Why hasn't firearm technology progressed much, Jow Forums ?

Why hasn’t road technology progressed in 2000 years? It’s the same goddamn thing we have now.

Why?

Same way computers have. After most of the innovation has taken place, most of it is improving and upgrading the internals to run better and smoother.

Because bullets haven't changed yet

>matchlocks were ubiquitous with wheel-locks here and there
>flintlocks were ubiquitous with [insert in between developmental gun here] here and there
>percussion guns were ubiquitous with paper cartridge breach loaders here and there
>metallic cartridge "repeaters" were ubiquitous with [insert 4 different examples of a "repeater" here] here and there
>smokeless boltguns were ubiquitous with a complex self loader here and there
>semi-auto/FA "fighting rifles" were ubiquitous with only 1 proper massed produced "assault rifle" being used by Russia

now high velocity/lightweight intermediate carbines are the rule
not sure what the exception is these days but the point is the more things change the more they stay the same

Attached: trumbie needler.jpg (300x199, 10K)

Firm believer in the idea that constant global conflict is the only way to kick start weapon development. The fact that we can put a laser on a single spot and then a missle guide itself to that spot should be proof enough.

They aren't Krauts anymore.

>It's the German's fault
>It's the American's fault
>It's the Jews
>It's Saudi Arabia
>It's Mossad
No, it's your local gun store clerk smiling behind the counter.

What

Firearm optics have improved dramatically in the past 50 years. Considering it’s how you aim the fucking thing, I’d say firearms technology is still progressing, simply in different areas other than the action and cartridge.

Small arems are likely to stay about the same for the next century or even longer, with optics and other addon accessories being about the only thing that can still really improve, aside from some odd specialty weapons like the Neopup/Ikunzuni that would only have a limited role if people even bother. Lasers and railguns are both poor choices for small arms because they don't scale down very well and only make sense when big - you can't expect soldiers to carry electrical generators on their backs, and the energy efficiency just isn't anywhere close to chemical propellant. It's debatable whether even a tank would be large enough to make them worthwhile.
Weaponry in general will keep advancing; small arms probably not very much.

Next step is making portable lasers powerful enough to kill and with enough battery life to stay useful in a fight.
Also portable railguns, same thig with battery life but ammo will be lighter without the need for gunpowder.

And then everything will be replaced by robots with rocket launchers and drones bombing everything.

We could make better and more advanced guns, with stronger cartridges, higher rates of fire and better optics.
but the weak link is the human body.

Our limitations dictate that we are restricted in choice of caliber and accuracy.
Until Self-Aiming and Self-Stabilizing weapons are mass production capable, we are limited by the fact that the guns are already more capable than the person using it, so any improvements on the gun become window dressing.

Perhaps Energy weapons will be the next big breakthrough

>it's literally the same tech 100 years ago

Not really primer chemicals, propellants, metals, sights, projectiles are all different really. This is why 100 year old guns blow up when incorrectly loaded with modern calibre and SAMI pressure loadings

I'll bet you also think the flintlock did not evolve from its first to final form.

Pretty much this.
A modern thermal optic is as much of a force multiplier as a automatic from bolt action.

Next step is water as ammunition and gas plasma projectiles

Two issues

First, the logistics of a fundamentally new firearm are mind boggling. There are tens of millions of guns out there and trillions of rounds for them. Creating something that is fundamentally incompatable with any of those guns or the factories that make those guns is a hard sell.

Second, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Guns work well enough and there isn't any current tech that would radically improve them. Yes, Metal Storm is a thing but that's more of a side step than an improvement. Caseless ammo leads to heating issues, after all.

I'd say a thermal sight is MORE much more of a multiplier than a semi over a bolt action. I would not like to be with a semi facing an opfor with a thermal sight and a bolt action rifle.

t. Has thermal sight.

>Metal Storm

Was shit. Really it was.
>Guns work well enough
They don't really most common armaments are intermediate cartridges in 30 round guns wiith limited ability over 300M. New optics like thermal, NV, infantry drones and cheap powerful scopes will push detection and engagement back further, so new and better longer rage rifles facilitating accurate and lethal wind tolerant ballistics from 500M-1200M will be required in volume along with ascope with integrated ballistic calcs, optical rangefinders, barometric pressure gauges, location sensing, incline detection etc etc. AKs and ARs are now basically obsolete,

"A mature technology is a technology that has been in use for long enough that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development. In some contexts, it may also refer to technology that has not seen widespread use, but whose scientific background is well understood.[1]

One of the key indicators of a mature technology is the ease of use for both non-experts and professionals. Another indicator is a reduction in the rate of new breakthrough advances related to it—whereas inventions related to a (popular) immature technology are usually rapid and diverse,[2] and may change the whole use paradigm—advances to a mature technology are usually incremental improvements only."

I wonder what guns will look like a hundred years from now. Maybe gyrojet will actually be practical

There hasn't been a massive war for over 70 years. If WW3 were in progress, you bet your ass everyone would be developing new weapon technology based on lessons learned on the battlefield.

I typed up an intelligent comment referring to market preferences, production inertia, pointless of innovation for non-automatic firearms, etc
But this analogy is easier: Why have hammers stopped improving?

How about thirty on thirty and in the middle of a day in a city.

I initially was on that side of the fence too but situations like that and if battery supply failed brought me to a middle ground.

I figure in terms of solid projectile weaponry we're reaching a peak. What else is left, getting caseless to become the feasible standard? Removing the chemical propulsion and just going full railgun?

Either that or gyrojets being further developed

The next is step is complete recoil mitigation and heat seeking bullets

Gyrojet Railguns

because of the NFA and other gun control laws that limit research.

Because you're an idiot. We've improved a lot since the 20's. If you'd said 50 years you might have an argument but even then it would be wrong.

You're totally right there've been no advancements metallurgy, manufacturing techniques, propellant chemistry, ballistics, optics, or ergonomics in the last 100 years.

>roman roads are still usable today
>US roads need to be redone every three years or they crumble into nothing
That's where you're wrong kiddo

>drive on cobblestone road
>now AC has a permanent rattle

>why hasn't firearm technology progressed much, Jow Forums ?
Theres no pressure to drive it

Attached: 1265605463144.png (500x376, 195K)

this
we need another big ass war

Attached: 1501548335071.gif (236x240, 591K)

Because offensive evolution stops until prey finds a way to render it ineffective

We'll see more weapons advances once body armor catches up.