why hasn't there been meaningful progress in the fundamentals of firearms technology in 80 years? material science and manufacturing is lightyears ahead of what it was and yet other than fancy new optics the guns are the same.
>>65106170>meaningful progress in the fundamentals of firearms technology in 80 years?Everything possible has been discovered. We are at peak technology and you should enjoy the crest of the wave while you can. Then you die, so like enjoy.
>>65106181nothere needs to be cool new shit
>>65106170Why are those dudes wearing dresses,are they transvestites? The Old Testament CLEARLY STATES if you are a man thou shalt not dress as a woman and a woman should not wear a man's clothes. That's why the "Annie Hall look" was sinful.
>>65106191There isn't any. Stop whining and get over it or invent something.
>>65106170economics and constraints of kinetic energy
>>65106191>"IM BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORED"then invent something new.
>>65106194Those are trench coats and the picture is AI, you probably are too
>>65106181>>65106170We do have fancier materials, but they not economical to use or "regulators say NO".All the plastic parts? That's what you get when you combine material science with economics.And then there's experimental shit, niche applications, stuff that went back into the drawers, like the G11, CornerShot, EXACTO, metal storm etc.
>>65106170>why hasn't there been meaningful progress in the fundamentals of firearms technology in 80 years?One of the consequences of late-stage capitalism is that people who control the supply (producers) always want to cut costs, and people who control the demand (consumers) usually want to buy at the lowest possible price. This stifles innovation somewhat. This is just one of many reasons, but until a conflict as big as both world wars occurs, you won't see anyone successfully break the mold of small arms tech.
>>65106170Materials science isn't the problem. Physics is. Even back in the 1800's using laminated twist barrels it was possible to build a gun far lighter than it was comfortable to shoot.
>>65106330people that dont have to worry about regulation dont invent new shit either
>>65106170There's no need to make them better, its not like humans are getting any stronger.
>>65106170Diminishing returns. We have been throwing metal projectiles down tubes for a thousands years, and they're pretty much figured out. Like say you wanna integrate carbon nanotubes and graphene and aerogel into an AR15, now what? Sure you've got 3 lb rifle which is certainly impressive, but it costs 25k, heats up quicker, kicks sharper and doesn't actually throw lead any better than a stock M16 from the 80s.
>>65107700Won't be fighting humans for much longer.
>>65106170>fundamentals>firearmsFundamental changes will simply result in different type of weapon. If you try sticking to firearm formula you're not changing fundamentals.In the meanwhile i wonder why high rate guns don't experiment with diesel and similar compression ignited propellants.
>>65106170If you look into the history of science, in the 1700's we made a bunch of breakthroughs in mechanics which is physics, and in the 1800's we made breakthroughs in chemistry then biology.It might seem weird at that point that guns had barely evolved at all, but precision manufacturing with interchangeable parts (called "the American system") made complex guns affordable for the large conscript armies of the time. Mechanically complex repeating guns had been made but black powder fouling and the scarcity of gunpowder raw materials prevented their widespread adoption. Smokeless powder and the Haber-Bosch process solved these problems, and guns evolved again until they settled to what we have today.
>>65106170For one thing, I'm pretty sure firearms 80 years ago didn't have thermal scopes that could see you from a mile away in complete darkness.
>>65106170You're just going to have to wait until Anvil finish a man-portable coilgun.
