TexasCHLforum.com

In terms of recoil reduction . . . IMHO, rather than a laser/microwave or whatever beam weapon, a Gauss rifle would be a good candidate for the next real advance, assuming practical batteries could be developed. (Talking about personal weapons here, not fixed or vehicle mounted.)

For example, consider a typical .30/06 which fires a 180 grain projectile at 2700 ft/sec. A substantial part of the recoil impulse is due to the ejection of the gasses formed by combustion of the powder.

A Gauss rifle would propel a projectile magnetically - no combustion products to add to either recoil or weapon signature. And velocity would no longer be limited to the rate at which combustion gasses could expand; in principle that 180 grain projectile could be made (for example) 1/6 the weight - 30 grains - and have the velocity kicked up to 16200 ft/sec with no increase in recoil, since the momentum would be the same. And since energy is a product of the square of velocity, kinetic energy would go from ~ 2900 ft/lbs to over 17,000!

With a projectile impacting at over 3 miles per second, I think we could start talking about hydrostatic shock realistically!

ELB wrote:

seamusTX wrote:It's a mature technology. ...

- Jim

I think this is one of the reasons the AR platform is still the military's main longarm -- there are rifles and carbines that are better, e.g. more reliable, more lethal at combat distances, etc, but the military doesn't see the improvement as big enough to change the whole logistics tail . . .

True . . . I recently put together an AR carbine as my "go to" gun, but despite the undeniable ballistic superiority of the 6.5 and 6.8 rounds, I stuck with the 5.56. Ammo is available EVERYWHERE, and not being in the military, I don't HAVE to limit myself to FMJ. (I also got a regular gas system; EVERYONE makes parts for them, whereas all the gas piston systems are different.)

The manufacturers are sort of spinning their tires now, trying to come up with something new; Hornady's "Light Magnum" ammo is an improvement, and the last 20 or 30 years have seen improvements in terminal ballistics thanks to improved bullets . . . but these are incremental advances. (BTW, do we really need THREE new short .300 magnums? Winchester and Remington each have theirs, and now Ruger came out with one. Similar ballistics, yet they're not interchangeable. Silliness.)

Sighting optics are improving - riflescopes with integrated laser range finders and even ballistic compensators are coming on line. These features will probably be standard in 10 or 20 years.

Anyway, I don't think the next quantum leap in firearms will take place until we have battery technology that lets us make a practical, man-portable mass driver; and that may not happen in our lifetimes.