4 ms·

I am fairly certain this already exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act

unwind 11y ago
Interesting to note that the required 3.7 oz converts to roughly 100 grams. Quite a lot of mass to impose on gun designs, I imagine. I don't have any experience with gun-smithing so I don't know how much metal is strictly technically required, but I imagine it to be less or the legislature wouldn't be necessary to begin with, of course. Also, the minimum metal mass is probably a moving target (heh).
- hga 11y ago
  Eh, if you like you hand(s), you really want a fair amount of mass so it's just not your hand, arm, etc. providing the inertia resisting recoil. Also makes a difference for followup shots. But there is a niche for the single shot or so derringer, or quasi "zip guns" like the Defense Distributed or original Liberators. Just not my kind of thing, I carry a full albeit aluminium alloy frame, 4 inch barrel M1911 that weights 1.75 pounds empty, which is very much at the other end of the spectrum except for being narrow, which is important for concealablity.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    Now I wonder how hard would it be to create a weighed wrist guard style item which snaps firmly onto custom extra-light gun. Still takes the recoil, but technically not a part of the weapon. Maybe someone can explain why it's a bad idea.
    - hga 11y ago
      Not so much a bad idea but one with very limited applications, like squeezing through TSA security guidelines and actual practice, and then wanting to/to be able to fire a lot of rounds afterwords. Not ideal in general if for no other reason than more complicated ergonomics. I recently read an interesting observation that the shape and weight of a full sized service pistol got established more than a century ago; that, plus e.g. my observations of how many ill trained people in the US still manage to effectively and responsibly wield handguns in self-defense suggests we've achieved an ergonomic optimum. So radical deviations like your idea are not likely to be good even before we examine details, like how you don't want to limit yourself to only one wrist, it probably decreases the gains from the bracing that can be applied by your other hand, the coupling mechanism is likely to be problematic, slow if nothing else, etc.
    - Zak 11y ago
      The pressure-containing and mechanical operating components of a gun need to withstand a considerable amount of physical stress. Removing too much material will result in a gun that is not very durable and potentially dangerous to its user. Furthermore, in most semi-automatic pistols, the mass of the slide is part of the system that keeps the cartridge in the chamber until the pressure has dropped to a safe level. Reducing mass there requires a stiffer spring, longer slide travel or both. The smallest commercially made gun I could find currently available weighs 4 ounces: http://northamericanarms.com/firearms/s/s.html http://northamericanarms.com/firearms/s/s.html Being very low-powered, I doubt it has unbearable recoil, but it doesn't appear to have much in the way of practical use. Maybe concealment in undergarments?
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Yes, but whether it's covered or not doesn't matter, because just like we have security theater, we have security politics. The important thing isn't enacting a new law to address a need; the important thing is to find a cause that energizes enough of your base to vote and then appear to be doing something. Bonus points if the thing you're trying to do has no chance of being enacted. If you get a lot of attention and appear to be doing the right things to the right folks? You can support actions that you personally believe would be dangerous to the republic. Your personal feelings or the end result of what you're supporting don't really matter. Apologies for the cynicism, but people should know that the political calculus plays out in this fashion. Perhaps that's the situation in this case, perhaps not. The political calculus is still what it is and we should acknowledge it.
- Vivtek 11y ago
  The ancient art of bullshitocracy.
  - Qwertious 11y ago
    It actually makes sense if you assume two axioms: 1. Politicians are rational actors with regards to getting into and staying in office. 2. Voters are thoroughly ignorant and what sounds good to voters is not the same as what is actually the best policy. #1 makes a whole lot of sense because people who don't compete to their fullest extent will be out-competed by people who do, and the goal of getting into political office is a necessary part of fixing the government (which most politicians genuinely want to do). #2 makes sense when you look at people in the middle ages, and understand that we haven't fundamentally changed from them, we just have ACCESS to more information, which most people haven't read. Loads of people don't know jack shit about economics 101, and yet they have strong opinions on how to fix the economy. * We can extend, from these two axioms, that most politicians will not have TOO much respect for public opinion, and will therefore try to sneak through some bills that are unpopular, but (in the politician's opinion) will do a better job of actually fixing whatever they're trying to fix. That suggests that if you have enough politicians on-board with your way of "improving" the world, you can fix it in spite of the idiot public. QED, lobbying.

unwind 11y ago

Interesting to note that the required 3.7 oz converts to roughly 100 grams. Quite a lot of mass to impose on gun designs, I imagine. I don't have any experience with gun-smithing so I don't know how much metal is strictly technically required, but I imagine it to be less or the legislature wouldn't be necessary to begin with, of course. Also, the minimum metal mass is probably a moving target (heh).

hga 11y ago
Eh, if you like you hand(s), you really want a fair amount of mass so it's just not your hand, arm, etc. providing the inertia resisting recoil. Also makes a difference for followup shots. But there is a niche for the single shot or so derringer, or quasi "zip guns" like the Defense Distributed or original Liberators. Just not my kind of thing, I carry a full albeit aluminium alloy frame, 4 inch barrel M1911 that weights 1.75 pounds empty, which is very much at the other end of the spectrum except for being narrow, which is important for concealablity.
- viraptor 11y ago
  Now I wonder how hard would it be to create a weighed wrist guard style item which snaps firmly onto custom extra-light gun. Still takes the recoil, but technically not a part of the weapon. Maybe someone can explain why it's a bad idea.
  - hga 11y ago
    Not so much a bad idea but one with very limited applications, like squeezing through TSA security guidelines and actual practice, and then wanting to/to be able to fire a lot of rounds afterwords. Not ideal in general if for no other reason than more complicated ergonomics. I recently read an interesting observation that the shape and weight of a full sized service pistol got established more than a century ago; that, plus e.g. my observations of how many ill trained people in the US still manage to effectively and responsibly wield handguns in self-defense suggests we've achieved an ergonomic optimum. So radical deviations like your idea are not likely to be good even before we examine details, like how you don't want to limit yourself to only one wrist, it probably decreases the gains from the bracing that can be applied by your other hand, the coupling mechanism is likely to be problematic, slow if nothing else, etc.
  - Zak 11y ago
    The pressure-containing and mechanical operating components of a gun need to withstand a considerable amount of physical stress. Removing too much material will result in a gun that is not very durable and potentially dangerous to its user. Furthermore, in most semi-automatic pistols, the mass of the slide is part of the system that keeps the cartridge in the chamber until the pressure has dropped to a safe level. Reducing mass there requires a stiffer spring, longer slide travel or both. The smallest commercially made gun I could find currently available weighs 4 ounces: http://northamericanarms.com/firearms/s/s.html http://northamericanarms.com/firearms/s/s.html Being very low-powered, I doubt it has unbearable recoil, but it doesn't appear to have much in the way of practical use. Maybe concealment in undergarments?

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

Yes, but whether it's covered or not doesn't matter, because just like we have security theater, we have security politics. The important thing isn't enacting a new law to address a need; the important thing is to find a cause that energizes enough of your base to vote and then appear to be doing something. Bonus points if the thing you're trying to do has no chance of being enacted. If you get a lot of attention and appear to be doing the right things to the right folks? You can support actions that you personally believe would be dangerous to the republic. Your personal feelings or the end result of what you're supporting don't really matter. Apologies for the cynicism, but people should know that the political calculus plays out in this fashion. Perhaps that's the situation in this case, perhaps not. The political calculus is still what it is and we should acknowledge it.

Vivtek 11y ago
The ancient art of bullshitocracy.
- Qwertious 11y ago
  It actually makes sense if you assume two axioms: 1. Politicians are rational actors with regards to getting into and staying in office. 2. Voters are thoroughly ignorant and what sounds good to voters is not the same as what is actually the best policy. #1 makes a whole lot of sense because people who don't compete to their fullest extent will be out-competed by people who do, and the goal of getting into political office is a necessary part of fixing the government (which most politicians genuinely want to do). #2 makes sense when you look at people in the middle ages, and understand that we haven't fundamentally changed from them, we just have ACCESS to more information, which most people haven't read. Loads of people don't know jack shit about economics 101, and yet they have strong opinions on how to fix the economy. * We can extend, from these two axioms, that most politicians will not have TOO much respect for public opinion, and will therefore try to sneak through some bills that are unpopular, but (in the politician's opinion) will do a better job of actually fixing whatever they're trying to fix. That suggests that if you have enough politicians on-board with your way of "improving" the world, you can fix it in spite of the idiot public. QED, lobbying.