As most of you may or may not know federal law allows individuals to make firearms for their personal use. Such firearms cannot be made for the purpose of sale to another; this is a gray area where sometimes the sale might be allowable, but it’s poorly defined enough that one risks prosecution if they sell or transfer a home-made firearm. The BATF does state that if one is to transfer these weapons (presumably to heirs) it must be marked on the frame with the maker’s name, model number if any, caliber and city that it was manufactured in. They even specify how tall and deep these numbers and letters must be. But seriously, if you intend to make a firearm and eventually sell it legally you are better off if you obtain a manufacturer’s license. The point is that, as long as you comply with state laws and the Firearms Act you may manufacture a firearm for your own use.

I’m a knife and sword-maker by trade so I have a pretty well equipped workshop. Last year I watched a number of videos of people’s home-made firearms. In most cases these would be more properly termed ‘improvised’ firearms; zip-guns or slam-fire shotguns made from iron pipe. I thought, “I can surely do better than that.” It turns out that I could; I made a single-shot derringer chambered in .45 ACP.

It’s very solid, functions quite well and is fun to shoot… a few times at least; recoil is stout. It doesn’t like cheap ammo, but other than that it works. After that I made a single-shot .22 caliber target pistol using a similar mechanism. I’ve also modified several firearms to suit me and made several custom exotic hardwood grips for revolvers. I’ve  enjoyed making and personalizing my firearms to suit me, and everyone needs a hobby, right?

Recently I’ve found myself thinking about doing a ‘black-pipe’ shotgun build. Not some cheesy slam-fire gun; a top-break with a proper stock; something that really looks and functions like a proper gun.  I consulted online videos of other people that have done these and poked around online quite a bit. I went over various design issues and solutions, carefully worked out processes using the tools, equipment and materials that I have on hand and figured out that I could pretty much make the best top-break black-pipe shotgun around. Then I ran up against the one issue I could find no answer for…

Why?

First off I realized I don’t actually want the best black-pipe shotgun around. So why build it? Bragging rights? People with fewer tools and resources than I have have already done this. It’s not as if making one will show how clever I am; it’s hardly rocket science. And let’s be brutally honest here- the best black-pipe shotgun I can make won’t be as good as a commercially made gun that I can buy for about $100. My labor building my own would cost a lot more than $100. So in the end I’d be spending a lot of time and effort to make a not-very-good shotgun that I don’t even want.

I built the .45 ACP Derringer to see if I could. I built the .22 Target pistol at least in part to show that the first gun wasn’t a fluke, partly because someone offered the .22 barrel and it was just cool that I could make one. Neither one is a gun that I would spend money on to buy, but they were fun, interesting and challenging projects. The black pipe shotgun would not really be the same. It’s recovering old ground at this point, it’s something that others have already done pretty well and it produces a gun I won’t take any real pride in owning, having built or using. I can’t really think of a reason why I would bother.

This isn’t to say that I won’t ever do it. If I can think of something, some feature or mechanism that will ‘add coolness’ I may well do it. But until then I have plenty else that I can keep occupied with.

Firearms development is a funny thing; for centuries it crept along. A 16th Century musketeer would have had little difficulty understanding and mastering an early 19th Century firearm. Then, in the second half of that century there was an explosion of development. Metallic cartridges, repeating weapons, machine-guns and semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Then things slowed down again. A soldier from World War One would have no trouble figuring out and using modern firearms. The 20th Century was more a time of refinement than of revolution. Designs were optimized and materials science improved, but the basics remained the same.

This trend has continued into the 21st Century. manufacturing methods and materials have improved, but only relatively insignificant refinements to the weapons themselves. Projectile designs have also been refined for greater reliability, but as yet no revolutionary technology has come along.

The US Army adopted the M16 Rifle about fifty years ago, and they have several times made extensive studies of potential replacements. None of those studies succeeded in coming up with anything enough better to bother. The design has been refined and modified into other configurations (like the M4) but the basics are the same.

Firearms are an apex technology; they have reached levels of efficiency and effectiveness that make it very difficult to make significant advances. In the near future all we’re likely to see change are the ‘fiddly bits;’ how the components are arranged and what they are made of. I suppose that is good news for science-fiction writers; we don’t need to worry about the basics. In twenty, forty or fifty years our heroes will most likely rely on guns that use metallic cartridges filled with propellant and a projectile that works pretty much the way these things work now. One less thing to worry about, right?

Well, yes and no.  While the weapons haven’t changed much in recent decades and probably won’t change much for the next few decades something is going to change- the information technology revolution has come to firearms, and this will effect the way that we use them. Information systems, graphics systems, AI and combined arms are all coming together to shape the future battlescape. Here’s an example:

An infantry squad is pinned down by a heavy machine-gun in a bunker 800 meters in front of them. It is beyond the effective reach of either their individual weapons or grenade launchers. They need help.

One soldier flips a monocle attached to his helmet over his eye and extends his weapon. A camera on his weapon transmits the image of where the weapon is pointed to the monocle. He centers the cursor over the bunker and presses a button. Now a lot of things happen very quickly.

A black-box on the gun locates the weapon to within a half-inch using GPS. A laser range-finder ranges the bunker. Another system notes the weapons exact bearing and elevation and uses this information combined with the range to generate an exact GPS coordinate for the bunker, then alerts the soldier. He presses another button and a ‘call for fire’ goes out over the combat intranet.  A computer far behind the lines notes the call and consults an inventory of assets in position to respond. It makes it’s choice and sends an order.

Twelve miles from the bunker a self-propelled howitzer gets the call for fire and stops. An on-board computer consults meteorological data generated by satellites, sensors deployed by artillery or individual soldiers and drones flying between the gun and the target. It takes this data, the gun’s GPS location and consults a database about ballistics and propellant performance. By the time the vehicle has stopped, deployed it’s recoil spades and the crew has loaded the weapon the computer has a firing solution and has aimed the gun.

The gun fires a dumb, un-guided high-explosive shell with an accuracy of plus-or-minus two meters at 13 miles… thirty seconds later the bunker is vaporized and the squad can continue towards their objective. Elapsed time approximately 3 minutes.

Sounds like science-fiction, right? It isn’t; this scenario isn’t even state of the art. It actually happened in 2003 in Iraq.

The gun may stay the same, but the interface between soldier and gun- and other systems in support- will continue to improve and become easier, more intuitive, to use. We’ve seen a lot of innovation in this are already; ‘Smart-Gun’ links that allow more rapid, more precise aim under a variety of conditions by projecting a point-of impact on the soldiers optics. A sight system that does all of the calculations for the sniper and automatically adjusts the point of aim so that even a novice has a good chance of hitting a target at 1000 meters— with their first shot. Compact holographic sights- small enough to mount on a handgun- are available and becoming more affordable, reliable and robust all of the time.

Don’t get me wrong; while many of these systems will allow a novice to use a weapon more effectively skill and experience will still be needed to wring the most out of these systems. We’re a long way from the ‘Monkey pushes a button’ stage.

My advice to writers about near future weapons is this- don’t focus on the weapons themselves; focus on the interface between the gun and it’s user, and the off-board systems that will exist to support them. That s where we will see the most innovation in the near-future.

Don’t even get me started on battlefield robots…

So last summer we found ourselves temporarily living near Tacoma and, being us, we soon happened across the local gun shop and shooting range. We popped in to check the place out and while looking through the pistol case I spotted a .40 S&W Hi Point pistol. To say that this is not a gun that appeals to me would be an understatement. Ugly, bulky, heavy and cheap.

These pistols have been around for a few years now. Made in the U.S.A., these guns main claim to fame is that they are inexpensive. MSRP on the .40 S&W is $199, but they can often be found for rather less than that. They offer two ‘compact’ models, one in .380 ACP and the other in 9x19mm. Neither are particularly compact. Large-frame guns are available in .40 S&W and .45 ACP. All models are rated for +P ammunition. There are also carbine models in the three service calibers. Hi Point makes extensive use of castings in Zymex 3, an aluminum/zinc/copper alloy. The barrel, breech and mechanical parts are steel and the frame is plastic. The finish on the slide appears to be a baked-on enamel of some sort.

While this was not a gun I had any interest in owning I was somewhat intrigued; I had watched a number of Youtube video reviews of Hi Point guns and even an extreme torture-test that was quite impressive. I asked to see it, and it was pretty much what I’d expected- very basic and very, very heavy. Most of that weight is in the slide; it takes a lot of mass to employ straight-blowback in a service-caliber gun. The grip is surprisingly comfortable, with an angle that allows the gun to ‘point’ instinctively and the frame-mounted safety is reasonably easy to operate. the slide serrations are easy to grip and it’s easy to operate the slide. The gun also possessed some surprising features, like the fully-adjustable three-dot sights. Yes, the rear sight is plastic, but it works.

Out of idle curiosity I looked at the price tag- $75. Uh, what? The gun appeared new; surely they meant $175? Nope. I dithered and finally Linda said, “For God’s sake, it’s a service-caliber gun for $75 and it has a life-time guarantee.” So we bought it and I became the proud (?) owner of a gun I never expected to have. They never said why it was so cheap and I never asked. It came with the original box with all the paperwork, a trigger-lock and a Ghost-Ring sight that can be swapped in for the regular sight.

So, the details. The simple striker-fired mechanism is similar to that used in many other inexpensive pistols like the Raven and Jimenez. Unlike some of the other cheap guns of it’s type it employs three different safeties- a magazine disconnect safety, an internal drop-safety and a manual safety located at the top of the left-side grip. Unlike some other guns of this ilk it is theoretically safe to carry this gun with a round chambered and the safety on. The frame-mounted safety is small but easy to engage and disengage. The safety can also be used to lock the slide to the rear.  This is for disassembly; although the slide locks to the rear after the last round in the magazine is fired it does not engage an external slide release. One must grip the slide, pull to the rear and release it to chamber a round when a fresh magazine is inserted. The trigger pull has a lot of creep but eventually breaks cleanly and the reset is acceptable.

The single-column magazine holds ten rounds and is released by a conventional push-button located right where you’d expect it at the base of the trigger-guard. I have a fairly large hand and can easily operate all the controls without shifting (much) from a firing grip, but people with small or medium-hands will need to.  None of the controls are ambidextrous.  The trigger guard is surprisingly small for no apparent reason. there is a single-position accessory rail just ahead of the trigger-guard. Unexpectedly the magazine-well is bevelled, making it very easy to insert the magazine. Another inexplicable feature is the magazine base-plate. It’s enormous and kind of ugly. It makes an already bulky gun even more so for no reason I can see.

This is not at all a small gun; it’s overall dimensions are not exceptional for a service-pistol (excepting that magazine baseplate) but it’s thick. 1-1/4 inches thick across the grips and 1-3/8 inches across the slide. I haven’t weighed it but the term ‘metric butt-ton’ comes to mind.

I have to admit that after examining the gun I was rather impressed. It’s definitely made to be as inexpensive as possible and if you run out of ammo you could beat a whale to death with it, but for all that it is surprisingly well and thoughtfully designed.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding so on my next range trip I ran a box of American Eagle FMCFP ammo through it. To my surprise it was rather pleasant to shoot. Recoil was surprisingly mild. It is accurate and double-taps are easy to keep on-target. It was also reliable; everything worked. No malfunctions, the slide locked back when it was supposed to etc. Since then I’ve put a few hundred more rounds through it, including a mixed-bag of hollow points. No malfunctions of any kind.  From all of the reviews that I have seen this isn’t unusual, either.

This is not a gun without flaws, mind you. Recommended maintenance is to blow it out with an aerosol gun-cleaner every 300-400 rounds and run a brush down the bore. I suspect this is because stripping the weapon requires tools and is a bit of a pain. Drop the magazine, lock the slide to the rear with the safety and then drive out the roll-pin at the back of the frame with a punch or screwdriver. Pull the slide further to the rear and lift the back, then run it forward off the fixed barrel. Reverse the procedure to reassemble. It’s not all that hard but it’s kinda fiddly.

So on the one hand it’s cheap, heavy and ugly. The grips are a bit slippery for my taste. It’s bulky. On the other hand it’s tough, durable, reliable and even at MSRP it’s cheap. Would I recommend it? That depends. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it as a carry gun- it’s just too damn bulky and heavy. For a range-gun or house gun I’d say if you cannot afford better it will do the job.

Oh, and if it does break Hi Point will fix or replace it. Period. They have even replaced guns that were deliberately destroyed in destructive testing. By all accounts their customer service is superb.

Ugly is as ugly does, and from that prospective perhaps it isn’t so ugly after all. Oh who am I kidding? Yes it is… but I can live with that.