Hacker News
points by anthonypasq 3 days ago | 0 comments
a better example would be whether you could put a train from 1845 on a modern track, or fire a musketball from an M16
[–] ggreer 3 days ago
I think the oldest cartridge that would still work in a modern firearm would be .22 Short, which is from 1857.[1] It was developed into .22 Long, which was developed into .22 Long Rifle, which new firearms are still chambered in today. It wouldn't cycle a semi-auto though. Another contender would be .38 Long Colt, which is from 1875 and will work in firearms chambered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum.

The main causes of incompatibility were the transition from ball-and-powder to rimfire cartridges, then the transition from rimfire to centerfire. It's surprising how little firearms have changed in the past century. 9mm Parabellum is 125 years old. The Browning short recoil action (used by most handguns today) is over a century old.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_short

[–] toyg 2 days ago
> It's surprising how little firearms have changed in the past century.

Isn't that a function of constraints in the deployment model, which are fundamentally unchanged? A soldier needs <something> with him to hit enemies and <something else> to reload it - and the simpler the better, to facilitate difficult deployments and keep costs down. I mean, the venerable Kalashnikov is still around, despite its well-known shortcomings...

I guess we would see major developments only if we discovered/engineered materials that can perform the function in a significantly better way.

[–] ggreer 2 days ago
Modern metallurgy does allow for significantly higher chamber pressures, and this has been done in firearms such as the M7 with its 80,000psi .277 Fury.[1] Pistol cartridges can also be made smaller for the same effectiveness (allowing higher capacity in the same form factor), as has been done with .30 Super Carry.[2] But your guess is correct: They don't really catch on because a small improvement in capacity or effectiveness isn't worth changing all the manufacturing and logistics for new cartridges. 5.56mm and 9mm are good enough, and they're cheap due to their large volume of manufacturing. Any replacement would have to be much better to be worth the cost of changing over.

Most improvements have been in things like modularity, sighting systems, and standardization for mounting accessories such as lights and laser aiming modules. Better metallurgy does mean that modern firearms tend to last longer than older ones, but even a firearm from WWI can fire thousands of rounds before the bore erodes enough to hurt accuracy. I doubt we'll see any significant change in small arms unless something revolutionary comes along, such as portable energy weapons or mass drivers.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.277_Fury

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Super_Carry

[–] jeroenhd 3 days ago
If you live in a country or region where the gauge didn't change, you can put a 1845 train on a modern track just fine. If the gauge did change, you'll need a train from another country. Standard Gauge was first applied in 1825 after all.
[–] fredoralive 2 days ago
Although on modern railways whilst the locomotive might fit, the train might not be allowed to operate in normal mainline traffic or need modifications to be considered safe. A steam train on the British main lines needs to be retrofitted with an alphabet soup of AWS, TPWS and GSM-R, and the glacial rollout of ERTMS and in cab signalling will mean figuring out how to add a HMI display to a steam engine cab.
[–] jeroenhd 2 days ago
And Apple might find software that doesn't get their magical signature to be unsafe and insecure, but the old executables will run if you ignore all those constraints.
[–] Barrin92 3 days ago
>whether you could put a train from 1845 on a modern track

you can do that, in fact I know that Austria still has a mid 19th century train in regular operation (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_alt_23)

if you're looking for commuter trains a lot of early 20th century ones still operate around the world.

[–] delta_p_delta_x 2 days ago
> whether you could put a train from 1845 on a modern track

This quite literally happens all the time in the UK. There are heritage railways, and steam rolling stock regularly shows up on various routes as part of heritage rides.

On the other hand, I ride almost daily on a track bed that was laid almost 180 years ago, and through tunnels and on viaducts that are equally as old. The rails, sleepers, signals, and rolling stock have all changed, no doubt, but the base infrastructure is old hat.

The oldest bits of the London Underground are from 1863. The tunnels are exactly the same, the stations and stairways, and even some of the sign boards completely unchanged from then.

Railways are the epitome of forever infrastructure.

[–] wildzzz 3 days ago
Many militaries are still buying rifles that chamber a cartridge introduced in 1891 (7.62x54mmR). I'd argue a cartridge initially developed for a long bolt action rifle (Mosin-Nagant) that can now be fired out of a variant of a AK-patten select-fire bull-pup (Vepr) fits the analogy.
[–] ssenssei 3 days ago
you just put out the bat signal for two types of geeks & nerds
[–] Cthulhu_ 3 days ago
Why train when you can just walk? (yeah this a snarky remark to the grandparent comment)