The Gun Thread

Electric ignition, by itself, doesn't offer any real advantages over a good old-fashioned percussion cap and firing pin. It's been tried commercially, in the Remington 700 EtronX varmint rifle, ostensibly to reduce lock time and allow more precise shooting. But the benefits were negligible, it required special primers that were very expensive and only available from Remington, and the rifle was unable to fire conventional ammo.

Well, back to the old drawing board...

In the case of the Remington a big part of that is being one of the only rifles to use it vs the conventional option. Quite simply put there was a lot more people making the other ammo making every aspect cheaper and since it is the commonly accepted method of creating ammo there were more commercial options open for use. Otherwise it was a very proprietary option really only beneficial to Remington to make and supply.

There was a caseless hunting rifle with electric ignition that has some limited popularity in Europe though. It hit the same wall as the Remington in being a largely proprietary offering vs a common commercial offering. They aren't made any more but they lasted a decent amount of time before they fully pulled the plug.

The military doing a wide adoption of a new mechanism using a new ammo type would do a lot push the market to adopt it as well.

edited 3rd Dec '16 8:14:43 AM by TuefelHundenIV

The only currently viable application I can think of for electronic priming would be if somebody wanted a gun that nobody else could use. Say, a theft-proof gun to issue to police, or something like that. (After the thief used up the ammo in it, it would be useless, since he couldn't get any more and it wouldn't work with normal ammo.) A step or two removed from an actual smartgun, but one that is possible with existing technology.

Polycase was trying something similar with polymer-cased ammo that couldn't be reloaded, for use in places where insurgents were scrounging spent brass and reusing it. No success yet, though it did bring ARX polymer bullets to the commercial market.

I'm kind of amused by the realization that a gun is just a really badly designed piston engine.

I now wanna see if I can tie a driveshaft to a bunch of guns and see what happens.

Smart guns are very possible with the current technology, but that is something no one really wants to look at and the ones that did hit the market were a .22LR overpriced Po S at the 2,000USD range.

The problem with smart guns is how they are either gimmick guns or how ridiculously overpriced they are if not both.

pwiegle: As I understand it one of the benefits of the electrical ignition, when done right, supposedly has a more even burn of the propellant when it is ignited. There is the electrically primed cartridge which has a primer but the primer is kicked off by the electrical charge instead. Other benefits include reduction of moving parts in the bolt and a possible ability to create the case without any perforations for the primer. You could eve move the primer to inside the case proper as long as it conducts sufficient charge sufficiently to fire the primer.

The M-61 Vulcan's "firing pin" uses an electric charge to fire the shell. As the shell is rotated into position it comes in contact with the firing pin which zaps the shell firing it off. The reduced movement is in part why the Vulcan can hit 6,000 rounds a minute.

The concept has some relation to the electro thermal ignition system considered to improve the performance of tank ammunition. Supposedly they have been toying with it for just over a decade at this point.

The real problem with smartguns is that the gun-buying public doesn't want them. The people who advocate smartguns are not gun owners and gun enthusiasts. They wouldn't actually buy one for themselves, they want "those other people" to get them "for their own good."

So the only smartgun we've seen so far turned out to be something you'd find in the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog — overpriced and gimmicky. There's no incentive (yet) to make smartguns affordable and practical, because there's no mainstream market for them. Public demand, not government fiat, is what drives such progress. Until prevailing attitudes change of their own accord, the idea is stillborn.

edited 4th Dec '16 9:42:08 PM by pwiegle

A gunsmith re-bores and re-chambers an older rifle chambered in 32 caliber rim fire to .357 center fire.

He makes it look way too easy. In the real world, you frequently hear loud cursing coming from the gunsmith's shop.

I am guessing that was edited out. That and he sent the barrel away to do the harder parts.

It's like Norm Abrams on The New Yankee Workshop. Every week, he's got some overly-complex woodworking project. "Today, we're going to build an upright piano/grandfather clock, just like this antique I found!" And it looks like he manages to do it all in one afternoon.

Sorry Norm, but not everybody has fifty years of experience and a million dollars worth of power tools and equipment, like you do.

Shotgun News has articles on homebuilding various rifles using common tool - and things like a drill press and a few other expensive tools. Even they admit that building even a homebrew .22 gets expensive. And that's before the ATF paperwork...

edited 7th Dec '16 8:06:00 PM by TairaMai

Every US citizen is allowed to fabricate one gun for his own personal use, with no ATF paperwork or registration required. This can be anything from a homebuilt single-shot .22 rifle, to a black powder revolver converted to use cartridges, to an AR-15 built on an "80% finished" lower receiver. (I've also seen some 80% receivers for 1911 and Glock pistols.)

Of course, if he ever sells it or gives it away, then it has to be given a serial number and transferred through an FFL holder — logged into the dealer's record book, form 4473 filled out by the new owner, instant check passed, etc.

edited 7th Dec '16 9:59:35 PM by pwiegle

Wait really? We get one gun?

Yup. One gun, provided that you built it yourself.

Probably the easiest way to do this would be to buy a black powder revolver and then buy a drop-in conversion cylinder for it. (Some actually do drop right in, others require some work to fit and index properly, but it's a lot easier than starting entirely from scratch.)

The black powder revolver, by itself, is classified as a muzzleloader under BATFE rules, and thus requires no paperwork. Installing a conversion cylinder (a gun part, which likewise requires no paperwork) that allows you to use modern cartridges in it then makes it a "firearm."

Imma make an AK. It's an open patent.

I haven't seen any 80% receivers for an AK, but then again, I haven't really looked for them either. I'm sure there's somebody out there who makes them. Good luck!

edited 7th Dec '16 10:30:54 PM by pwiegle

Heh, maybe the gun lobbyists wouldn't be as powerful if more people made their own guns instead of buying them.

That would require a population with a fairly extensive working knowledge of metalworking and gunsmithing. Or the ability to afford metal 3D printers and feedstock.

It's easier to act cool because you found your father's Old Shame of a Soldier of Fortune stash than it is to possess one or both of those.

Besides, gun lobbyists like the NRA control the corporations not the other way around.

They almost killed S&W with a boycott because they were willing to comply with gun safety laws.

It's too easy to get body armor that will shrug off an AK. Better to build a QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss.

There is nothing in the US constitution saying I can't make my nuclear tipped ICBM!

No, but I bet your HOA will have something to say about you trying to park it on your property or build an underground silo for it.

What if but juuuust what if my property in the middle of Arizona has a defunct ICBM launch silo and they forgot to remove a few things?