Primer actuated, semi auto shotgun?

[Bill Akins]

I've been giving some thought to some of John Garand's primer actuated semi auto experiments, and wondering how that might be applied to a semi auto shotgun.

A direct blowback firearm (later correction, I meant to say "open bolt" not "blowback") of any kind according to the BATFE is too easy to convert into a machine gun, and they won't approve it. Not sure what the BATFE "opinion" is on open bolt DELAYED blowback firearms. But a locked bolt, primer actuated semi auto action, would be okay and conform to BATFE standards.

I have been giving some thought on how that might be done. My thoughts are similar to Garand's, of having a hole milled out of the bolt face that is in line behind the primer, that would allow the primer to partially set back a certain distance, but without totally coming out of the shell head so no pressure would be lost. The setback primer would impinge upon a spring loaded rod that the spring of the rod would delay the rearward movement of the rod.

The spring loaded rod, upon its spring delayed rearward movement, would act to move upon a cam or some sort of mechanism that would be further mechanically delayed before said mechanism would cause the bolt to become unlocked once pressure was at a safe level to unlock the bolt. Then the bolt would fly back under safe residual pressure still left in the barrel, compress a spring, eject the spent shell, and load a new one, semi automatically. A tiny primer being setback at great pressure and speed, would do all the work necessary to operate the entire action.

All without any recoiling barrel carrying a recoiling bolt with it, (like the Browning auto 5 operates), and without the Benelli inertia system that won't allow the gun to be braced or it will not operate, and without any type of gas system other than the residual gas left in the barrel when safe pressures are reached to allow unlocking.

For those familiar with Garand's experiments on primer setback, this is somewhat similar.

I am wondering if it would be ammunition sensitive due to the tension of the spring on the rod located behind the hole in the bolt face. Perhaps that spring could be adjustable to accommodate different shell loadings.

Here's an article on a Clarke carbine that utilized Garand style primer setback.
When it opens, click on the small pics of the article and then click on them again to enlarge them, to read them.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/ligh...larke-carbine/

I have never seen such a primer actuated type of shotgun produced or even a prototype of one. Have any of you?


.

[NoSecondBest]

I haven't but to be honest, I can't even imagine any need for it. It's something that just has no demand, so why bother to invest the time or the money? I've been shooting a lot of shotgun for years and never heard anyone discussing this subject. Could you elaborate on what benefits this idea would have to offer?

[Virginian]

It has been many years since Garand's experiments, and NO ONE has picked up on it as an action for a viable sporting or military firearm. That ought to tell you something.
You are up against trying to reinvent the wheel in a practical sense.

[jaguarxk120]

Look at today's designs and you will find a trend toward less parts and parts doing many functions. Ease of manufacture and common materials.

[barnbwt]

"direct blowback firearm of any kind according to the BATFE is too easy to convert into a machine gun, and they won't approve it."

The ATF has approved countless direct blowback firearms, like the CX4, Jennings pistols, and 10/22's. I believe you are meaning to reference "open bolt" firearms, which detonate primers via intentional slamfire, as opposed to using an independently actuated firing pin (struck by hammer or striker).

The reason for the BATFE opinion is that any open bolt can be made into a machine gun by simply removing the fire control group (sear, disconnector, etc.) and releasing the bolt from the drawn-back position. It would fire until the magazine was emptied. Probably one of the more logical of their rulings, to be honest (no one's figured out how to make an open-bolt that can't be made to fire F/A without the FCG as of my writing this)

For that reason, the Bureau requires that the bolt body fully chamber the round, while the firing mechanism is held back until released by the trigger pull. If the gun is designed to only be fireable when the bolt is fully forward with the hammer/striker held back, removing the FCG will only result in the hammer/striker following the bolt, and is far less likely to result in multiple discharges. BTW, a direct blowback 12ga would require a 10lb bolt (source: orions-hammer.com), and delayed wouldn't be much less. There's just too much bolt thrust from all that case-head surface area to allow it to operate the bolt directly (but a locked breech recoil/gas op allows merely the shot recoil to bear on the mechanism, so everything can be smaller/lighter)

I had a similar idea as that of Browning's you have described (only using gas from intentionally pierced primers to operate a piston in the bolt) and the consensus was that such a mechanism would quickly erode the parts involved. Even allowing the primer to shift back a mere .02" or so would probably result in ruptured primers at least occaisionally, and could cause even more primers to fall out and jam stuff up. Thick primers could help, but they would also be harder to set off. It would also be difficult to design a reliable delay/locking system that depended on such a small amount of travel, since even the slightest bit of wear would change the delay greatly. A "hesitation lock" like the Remington 51 pistol inside the bolt body might be an option; it allows the bolt/slide to blowback directly only .1" or so before it's stopped, but the slide continues on its own momentum and unlocks the bolt a bit later (in the meantime, the breech is locked).

If you aren't already a member, check out weaponsguild.com . Pretty much any ideas are taken there, and are more likely to be enthusiastically received (no fault of the membership here; this forum is simply geared more towards production guns so there is less experience with custom stuff and design work).

"You are up against trying to reinvent the wheel in a practical sense."
That phrase would probably get you banned from weaponsguild , and I'm sure John Moses Browning heard it an awful lot

TCB

[Bill Akins]

NoSecondBest wrote:
I haven't but to be honest, I can't even imagine any need for it. It's something that just has no demand, so why bother to invest the time or the money?

There is a demand (if the public knew of the benefits). The public at large just doesn't realize it because they don't realize the benefits they can get from it because they don't know anything about it.

NoSecondBest wrote:
I've been shooting a lot of shotgun for years and never heard anyone discussing this subject. Could you elaborate on what benefits this idea would have to offer?

See my above answer. Most of the public at large are unaware of the benefits of a primer actuated system. I'll be glad to elaborate on the benefits of that system.

No gas tube nor gas piston, so it decreases weight and eliminates cleaning the fouling from the tube and piston as well as makes the firearm and action more streamlined. It also translates into a lighter firearm overall. Go to this link that I posted before. Now click on the small picture icons of text at the top of the page on the Clarke carbine and read about the Clarke primer actuated carbine. It was in the same general configuration as the M1 carbine and shot the .30 carbine round. Yet the action of the Clarke was a full 50% lighter than the M1 carbine's action. Read those icons and you will learn a lot more of what the benefits are. Here's the link again....
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/ligh...larke-carbine/

And here's a short excerpt from those text icons text telling you more about the benefits of the Clarke carbine primer actuated system (but read all of the icons anyway to learn more):

"The Clarke action is so small and neat and compact, without any projections, that it places no restrictions whatsoever on the exterior design of the piece, be it a shoulder arm or sub machine gun. Hence, we are not interested in the Clarke carbine or rifle as an arbitrary design. It could be any desired shape or size with that little unobtrusive action. (My note, did you see that? They are saying the same system could be used on other size guns, like a shotgun)
The one we tried happened to be in the conventional pattern of the Service carbine. It is significant, however, and interesting to note that the Clarke is lighter in weight even with its much heavier barrel than the Service carbine. Its action is 50 per cent lighter and its primer thrust is nearly twice as long as in previous designs, enabling it to do four times the work. The Clarke action is not merely unlocked, as was the Garand, (My note, primer actuated Garand) but is completely operated by the popping of its primer. Other special features of the Clarke design are: the enclosed receiver, the double-operating cams (on opposite sides of the bolt shell), and the trigger mechanism with its simple toggle disconnector."

How's that for benefits? Then why wasn't it produced? Good question. Because (as you can see in reading the article) it was 1944 and the military and armament plants were already tooled up and producing the M1 carbine, which had already been used and proven in combat. So although the Clarke was superior in all respects to the M1 carbine, it got left behind. It was a case of: "Yeah, it's better, but unproven in combat, and we are going to go ahead with a proven design that is already in production and don't have the time to take to test it in combat and gear up for production of it when we have a war to win". That's about the size of why it didn't replace the M1 carbine. And so it goes as with so many other designs that were better, but came at the wrong time.

And so we grew up with the M1 carbine and most never even heard of the Clarke carbine or the Pederson or Garand experiments on primer actuation. But they could be used today to create a very light weight shotgun with no recoiling barrel and no gas system. The only reason the Garand primer actuated system lost out to Garands gas system, was because the military had gone to the 30-06 m1 cartridge which was much more powerful than the 30-06 cartridge used since 1906. And for some reason the new (at that time) more powerful round would not work well with the primer actuated system for the military. So Garand went to his gas system for the final version of the Garand rifle.

However, the 12 gauge shot shell does not have anywhere near the pressures of the m1 30-06 cartridge. So a primer actuated system could be used for a 12 gauge. So why hasn't it been done? It's kind of like the old saying: "Builders build what people buy, and people buy what builders build".
Also because manufacturers know that even if they have an excellent design, if the public with its conditioned mindset to what is "normal", perceives it as being "different", they will be hesitant to buy it. We humans are a strange lot. Soooo, they continue to manufacture more familiar type of weapons that the public is used to, so the public will buy them. But there is no reason a 12 gauge primer actuated shotgun couldn't be produced.



.

[Bill Akins]

Virginian-in-LA wrote:
It has been many years since Garand's experiments, and NO ONE has picked up on it as an action for a viable sporting or military firearm. That ought to tell you something. You are up against trying to reinvent the wheel in a practical sense.

No, that's doesn't tell me anything and I completely discount that as typical humans and manufacturers being afraid of being innovative for fear that something "new" will scare the public and they won't buy it no matter how superior it is. And as a result of that non action on their part, people like yourself come to a mistaken opinion that the primer actuated system did not work, even though it did. It just didn't work well enough with the newer more powerful M1 30-06 cartridge of that day that replaced the lower powered 30-06 that was used since 1906. If you had studied Garand's primer actuated system, you would know this. But most people have never even heard of it, much less had the inclination to study it. Not finding any fault with you, it's endemic to the whole human race. It reminds me of Da Vinci's quote of: "Does anything ever get done?" Alluding to his frustration with how technology and innovation are overlooked by the public and manufacturers and how incorrect opinions get formed with someone just hearing a few sentences about something without really knowing about it.

I have studied Garand's experiments in primer actuation. I recommend anyone to do the same. Garand stopped using his primer actuation, not because the system didn't work, but because it didn't work well enough with the military's newer (at that time) more powerful M1 30-06 cartridge which was more powerful than the 30-06 cartridge the military had been using since 1906. So it wasn't that the primer actuated system didn't work, it just didn't work well enough with that more powerful cartridge. But it certainly could work well with the lower pressures of a 12 gauge shell as it worked very well in the Clarke carbine in m1 carbine cartridge which was also much lower pressure than the m1 30-06 cartridge.

It isn't re-inventing the wheel at all. It's simply a technology that has never had it full potential explored because gas systems became the hotsie cocktail of the day and have remained so for high pressure cartridge military arms which extended over into the civilian market. And what people and manufacturers have overlooked, is that the primer actuated system can work quite well on lower pressure cartridges and shells. But just like many at this forum have never even heard of primer actuation, so have many designers and manufacturers never heard of it. So they don't innovate on it.

Just like when I did a patent search on bumpfiring before I applied for my patent on bumpfire stocks back in 1998. I was AMAZED to find in my patent search before I filed my patent that no one had thought to invent a dedicated stock that would stay stationary while the rest of the firearm moved back and forth within a stock to enable the trigger to engage, and disengage the trigger finger, to fire at the speed of a machine gun while still being one shot per single function of the trigger.

Why hadn't anyone thought about doing that and patenting it before I did?
Why? Simple, because they didn't. The same is true in this instance. Manufacturers simply aren't using the technology even though it is viable, simply.....because....they aren't. Or they just didn't think about it. There is no reason not to use that technology.




.

[Bill Akins]

Bill Akins wrote:
"direct blowback firearm of any kind according to the BATFE is too easy to convert into a machine gun, and they won't approve it."

Barnbwt wrote:
The ATF has approved countless direct blowback firearms, like the CX4, Jennings pistols, and 10/22's. I believe you are meaning to reference "open bolt" firearms, which detonate primers via intentional slamfire, as opposed to using an independently actuated firing pin (struck by hammer or striker).

You're right Barn. I meant to say "open bolt", not "direct blowback". My mistake. I knew what I meant, I just wrote it wrong. As you can see further in my post that you reference, I used "open bolt" in describing the same thing. Thanks for the catch though.

Barnbwt wrote:
I had a similar idea as that of Browning's you have described (only using gas from intentionally pierced primers to operate a piston in the bolt)

I believe you are meaning to reference Garand, not Browning, regarding the primer actuation aren't you Barn?

Garand and Clarke didn't have the problems you envision regarding primer setback Barn. In fact the Clarke carbine had an excellently long stroke and plenty of power to operate the entire mechanism with just using primer setback.

I am a member of the Weapons Guild Barn. You are right, they are more bent towards innovative concepts than most here. But I hang out here most of the time even though I'm a member of close to 100 or so firearm sites in all states across the net. I like the black powder forum here a lot. So it's just convenient for me to post here if I'm already here for another forum. Plus I'd like to think that maybe some of my posts might make some people more educated about some things they might not have known about. If most of the people I talk to are tinkerers, inventors, engineers, machinists and the like, then other folks never get to hear what I'm talking about and how can they find out about things if you don't talk about it where they are? I may have to explain things more here than at the Weapons Guild, but I don't mind that. I learn a lot here and I like learning and helping others to learn, and that's what it's all about.


.

[Mike Irwin]

Primer actuation adds a level of complexity and fine engineering and machining that is really overkill in a shotgun.

The primary reason why Garand had to abandon the primer actuation system wasn't more powerful ammunition -- it was the move by the military to adopt crimped in primers (which happened in the late 1920s).

If your primer is held in place with a crimp, there's no guarantee that there's going to be enough primer setback to operate the system.

My primary concern about it being made to work with a shotgun is that typical shotshells operate well under 20,000 PSI; often in the range of 11,000 psi. I'm not sure if that's enough to get reliable primer setback in the modern cup primer or not.

.30 Carbine, on the other hand, had a working pressure of, IIRC, about 40,000 to 45,000 psi.

[Bill Akins]

Mike Irwin wrote:
Primer actuation adds a level of complexity and fine engineering and machining that is really overkill in a shotgun.

Mike, what you said could be true of any semi auto shotgun. Some people might think that an over under double barrel is all that's needed. When you really think about it, any semi auto firearm: "adds a level of complexity and fine engineering and machining...", that some people might think is "overkill" in a firearm.

Mike Irwin wrote:
The primary reason why Garand had to abandon the primer actuation system wasn't more powerful ammunition -- it was the move by the military to adopt crimped in primers (which happened in the late 1920s).
If your primer is held in place with a crimp, there's no guarantee that there's going to be enough primer setback to operate the system.
My primary concern about it being made to work with a shotgun is that typical shotshells operate well under 20,000 PSI; often in the range of 11,000 psi. I'm not sure if that's enough to get reliable primer setback in the modern cup primer or not. .30 Carbine, on the other hand, had a working pressure of, IIRC, about 40,000 to 45,000 psi.

Mike, go to this link and then left click again on the page to enlarge it to read....http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-c...kecarbine2.jpg

(also this link for page two of the article, left click again to enlarge)...http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-c...kecarbine3.jpg

At that first link, for the first page of that 1944 article, you will see where it says:.....

"Laboratory investigations have revealed that it takes 10,000 pounds of pressure to start the primer and pop it out of its pocket, whether it is clinched in or unclinched. This is true of the bigger sporting and military cartridges, such as the .30-'06, and of the smaller sizes, such as the M1 Carbine cartridge."


That shows that the heavier primer "clinch" (as the article puts it), or "crimp" (as we more commonly know the term) makes no discernible difference and that 10,000 lbs of pressure will start the primer to pop out no matter whether it is tightly "clinched" or "crimped" or not. So it could not have been the heavier crimp on the primer of the latest (at that time) more powerful .30-'06 M1 brand of ammo (as opposed to the weaker .30-'06 1906 earlier ammo) that influenced Garand to stop his primer setback prototyping.

I'm not totally sure what DID cause Garand to stop that, but it wasn't primer crimp, because as we see, the .30-'06 cartridge has more than enough pressure to pop its primer whether it is tightly crimped or not. I haven't been able to definitely find out what did cause Garand to stop his development of primer activation for the military rifle, but it could have been several other things.

For instance, since Garand was specifically working on developing a semi auto rifle for our military, it could have been as simple as the military telling him they wanted a gas operated system and that they weren't interested in a primer activated system. Or it could have been the primer activated system did not hold up as well in endurance torture testing. Or it could have been that Garand was disgusted with the military switching back and forth on him regarding cartridges. First the military was going to keep the weaker 1906 version of the .30-'06, then they were talking about adopting a .276 cartridge, then they switched back again to the .30-'06 only in a more powerful incarnation.

So perhaps Garand just got sick and tired of redoing his primer setback prototypes to conform to a fickle military constantly switching cartridges on him. I can see how it would be much easier to simply increase or decrease the gas port on a gas system to account for different cartridge loadings, however in a primer setback system you can't do that and have to do a lot of redesigning of the system if pressures drastically change. So simply increasing or decreasing the gas port to allow for more or less gas would be simple to do if the military switched on him again,....and perhaps that was what Garand was thinking.

I've done a lot of reading on Garand's primer setback experimentation in books, but there isn't a whole lot on the net. Being that Garand's experimentation was going on neigh on to 90 years ago now, it's getting harder and harder to find accurate information on it, and because it wasn't produced, many people today have mistaken opinions about it and just think it didn't work, even though it did. I can only speculate, but would like to know the real actual reasons Garand dropped his primer activated system for the M1 Garand rifle, but it wasn't because of the heavier primer crimp since .30-'06 pressures are high enough to overcome a heavily crimped primer.

Mike as you mentioned, most shotshells operate in the 11,000 psi range. As we see according to that article on the primer setback Clarke carbine, it said:..."10,000 lbs of pressure will start the primer to pop out no matter whether it is tightly "clinched" or "crimped" or not."

So if a shotgun shell typically operates at 11,000 psi, and (as we read in that Clarke article) it takes 10,000 psi to pop the primer back, then the typical shotgun shell has met that requirement by 1000 psi, and could work as a primer setback system.




.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm familiar with the Ness article. One of my favorite activities during my lunch hours while on staff was to head to American Rifleman's internal reference library and read back issues.

One mistake I think you're making is that, based on a single non-specific line, you're assuming that increased cartridge pressure was the cause of the problems experienced with the primer activation design.

And yes, primer setback will happen no matter whether the primer is crimped or not.

The primary question is whether ENOUGH setback will occur, and often enough to ensure that the weapon functions reliabily, both in optimal and in extreme conditions.

Ness' article never addresses the root cause of the problem. IIRC, I believe it is Hatcher in his Notebook writeup (it may have been in one of Brophy's, Ruth's or Ludwig Olsen's books) on the early Garand development efforts, indicates that the heavy primer staking interfered with reliable primer setback, making operation of the Garand design sufficiently unreliable to continue with development.


"Laboratory investigations have revealed that it takes 10,000 pounds of pressure to start the primer and pop it out of its pocket, whether it is clinched in or unclinched. This is true of the bigger sporting and military cartridges, such as the .30-'06, and of the smaller sizes, such as the M1 Carbine cartridge."

But yet, Ness was not addressing shotshells. He was talking solely about rifle cartridges, and we don't know if that statement includes shotshells or not.

It's very likely that all-brass shotshells, which use standard-style primers, would be included in that.

As I said, modern shotshells use a completely different type of primer, a two-piece primer, so we have no clue how pressure affects that style primer.

It may act the same way, or it may act completely differently.


"Mike, what you said could be true of any semi auto shotgun. Some people might think that an over under double barrel is all that's needed. When you really think about it, any semi auto firearm: "adds a level of complexity and fine engineering and machining...", that some people might think is "overkill" in a firearm."

To the best of my knowledge, any patents for primer-activation have (or shoudl have) lapsed, which means that anyone and any company is free to develop, manufacture, and profit from those lapsed patents.

If the people/companies who design firearms for fun and profit haven't picked up on primer activation after 90 years, one has to wonder why.

I have no doubt that every manufacturer is familiar with the concept and some may have even attempted to design firearms based on the concept.

I think it's additionally very telling that, while Ness is extremely laudatory about the Clarke carbine's merits, and he predicted big things for it, the design went absolutely nowhere, either militarily or commercially.

The military tested the Clarke extensively, and found it to have a significant number of problems during endurance testing (http://www.forgottenweapons.com/ligh...larke-carbine/). The ordnance board did think that the method of operation had merit, but there's no indication on the linked site whether those endurance testing malfunctions were related to the method of operation or not.

To the best of my knowledge, fewer than 50 Clarke carbines were manufactured, and virtually none are left. There's one at the Smithsonian, there are several in the Aberdeen Proving Ground's collections, and there are supposedly copies at the old Springfield Armory and at West Point's museum. Others are apparently in the hands of collectors.

Ultimately, though, I think the most telling aspect of all of this is that no commercial firearms manufacturer has, to the best of my knowledge, ever considered bringing such a gun to market in the United States.

[johnwilliamson062]

I am quite certain many people did think of a bumpfire stocks. I wouldn't be surprised if several had built some sort of functional prototype in 1998. What they lacked is the initiative and business knowledge to bring it to market.

I think the most telling aspect of all of this is that no commercial firearms manufacturer has, to the best of my knowledge, ever considered bringing such a gun to market in the United States.

How long did it take to get a polymer revolver? How many people said it was the biggest mistake Ruger ever made? Until they hit shelves that is.

The design does sound to be more complicated to me. It sounds like it relies on several small precision machined parts that are absorbing considerable force with each shot. That translate to expensive production and maintenance to my ears.

Shotgun primers are considerably different than rifle primers. Is that going to be an insurmountable problem? Probably not.

Is there a market for shotguns that function no more effectively than other shotguns on the market but cost significantly more both at purchase and to maintain b/c of a novel feature such as a unique action that saves a few pounds? Yes, especially if you engrave it. More so than any other gun type. Is it big enough to make a commercial product successful? No idea. My guess is you could sell custom one off guns at a high enough price to keep a couple good machinists and engravers employed. Larger scale isn't unbelievable.

At the very least you will learn a lot in this endeavor and walk away with an incredible one of a kind prototype. You will probably find out why Garand abandoned the design. There have been considerable metallurgical and machining advances in that time. Just make sure you document why you threw out each idea as you go so 80 years from now someone isn't trying to reinvent your reinvention of the Garand design b/c it would have worked if people on a forum hadn't told you not to do it.

[James K]

One thing that could be done without spending a lot of money would be to set up a test rig, with a bolt locked in place (by some other means) that would have a primer or primer cup size movable piston. Firing the "gun" (it would be just a shotgun barrel and a receiver of some sort) with instrumentation should tell whether enough force is exerted by the primer setback to actuate a gun's mechanism. IMHO, such a device would cost a few hundred dollars. It would be fairly easy to convert a single barrel break-open shotgun with the receiver drilled out and tapped for a screw-in firing pin/piston.

Then, if that shows promise, get a cheap pump or autoloading shotgun and modify it. That is the way inventors have worked for centuries; no doubt CAD/CAM would be useful, but might not really show if the idea is workable.

As to market, or whether anyone would buy it, that is a question that can't be answered. Market surveys showed a lot of demand for a new-made Luger, but the reality had little demand. On the other hand, most people were not keen on a new auto pistol, there being good ones already on the market, but Bill Ruger went ahead anyway, with some small success.

Jim

[Mike Irwin]

"How long did it take to get a polymer revolver?"

About 35 years, if you take the Glock as the starting point of the successful use of polymer.

Primer activated designs? Those have been around, at his point, for about 100 years.

Makes it pretty clear to me that it's NOT a better mousetrap.



There's one other factor that needs to be considered in all of this.

At the time Garand was working, he was trying to develop a successful self-loading rifle for military use.

He was attempting to blaze a new technological trail.

Any new shotgun action type would be coming into a VERY different landscape.

It's a landscape populated with VERY successful semi-auto shotguns.

Short recoil (Benelli and Beretta), long recoil (Browning's A-5), and gas operated (Remington, Mossberg, Savage, Browning, and on and on) are all proven performers of known quantity and quality.

While it's certainly possible that someone could successfully enter that market with a primer-activated action, I think it would be much more likely that people would look at it as an interesting novelty and would continue to purchase the known quantities.

[Bill Akins]

John Williamson062 wrote:
I am quite certain many people did think of a bumpfire stocks. I wouldn't be surprised if several had built some sort of functional prototype in 1998.

That would be me.
In 1996 I built two functional prototypes of bumpfire stocks. One for a MAK-90 rifle and one for the SKS rifle. I still have both those wooden prototype stocks in addition to several other prototype stocks. Others may have done it, but none of them patented it like I did. I applied for my patent in 1998 and received it in 2000. If anyone else built any prototype dedicated bumpfire stocks before I did, there is no record of it after an exhaustive search by Fostech Outdoor's attorneys last year. There was a paddle with a dowel in it that was built before my prototypes, that you held up next to the rifle with the dowel in the trigger guard, but it wasn't the same thing and wasn't specifically a dedicated bumpfire stock and the original firearm's entire stock and action had to recoil, unlike my design where the stock stayed stationary while the action reciprocated back and forth WITHIN the stock.

I agree with you that I believe a market would be there for a primer activated shotgun. I also do not think it would be more complicated than current Benelli's or Brownings, Remingtons, etc. In fact I believe it would be much much less complicated and lighter and easier to keep clean as well being it wouldn't be operated by a gas system that has to be disassembled to be cleaned. All you'd have to do is swab out the barrel, spray down the bolt (without taking it out of the receiver) spray a bit of lube on the bolt, and that would be the extent of the cleaning required. Simple and easy to maintain. No standard gas tube with piston system and no moving barrel, and no inertia bolt like the Benelli (or perhaps more correctly no delayed blowback bolt which it could be argued the Benelli is once one studies the bolt design).

Yes technically a primer activated system is a gas activated system that uses a sort of piston, being that the primer is being blown back by gas pressure and acting like an extremely short stroke piston. But the difference is that there is no gas block nor piston tube nor piston in the usual sense that we associate with those item. Also the other difference is that since the primer never totally leaves the pocket of the cartridge, there is no loss of gas pressure and all fouling is going down the barrel, thus there is no fouling outside the barrel to clean except for a bit of residual fouling on the bolt and receiver that is easily sprayed and brushed off without disassembly of any kind.

The military has some pretty extensive torture tests for firearms it considers. Much more drastic than anything a shotgun using sportsman would ever encounter in the field. Whatever it was that made Garand discontinue his primer activated rifle system, I do not think would be of import to the operation of a shotgun used by sportsmen. We know the system worked because of Garand, Pederson, Clarke, and others' earlier work in that field even before them. So it's not like it didn't work, it did. Just for some reason our military decided not to use it.

There is very little new under the sun. Newton's law and Occam's razor still apply. How long did the (supposedly) obsolete Gatling gun sit dormant before in the '40's and '50's G.E. decided to experiment with it by putting an electric motor on an ORIGINAL Gatling gun to see what it would do. And even then that wasn't an original thought since Gatling had done that himself back in the late 19th century. But as we see, the concept and features of the Gatling gun sat dormant for almost 40 or more years once the Maxim and Brownings came out. Only to be resurrected over 40 years later after it was considered inferior to regular machine guns, when it was resurrected into the "Mini-gun" of today. And as I said, it wasn't really "resurrected" as an electric powered Gatling, because Gatling had already used an electric motor on one in the latter 19th century. It's just that our old fogey military commanders in charge were concerned about using a supposedly "wasteful" amount of ammunition. So it never went anywhere and the military stuck with crank fire until they obsoleted the Gatling for the Maxim, Colt potato digger and Browning designs.

If internet forums had existed back then, then people would be saying that an idea for an electric powered Gatling was too "complex and machined" and would never catch on because "we" had been there and done that, and that if it had worked, the military would have been using it. And then 40 or so years later what happens? The concept gets revisited by G.E. like it was something new when it was not, and becomes a huge success as the "Mini-gun". Nothing new about the electric Gatling that Gatling himself electric powered many decades earlier. What was "new" was human perceptions changed as well as the old fogey cavalry generals who couldn't understand the value of a "wasteful" bullet hose were all dead by then and replaced with younger, fresher minds more open to the realities of warfare strategy and advancing warfare technology.

I believe the same will be true in the future regarding primer activation. Like the Gatling, it too has sat dormant for many decades (since the 1920's early '30's). I believe it will come back in the future and then the public at large, (just as in the case of the electric powered Gatling), will think it is something "new" when it is not.

James K wrote:
Then, if that shows promise, get a cheap pump or autoloading shotgun and modify it. That is the way inventors have worked for centuries; no doubt CAD/CAM would be useful, but might not really show if the idea is workable.

Exactly James. I thought about doing that very thing. Might get around to it one day, but I have a few other designs I want to build first. But that idea and the idea in general of primer activation is always not far from my mind. To me it makes such good sense. Throw away the gas tube and piston, the recoiling barrel or inertia bolt (or more correctly the delayed blowback bolt), and instead use a simple unlocking system that relies on a small movement of the primer being setback. You could even have an adjustment to allow the recessed bolt head's pocket for the primer to have more or less tension on the piece the primer pushes against, to enable the use of different loads. I can't envision a more simple, lightweight and easy to clean and maintain semi-auto system.

Mike Irwin wrote:
Primer activated designs? Those have been around, at his point, for about 100 years. Makes it pretty clear to me that it's NOT a better mousetrap.

Not really Mike. Primer activation may have been around about 100 years as a concept and in old prototypes form, but not in the general shooting public's mindset. The average shooter then, nor today, isn't even aware of the concept. By the 1940's when G.E. stuck an electric motor on an original Gatling to test it, the Gatling had been around about 80 years by that time. (Even longer if you consider Ezra Ripley's design as well as the Puckle gun as precursors to the Gatling). Would it have been clear to you that the Gatling wasn't a better mousetrap than a standard machine gun just because it hadn't been generally utilized with an electric motor? You have to keep an open mind. Just because something has been around as a concept and a few prototypes made without any commercial success doesn't mean it won't come back decades later and be a huge success as with the Gatling as a "Mini-gun", and indeed as with the semi-auto concept itself becoming viable with the advent of smokeless ammunition, wherein it didn't gum up as badly as it did with early prototypes that used black powder.

Mike Irwin wrote:
There's one other factor that needs to be considered in all of this.
At the time Garand was working, he was trying to develop a successful self-loading rifle for military use.

Exactly, and Garand was concentrating EXCLUSIVELY on designing for a military application, not a civilian one.

Mike Irwin wrote:
He (Garand) was attempting to blaze a new technological trail.

True in a way, but others prior to Garand had experimented with primer activation.

Mike Irwin wrote:
Any new shotgun action type would be coming into a VERY different landscape. It's a landscape populated with VERY successful semi-auto shotguns. Short recoil (Benelli and Beretta), long recoil (Browning's A-5), and gas operated (Remington, Mossberg, Savage, Browning, and on and on) are all proven performers of known quantity and quality. While it's certainly possible that someone could successfully enter that market with a primer-activated action, I think it would be much more likely that people would look at it as an interesting novelty and would continue to purchase the known quantities.

Yes those designs are successful. However they have more weight, parts, are more complicated than needed, and require more cleaning than a primer activated system would.

Mike your last sentence is certainly true of humans. They buy what they are used to seeing, what they PERCEIVE as being "normal" to them. Ultimately it all goes back to the phrase I am fond of using:.....

"Builder's build what people buy, and people buy what builder's build".

It's the same with concrete and foam dome home construction. No wood to rot or for bugs to eat. No roofs to replace. No trusses and no interior load bearing walls except for the exterior dome walls. A furnace is unnecessary and it requires only a very small minimal A/C unit like a rooftop unit on an RV, because it is insulated with 4 or more inches of concrete sprayed over 3 to 4 inches of foam that is 360 degrees around the dome. They blow up like a balloon and are foamed inside then wired with rebar and shot with shotcrete. They are expected to last at least 300 years an possibly thousands of years while homes of normal concrete block and wood construction last MAYBE a century if they are lucky.

Hurricanes and tornadoes pass right over the domes without damage since it has no angular surfaces to catch the wind. The only maintenance required is an easily applied rolled on re-coating of the dome exterior every five to ten years to prevent UV rays from damaging the exterior airform surface. That's all. I have studied dome homes and their construction for years and intend to build a modest one on my acre next door in the near future. If interested, you can find out about them by visiting the major dome home site at these below links....

http://www.monolithic.com/

and here....

http://www.monolithic.com/topics/about-us

So with all those benefits, why don't more people know about monolithic dome homes? Simple, because they don't. Because most people haven't researched it nor even heard about it. Because most humans don't like change and stay with what they know rather than explore superior possibilities. Because it looks "alien" to them and ultimately the main reason is because.....

...."Builder's build what people buy, and people buy what builder's build".

Which that saying basically says is that most people and builders are mentally lazy and uninventive and just go with whatever is the established norm at any given time. There are exceptions of course, but that is generally true of humanity.

The same is true of the firearms industry. It takes time for the general population to become even AWARE of the existence of a new product, much less its benefits. Same is true of primer activated firearm systems.

But mark my words, if someone (probably not me) came out with a viable primer activated rifle or shotgun for the civilian market that wasn't expected to pass arduous military torture tests that would never be encountered by the average sportsman, that had less parts, less weight, and WAY less cleaning, that did the same job of other designs, then eventually the public at large will want it. But whoever does it will have to overcome the stodginess of typical human thinking of....once again.....

"Builder's build what people buy, and people buy what builder's build".



.

[Mike Irwin]

"Not really Mike. Primer activation may have been around about 100 years as a concept and in old prototypes form, but not in the general shooting public's mindset."

That's very true, and it's also very destructive toward the concept every competing successfully with the multiple other systems that are, and have been, in the shooter's conscious for many years.

The point you're missing about mounting the motor on the Gatling gun is that it didn't just make the old, tired Gatling better, it created an entire new weapons system that solved a whole slew of issues that were cropping up in the jet age.

The ability of the Vulcan system to solve those issues by essentially merging the firepower of 10 guns into one package while also addressing issues such as weight, where to put that many guns in a modern fighter, overheating, ammunition storage, is what made the Vulcan system successful.

Contrasted against that, what problems would the primer activation action solve?

Would it solve reliability issues inherenet in short- or long-recoil or gas operated guns? No, because all three systems have proven to be exceptionally reliable over decades of use.

Would it enhance mechanical simplicity? Over the short- or long-recoil systems, no it wouldn't. The primer activated system is MORE mechanically complex. Where it would stand against gas operated guns is not as clear, but I suspect it would be a draw and certainly not a clear win for either.

Would it reduce cost? Again, likely no.

So, I ask you, compared to the marriage of the Gatlin gun to the electric motor, what would the primer activation action give us?

One also needs to think of all of the new and innovative ideas in the firearms field that have been out and out flops.

Remington's Elektronix firing system is barely hanging on by a thread despite its incredibly faster "lock times."

The Voere caseless cartridge system is now a footnote in history because no one accepted the "advantage" of the weight savings of shedding the brass case vs. the inability to reload and tailor your loads to best tune your rifle.

The rotating barrel pistol keeps trying to break into the public fold despite the concept having been tested, and abandoned, by none other than John Browning. Once again, what inherent advantages does it have that makes it better than other designs that are proven and familiar?



"Yes those designs are successful. However they have more weight, parts, are more complicated than needed, and require more cleaning than a primer activated system would."

Really. Really?

I'd be willing to possibly accept that when compared to a gas operated system, but I have serious, SERIOUS reservations if that would be even remotely true when comparing the primer activated action against something like a Benelli or Beretta short-recoil gun.

But, one again, you've neatly skirted around a question that I keep asking, and which you haven't addressed.

If this supposed mousetrap is so vastly superior to what's currently out there, why hasn't one of the major manufacturer's pushed such a design to market?

Why, in the absolutely INCREDIBLE period of civilian firearms development that followed World War II, when the starved American consumer would literally buy anything the companies put in front of them, did they not jump on the primer activation system?

Winchester's people would have been the obvious ones to pick it up given how closely Winchester worked with Garand and Springfield Armory in producing the M1.

But they didn't, and I truly believe it's because they knew that a primer activated action offered no real advantages over the other action types that were then in use.

So.

Based on the fact that Garand (and every other developer who ever worked with it) dropped the concept and never picked it back up again, and

No major (or even minor) manufacturer anywhere around the world ever worked to bring one to market commercially...

We can only classify the primer activation action to be an interesting failure.

Sorry.

[Jim Watson]

The recent conventional wisdom is that Garand dropped the primer actuated system because the Army started crimping primers for reliability in machine guns.

The older thought was that the Army changed from the old hot Pyro DG powder to the more progressive MR and IMR powders and the pressure rise was not sudden enough to kick back the primer hard enough.

[Mike Irwin]

Interestingly enough, Jim, those two changes happened right around the same time.

I believe the last year that Pyro was the arsenal standard was 1926, and the military started investigating crimped primers at almost the exact same time.

And the primary reason primer crimping came into being is because machine guns were still the primary means of arming fighter aircraft.

But, unlike in World War I, where the machine guns were within easy reach of the pilot and jams could often be cleared easily, design moves were putting the guns in areas that were no longer accessible to the pilot -- under the cowlings, along the sides or even the bottom of the engine, or in the wings.

[Bill Akins]

Mike Irwin wrote:

The point you're missing about mounting the motor on the Gatling gun is that it didn't just make the old, tired Gatling better, it created an entire new weapons system that solved a whole slew of issues that were cropping up in the jet age.

And yet it was still based on the same old "tired" concept of the Gatling wasn't it? The same old "tired" concept that most everyone else had thought was obsolete and had no place in modern times. I disagree that it "created an entire new weapons system" when G.E. supposedly "created" the Vulcan cannon and smaller caliber mini-gun. G.E. did not "create" that. Gatling created that WAYYYY back in 1893. Gatling's electric-powered design received U.S. Patent #502,185 on July 25, 1893

Gatling's 1893 electric powered gun had a cyclic rate of 3000 rds per min.
Yet it laid dormant for over 40 years. Why? Because people didn't think the Gatling had any viable application anymore. Just like you think the primer activation system has no viable application and has lain dormant for almost 90 years now. Those who discounted the Gatling for over 40 years were wrong weren't they Mike? So you should keep an open mind about the primer activation system lest you be equally as wrong. Never say never Mike.

Mike Irwin wrote:
The ability of the Vulcan system to solve those issues by essentially merging the firepower of 10 guns into one package while also addressing issues such as weight, where to put that many guns in a modern fighter, overheating, ammunition storage, is what made the Vulcan system successful.

No Mike, Gatling's invention of the Gatling gun is what made the "Vulcan" system successful, not the other way around. Gatling created the first so called "Vulcan" system, if we want to call it that. All a so called "Vulcan" or "mini-gun" system is, is an electric powered Gatling that Dr Gatling did back in 1893. Without Gatling first inventing it, it wouldn't have been here for G.E. to over 40 years later, revisit Dr Gatling's work and do the same as Gatling did in 1893 and put electric motors on them. G.E.'s first tests were done using old original Gatlings that they fitted with electric motors and using those old guns for their initial testing, they got cyclic rates of 4000 rds per minute.

Besides, the Gatling gun was already a former success decades before the G.E. "Vulcan"/"mini" gun. Gatling guns were used all over the world before Maxim came out with his gun. The fact that Gatling spent his money and eventually died in bankruptcy is irrelevant, the Gatling gun of Dr Gatling's time was a huge success at that time. The same recognition due Gatling, will one day be likewise due to Garand and other early experimenters of primer activation systems, when a modern version of a primer activation system gets commercially produced. It won't be solely that future primer activation system that will be responsible for its success, nor will it be the times, or any other excuse one can think of for its success, the reality is, it will be the prior work of Garand and other early experimenters who pioneered the field of primer activation that created the possibility for any such future success.

Mike Irwin wrote:
Contrasted against that, what problems would the primer activation action solve?.....So, I ask you, compared to the marriage of the Gatling gun to the electric motor, what would the primer activation action give us?....Once again, what inherent advantages does it have that makes it better than other designs that are proven and familiar?

Mike I disagree that a primer activated system is more complicated. I believe it is simpler overall, and with advances in metallurgy and even non metallic components, it can be done even better today than it could be done in 1944 and earlier. To answer your above questions in part, it requires no gas tube nor piston to have to disassemble and clean, a substantial savings in weight and time spent maintaining.

Even the 1944 Ness article had this to say about the weight savings gain of the primer activated Clarke carbine vs the M1 carbine,:....

"The Clarke action is so small and compact, without any projections, that it places no restrictions whatsoever on the exterior design of the piece, be it a shoulder arm or sub machine gun. Hence, we are not interested in the Clarke carbine or rifle as an arbitrary design. It could be any desired shape or size with that little unobtrusive action. ....It is significant, however, and interesting to note that THE CLARKE CARBINE IS LIGHTER IN WEIGHT EVEN WITH ITS MUCH HEAVIER BARREL THAN THE SERVICE CARBINE. ITS ACTION IS 50 PERCENT LIGHTER AND ITS PRIMER THRUST IS NEARLY TWICE AS LONG AS IN PREVIOUS DESIGNS, ENABLING IT TO DO FOUR TIMES THE WORK. THE CLARKE ACTION IS NOT MERELY UNLOCKED, AS WAS THE GARAND, BUT IS COMPLETELY OPERATED BY THE POPPING OF ITS PRIMER."

I believe a primer activated system is (and today can be made even moreso) less complicated than other types of semi auto operating systems. But setting aside the issue of more or less complication for a moment,....the SUBSTANTIAL weight savings (50% as mentioned in the above Ness article) of a primer activated system, plus the streamlining of the action by omitting a gas tube and piston and their necessary cleaning, that should be enough in itself Mike to answer your questions of "what would a primer activation system solve and give us".

Mike Irwin wrote:
One also needs to think of all of the new and innovative ideas in the firearms field that have been out and out flops. Remington's Elektronix firing system is barely hanging on by a thread despite its incredibly faster "lock times."
The Voere caseless cartridge system is now a footnote in history because no one accepted the "advantage" of the weight savings of shedding the brass case vs. the inability to reload and tailor your loads to best tune your rifle.
The rotating barrel pistol keeps trying to break into the public fold despite the concept having been tested, and abandoned, by none other than John Browning.

Electronic firing systems and caseless ammunition, will come back and have their place in the future of firearms. Just give it time. You think they are "flops" now, and for the time being may be so commercially and militarily, (which is changing militarily as technology advances), but they aren't flops operationally because they work. They will come back in the future and eventually be accepted for civilian firearms since often civilian firearms follows in the footsteps of advances made for military arms. It just takes time and time for stogy thinking to change in people's minds of:..."That thar Browning auto 5, or Remington 1100 or Benelli was good enough for my granddad and dad, and it's good enough fer me". It takes decades for generational thinking to change to accept concepts that people aren't used to. But it will come. Just as the air car, personal flight vehicles, using magnetism will change how people think about transportation. It takes time. Old concepts will always be revisited and those people that weren't aware of its previous existence will always think it is new, when it isn't.

Mike Irwin wrote:
I'd be willing to possibly accept that when compared to a gas operated system, but I have serious, SERIOUS reservations if that would be even remotely true when comparing the primer activated action against something like a Benelli or Beretta short-recoil gun.

"I'd be willing to possibly accept that when compared to a gas operated system". Good, then we at least agree upon that. I can also put your reservations to rest regarding why a primer activated system would be superior to the Benelli short recoil (actually it could be argued it is a delayed blowback, but we won't quibble). Suppose a law enforcement officer were wounded and was only able to use one arm/hand to operate his Benelli? And suppose in doing so he was forced to brace the Benelli's butt against something to help him support and operate it to fire? The Benelli wouldn't operate. Because it cannot be braced and operate. For the Benelli to operate, it requires the action and the whole gun, stock and all, to move rearward under recoil, and is dependent upon the compressibility and move-ability of the shooter's shoulder. Wherein the heavier bolt and spring loaded bolt head, in effect, stays somewhat stationary to a certain extent (but not totally) in mid air, while the rest of the action recoils to the rear. Thus the Benelli cannot operate if its butt is braced against something immovable. As a former State of Florida law enforcement officer myself, I wouldn't want a semi auto shotgun with that fallibility and limitation.

Mike Irwin wrote:
If this supposed mousetrap is so vastly superior to what's currently out there, why hasn't one of the major manufacturer's pushed such a design to market? Why, in the absolutely INCREDIBLE period of civilian firearms development that followed World War II, when the starved American consumer would literally buy anything the companies put in front of them, did they not jump on the primer activation system? Winchester's people would have been the obvious ones to pick it up given how closely Winchester worked with Garand and Springfield Armory in producing the M1.
But they didn't, and I truly believe it's because they knew that a primer activated action offered no real advantages over the other action types that were then in use.

Why? It's not because the system didn't work, we know that it did work. It's because manufacturers are financially driven profit wise instead of being just driven by what works. Manufacturers know that the public at large is slow to accept change and new things, even when they work fine. Manufacturers are bean counters who answer to a board of directors and stockholders regarding profits, not necessarily what works better mechanically, but what is best at that time to generate profits. So, once again...."The builders build what the people will buy, and the people will buy what the builders build".

Mike, I never claimed primer activation would be an instant commercial success profit wise. Because of human's clinging to preconceived concepts of what they like, are used to, and what they perceive as "normal" is what makes that difficult. But I do maintain it is simpler, lighter, and that the concept will come back and be revisited in the future, and eventually people will grow to accept it. Just like they did the Benelli (even with its no bracing limitation).

Concerning the Benelli short recoil (or delayed blowback according to how you look at its action). Guess what? In the Benelli patent on that system guess who is listed as "prior art" in the field? David Marshal "Carbine" Williams. Mike you asked me why in all these years didn't some major manufacturer revisit the primer activation system pioneered by Garand and others? You might ask yourself why did it take more than 60 years for Benelli to revisit and capitalize upon "Carbine" Williams' work in the field that eventually became the Benelli action. Why did it take that long? Simple, because it did.

Because no one was thinking about it for decades and had basically forgotten about it. Same is true of the primer activation system. It will be revisited. When I don't know but it is inevitable. Equally you might ask yourself, why did it take over 40 years for G.E. (or anyone) to revisit Dr Gatling putting an electric motor on a Gatling gun that Gatling had done way back in 1893?

Engineers employed by companies don't have the flexibility and independence of independent engineers. They are employed to work on the company's wants and needs which are driven by profit, not necessarily by what might be better mechanically. And profits are directly affected by what consumers are used to, feel comfortable with, don't want to change to, and companies know this. But that profit driven mentality does not necessarily have anything to do with whether a system works better than another one or not, it just has to do with profit making.

When Roger Bacon was experimenting with fulminate of mercury as a detonator, Mike why did it take so many years for it to become in general usage in percussion caps and finally in cartridge primers? With all the knowledge those firearm manufacturers of that day had, and that knowledge consisting of knowing that fulminate of mercury would unchain them from having to use flintlocks and enable them to use self contained powder "vessels", or chargers or cartridges, then why did it take so many decades for them to come up with cartridges when they already had knowledge for centuries of "beer stein" breech loading cannon, wherein the beer stein breech was basically a self contained cartridge. All they had to do was think about a beer stein loading system that was ductile enough to seal the breech. You asked me why didn't Winchester or some other manufacturer think about and produce a primer activation system, well I ask you why did it take so many decades for those firearm manufacturers of that day to think about the beer stein breech block and then just create one that was made from thin brass that inserted completely into the breech/chamber of a gun to seal the gas. Viola! A cartridge.

Since they already had the fulminate of mercury detonator, why Mike did it take them so many decades to think about that and revisit the beer stein breech block and looking at that, logically come up with the ductile brass cartridges?

I can answer that for you. Simple, because it did. They just didn't think about it right away did they? Or perhaps because they had forgotten about the beer stein breech loading cannons since they had been superseded by muzzle loading iron cannon because of the leaks at the breech of the beer stein cannons since the "beer stein" breech blocks weren't ductile and didn't seal as well. But they eventually came back to the concept didn't they, or else we wouldn't have cartridges today.

It's like Da Vinci said: "Does anything ever get done?" Yes it does Leonardo, it just takes time for people's minds to acclimate to change and for manufacturers to manufacture something when the people's minds are ready for it, and when those manufacturers or some enterprising individual reminds everyone that an old concept that worked a long time ago, is something that should be revisited.

If after everything I have written for your consideration Mike, if you still disagree, then I guess on this primer activation issue, as gentlemen we will just have to agree to disagree . I would like to leave you with this thought though. Ideas are a living thing. They do not die as long as someone has heard about them or they are written down for someone to find and be reminded of later (sometimes much much later) and then those largely forgotten ideas are revisited (like "Carbine" Williams' work that the Benelli patent referenced as prior art in the field). I would much rather err thinking that ideas that DID work will be revisited when the time is right, than to discount those ideas entirely. When Orville and Wilber were building their plane in their bicycle shop, there were those who said it was an old idea that wouldn't work and had been tried before, and that if it would work someone else would have done it already.



.

[johnwilliamson062]

The weight savings is great on a carbine. I don't hear many people talking about needing lighter shotguns for defense or clays.

Say what you will, but shooting magnum slugs or buckshot, or even hundreds of rounds of sporting loads, really wears on one. Many add weight to their shotguns.