Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How fast did weapons and ammo technology really advance and when did it happen?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BallisticsGuy" data-source="post: 1866092" data-attributes="member: 96226"><p>So, to collate we have the following as atomic groups. It has to be said that there are innumerable feedback loops among the several broad categories. It might be useful to ignore feedback loops but I think that just like with any complex developmental process, decoupling any part of it for the sake of argument is likely to lead to large misunderstandings. </p><p></p><p>Location technologies (GPS, powerful laser rangefinders, digital mapping)</p><p>Metallurgy (steels, aluminum alloys, exotic alloys, improved cast-ability)</p><p>Machining technology (multi-axis CNC, ultra precision computerized measuring/dimensioning)</p><p>External ballistics engines (digital ballistic calculators, newer ballistic models, novel mathematical functions)</p><p>Computation engines (portable digital personal computers)</p><p>Powder technology (new energetic materials, sensitizers/desensitizers, copper removers)</p><p>Bullet (and bullet development) technology (shapes, materials, computerized drag modeling, high definition Doppler radar)</p><p></p><p>I will go so far as to assert that the particle physics discoveries of the 1890's with Dalton's discovery of the electron up to about 1917 with Bohr's atomic model fueled a decades long renaissance in chemistry which has persisted to today but after an initial burst of innovation has slowed pretty remarkably, as one would expect. Gunpowder, primers, alloys and such improved directly as a result but I don't think that this was the real powerhouse that gave us a doubling of scores around 1920.</p><p></p><p>I would futher assert that machining technology generally is the keystone to all the others being pushed very far at all because it is the only thing in the chain that shows true evolutionary progress. By that I mean that one generation of machine tools is used to literally make the next which normally would be expected to produce growing imprecision over the decades through tolerance stacking (which is why mutationists are laughed at in the study of biological evolution) but because the machine tools that are made by earlier machine tools actually benefit from ancillary developments of other technologies like high precision measuring tools so the child machine tool has inherited mutations ( what we would call improvements in hindsight) over previous generations which increase its fitness. Feedback loops like this are very powerful things in nature. </p><p></p><p>Those 2 things alone would be enough to see us get to where we were in the 1960's but it wasn't until computers got cheap enough in the latter part of the 1970's that they started invading every facet of life that we finally crossed the tipping point of technology-sourced consistency that meant that Joe Sixpack (or Joe Exotic depending on taste and proclivities) would be able to run off to Walmart and scoop up a rifle and scope for less than a week's pay, then go out and shoot farther than he can see with the naked eye with enough accuracy and repeatability to make old timers shake their fists in the air and mutter about how it used to cost him a month's pay to get a rifle that was 1/3 as capable.</p><p></p><p>That'd be fine except for 2 things. First, machining precision isn't an all or nothing game. Sample size matters. You don't have to make EVERY part perfect, just at least 1. The other is that I think [USER=26477]@Gone Ballistic[/USER] is really right: Historically bullets appear to get markedly better and then powders and guns themselves catch up or at least move forward. No better bullets, no need to innovate anything else since bullets are the thing that has to be the most perfect.</p><p></p><p>You are now free to hurl the chairs about.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BallisticsGuy, post: 1866092, member: 96226"] So, to collate we have the following as atomic groups. It has to be said that there are innumerable feedback loops among the several broad categories. It might be useful to ignore feedback loops but I think that just like with any complex developmental process, decoupling any part of it for the sake of argument is likely to lead to large misunderstandings. Location technologies (GPS, powerful laser rangefinders, digital mapping) Metallurgy (steels, aluminum alloys, exotic alloys, improved cast-ability) Machining technology (multi-axis CNC, ultra precision computerized measuring/dimensioning) External ballistics engines (digital ballistic calculators, newer ballistic models, novel mathematical functions) Computation engines (portable digital personal computers) Powder technology (new energetic materials, sensitizers/desensitizers, copper removers) Bullet (and bullet development) technology (shapes, materials, computerized drag modeling, high definition Doppler radar) I will go so far as to assert that the particle physics discoveries of the 1890's with Dalton's discovery of the electron up to about 1917 with Bohr's atomic model fueled a decades long renaissance in chemistry which has persisted to today but after an initial burst of innovation has slowed pretty remarkably, as one would expect. Gunpowder, primers, alloys and such improved directly as a result but I don't think that this was the real powerhouse that gave us a doubling of scores around 1920. I would futher assert that machining technology generally is the keystone to all the others being pushed very far at all because it is the only thing in the chain that shows true evolutionary progress. By that I mean that one generation of machine tools is used to literally make the next which normally would be expected to produce growing imprecision over the decades through tolerance stacking (which is why mutationists are laughed at in the study of biological evolution) but because the machine tools that are made by earlier machine tools actually benefit from ancillary developments of other technologies like high precision measuring tools so the child machine tool has inherited mutations ( what we would call improvements in hindsight) over previous generations which increase its fitness. Feedback loops like this are very powerful things in nature. Those 2 things alone would be enough to see us get to where we were in the 1960's but it wasn't until computers got cheap enough in the latter part of the 1970's that they started invading every facet of life that we finally crossed the tipping point of technology-sourced consistency that meant that Joe Sixpack (or Joe Exotic depending on taste and proclivities) would be able to run off to Walmart and scoop up a rifle and scope for less than a week's pay, then go out and shoot farther than he can see with the naked eye with enough accuracy and repeatability to make old timers shake their fists in the air and mutter about how it used to cost him a month's pay to get a rifle that was 1/3 as capable. That'd be fine except for 2 things. First, machining precision isn't an all or nothing game. Sample size matters. You don't have to make EVERY part perfect, just at least 1. The other is that I think [USER=26477]@Gone Ballistic[/USER] is really right: Historically bullets appear to get markedly better and then powders and guns themselves catch up or at least move forward. No better bullets, no need to innovate anything else since bullets are the thing that has to be the most perfect. You are now free to hurl the chairs about. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How fast did weapons and ammo technology really advance and when did it happen?
Top