's firing 5.56 caliber and perhaps an M249 or a few 30mm grenade launchers. Emphasis on mobility in shorter-range combat.

With the prevalence of body armor and CQB-type situations as the world population increases, I'd expect more stuff like the FN P90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90) using 5.7x28 rounds (these are designed explicitly to defeat armor**) in the future as already mentioned in this thread. Note again the small size of the weapon.

I thought Heckler and Koch had a fantastic future infantry rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11) in the G11 a few years back. Caseless 4.7mm ammo so you can carry more (in 50rd magazines!!), delayed recoil in 3rd burst, and the whole thing is fairly smooth on the outside so it can be decontaminated easily (we can expect NBC situations to be the rule and not the exception on a modern battlefield). Also, no pesky reciprocating bolt.

So, unlike what Hollywood would have us believe, I see military small arms continuing to shrink in the future, with the public spin-off copies and derivatives following suit as they always have.


**Note - only certain bullets and loadings do this (not generally available to civilians or non-LEO).

Marion_Wormer
12-25-2014, 10:47 PM
I just want to say 3 (possibly 4 words) for a powerful gun: Boys Anti-Tank Rifle. I've always wanted to shoot a rifle that was as long as I am tall.

Anyway, following up on Thrasymachus comment immediately previous, probably the most powerful military weapon today is the AK-47. It's so light that even children carry and fire it, it's cheap to manufacture, and it is probably used by every armed insurrection in the world. Carried en masse by para-militaries, faux militaries, warlords' minions, rebels, criminal gangs that call themselves militaries, it's a weapon used en masse. To quote Mao: Power comes from the barrel of a gun. The more guns in more hands is more powerful than a few hyper-powerful guns in the hands of a few professionals.

Kobal2
12-26-2014, 01:26 PM
I believe Isaac Newton would like a word with you.

Hmm, do railguns kick ? 'Cause I could see a portable railgun happening somewhere around the time we master miniaturized cold fusion. So, noonish, thereabouts :).

running coach
12-26-2014, 02:06 PM
Hmm, do railguns kick ? 'Cause I could see a portable railgun happening somewhere around the time we master miniaturized cold fusion. So, noonish, thereabouts :).

The projectile has to "push" against something.

Alessan
12-26-2014, 02:59 PM
The projectile has to "push" against something.

Mass goes forward, mass goes back. No exceptions.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Best Topics: benefits of mensa sin city becky alumnus vs alumni two alarm fire awesome cleaner ingredients drink listerine xkcd field purity cartman's mom porn duck wear atheist funeral speech oreo color innovative performance chip best things to mix with whiskey fruit that tastes like pork best glue for rubber to plastic shoe polish on car windows jackson browne stay a little bit longer fedex residential delivery times computer screen cut off on tv potatoes kosher for passover will 10mg of hydrocodone get me high fried chicken from the previous night must be reheated to at least what does deer taste like changing car horn sound