Varangian Arms: Pathfinder

This week, I'd like to propose another idea for Varangian Arms, the Pathfinder. The name comes from a firearm in a fantasyroleplaying game used by a noteworthy non-player character (NPC). The Pathfinder is a double-barreled pistol with two triggers, one for each barrel. It is an over-under design (as opposed to a side by side one), and must utilize as few moving parts as possible.  

-The barrels should be over under rather than side by side.

-Each separate trigger should fire a barrel independently.

-The system should have as few moving parts as possible. (A pair of solenoids may allow for electronic ignition.)

-It should be reloaded by a top break or detachable barrel assembly.

Printed Guns: Desktop Manufacturing and Firearms

Desktop manufacture promises a potential for homemade weapons of several types, from potentially using 3D printed firearms to entirely novel designs. While policy implications have been covered before, many aspects of the field could be entirely novel relative to current technology. In other words, homemade weapons and gadgets may not be limited to ones we are familiar with today.

For example, a homemade firearm may no longer need be either a "zip gun" or some ad hoc apparatus firing conventional brass cartridges. Existing technologies hint at what may come. Caseless ammunition, for example, means that all one needs is a projectile and propellant. Desktop production of caseless ammo may mean that ammunition becomes even easier to acquire. (Quality, performance, and consistency of ammunition, however, is another matter entirely.) 

One relevant topic to this is stacked ammunition, or a superposed load. This technology is an ancient one, dating back to the first firearms in history. The concept is multiple bullets in the same barrel, each ignited separately. This was done with wheellock, flintlock, and caplock systems, but this concept has been revisited with the Aussie Metal Storm concept. The Aussie concept used several bullets in the same barrel with electric current used to ignite each round. The barrels would be swapped instead of magazines changed. Imagine, in the not too distant future, a Metal Storm-like system that can be printed at home with the bullets built right in the barrel. Such a weapon would likely lack accuracy and power, perhaps compensated for by a high rate of fire. 

However, the Metal Storm system and this system has flaws. For instance, the Metal Storm operates best when using low power, low recoil loads. This means that powerful, armor piercing or rifle-type rounds may suffer, but pistol or shotgun type shells may work. However, the high volume of fire is offset by the extremely low ammo capacity of the system. So, it may be more useful as a blank firing system (essentially a glorified Roman candle), rubber bullet spraying riot control device, or anti-missile point defense for warships. 

As such, designs with multiple smoothbore barrels from history may come back. For example, the pepperbox pistol may return. A related design is the duck-foot pistol, where barrels are angled away from each other (such a weapon was preferred by naval officers during the Age of Sail) due to utility in close range combat. A revolver with preloaded cylinders may also return, perhaps with several bullets in each cylinder. Furthermore, each barrel (or cylinder) can be loaded with separate types of munitions. One may fire subsonic munitions in one barrel, conventional rounds in another, rubber bullets in another, and so on. 

This versatility makes for some interesting potential combinations (and potential mishaps). As the technology to manufacture weapons and munitions at home is refined from crude tools to automated production, I find it logical to think that law enforcement and military units will remain several steps ahead. Criminals, however, will always strive to find new methods and hacks for their own needs. Crime will not vanish from human society, and I am confident that such weapons can be used by both victims and criminals. 

Varangian Arms: Sophia

"Mad Science" means never stopping to ask "what's the worst thing that could happen?"
–Schlock Mercenary 
 
A firearm is a confluence of many fields of science and technology: chemistry (for the propellant), metallurgy/materials science (for the substances used in manufacture), mechanics (for moving parts), physics (for the ballistics of the projectile), biomechanics (for the actual ergonomics/handling of it), (arguably) psychology and neuroscience (for how the person handling it actually thinks and treats it), and perhaps one day, electronics (if electronics come to displace many of the old fashioned mechanical systems). I am proud to announce a series of posts for weaponry designed as more novelties for hobbyists, researchers, movie/stage props, and "firing range toys" more than actual tools for combat or defense. In the words of Cave Johnson, "Science isn't about why, it's about why not."

You may have heard of the WikiWeapon project to create an open source, 3D printable firearm, but "open source" development of weapons without conventional patents is not a new concept. I figure the zeitgeist may be right for open source weaponry and concepts. The manufacture of the first weapons pre-dates the modern concept of intellectual properties by thousands of years. Likewise, some designs are simple to manufacture and replicate with basic tools, such that a patent cannot be easily enforced. For instance, the Kalashnikov family of weapons has long since become the de facto open source platform in the developing world, churned out in places like Khyber Pass workshops by the dozens.

So, without further delay, I would introduce you to Varangian Arms: Weapons designed for aesthetics, novelty, and curiosity rather than self defense or combat. This makes them more suitable (as stated before) as stage props, oddities for a gun range, and glorified science projects. From steampunky anachronisms to futuristic designs, Varangian Arms is based on historical, obscure, and interesting designs. If anyone out there actually designs one of the Varangian projects on CAD or actually builds the thing, I have one request: that it be put under an Open Hardware license. The abuse of intellectual property laws by rent-seeking media companies and patent trolls is something I find annoying. A few other common sense things: Obey local ordinances and policies regarding the use of these designs, since these are more science projects. Varangian Arms designs are deliberately unsuitable for criminals and spree killers. Also, avoid infringing on existing patents, since an army of angry lawyers is the last thing any field needs.

The first Varangian Arms design is a cyberpunk inspired firearm called "Sophia," specifically a re-imagining of the revolver. The Greek word for "Wisdom" ironically describes a confluence of bizarre innovations used in revolvers. Sophia would be a suitable sidearm for a science fiction character, perhaps a detective or mad scientist. "Sophia" is inspired heavily by the designs of Emilio Ghisoni, such as the Mateba Model 6 Unica and Chiappa Rhino. It should have most of the following features (if possible).

1) Most importantly, Sophia has the barrel being located at the bottom "6 o'clock" position instead of the "12 o'clock" position common for revolvers. This makes handling recoil easier, although increases the mechanical complexity. Sophia is NOT an auto-revolver, but instead just a weird "conventional" double action revolver (although it should be able to fire single action).

2) The cylinder has a few quirks on its own. It has the ability to chamber multiple calibers, like the Medusa Model 47, due to claws that lock the bullets into place. It is still designed to withstand the pressures of up to a .357 Magnum shell firing, and has 6 chambers.

3) Another feature is the cylinder slides forward when the trigger is compressed, much like the Russian Nagant M1895 gas seal. This feature allows a revolver to be suppressed conventionally, like the KGB did with the Nagant.

4) I am not sure the sliding cylinder feature would allow a conventional swing-out cylinder to be used (like in the bulk of modern designs), but there are some alternative possibilities: One is a cylinder that partially "pops" out (like the Russian OTs-38), a replaceable pre-loaded cylinder (like a Remington 1858), or perhaps even a side-mounted loading gate with spent cartridge ejector (like the original Nagant revolver).

Sophia is a fairly complex system, with the cylinder and unconventional barrel placement being the most complicated (and arguably delicate) parts. I would hope some individuals out there would seek to further the mad science of "bizarro gunsmithing," as advocated by Varangian Arms.

Democratizing Defense

 “If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.” -Frank Herbert

Most of human history can be recorded as an oligarchy run by a small few. This may have its roots in early settlements, where a warlord of some sort provides protection in exchange for the labor of others. This arrangement is known as feudalism, and isn't a good model for those on the bottom. However, this stagnant structure was prone to catastrophic upheaval, often brought about by a change in technology. Either the warlords use them to solidify their control, someone else out-competes them (often instituting a larger model of "feudalism" in the process of empire-building), or the technology gives the peons more power to demand rights and bargaining conditions (thus forming the basis of citizenship).

The feudal arrangement only lasts as long as people feel secure under the status quo. When the balance of power is tilted in the citizens' favor, this leads to good things. The English peasants skilled with the longbow, for instance, are one reason the Magna Carta was signed into law, starting a tradition/social contract that was only recently revoked.

Warfare has become increasingly complex and specialized over the industrial revolution, meaning that an militia of musket-wielding farmers was no longer in the same league as a professional military. Muskets gave way to repeating rifles and the machine guns and assault rifles. Personal transport expanded from a soldier's own feet to motorized cavalry and mechanized infantry. To compete against a professional army in a conventional war without a similarly equipped army of your own became an increasingly suicidal endeavor. And even if you had an army, you had to constantly spend money to stay ahead. This Red Queen hypothesis meant that even a healthy lead in military tech could be maintained only by increasing amounts of funding.

Of course, plenty of forces lack the technologies, personnel, and gear to fight a conventional war. That is the reason for the rise of guerrilla tactics in brushfire conflicts across the world. The successful guerrilla does not try to kill or drive out the enemy, but instead cause them to overreact and overextend themselves. If a cheap $10 bomb causes $10000 worth of damage, that's a huge "return on investment." The overwhelming complexity of modern infrastructure is likewise at fault, presenting a "target rich environment." Such is the cold calculations of 4th Gen Warfare.

We are "fortunate" enough to witness the hollowing out of governments over recent decades. However, despite what you may think, individuals are not powerless. There are methods of fighting back that involve no violence, no sabotage, and are perfectly legal (for now). The kleptocrats (government or corporate brands are merely the same thing now) want to you be afraid of everything: guns, scientists, terrorists, your own shadows, while the things worth being concerned with are outright ignored (or worse). The methods they use are "security theater," a sort of pantomime routine to try to preemptively subdue unrest.

The battle of the 21st century is to build up  "open source" solutions against centralized incompetence and corruption. There is a philosophical background to such a strategy. If attacked politically/economically/physically (as can happen to anything truly new, potentially threatening, or successful), there should be a deterrent to such an attack. Lawyers are the current weapon of choice, as lawsuits and public relations battles can make/break political careers and stock prices. There is also opportunities for political judo/jujitsu, such as using an enemy's threats to sue against them.

Nukes and "weapons of mass destruction" may serve in a similar role for nation states. During the Cold War, "Mutually Assured Destruction" kept the missiles in their silos and troops on the borders. Likewise, there is the ancient Chinese philosopher, Mo Zi. A sort of forerunner to rationalists and consequentialis, the Mohists focused on defense and making warfare uneconomical. This was one method, they envisioned, for forming fraternity and brotherhood among mankind.

To accomplish this, they spread knowledge of defensive engineering, machines to break sieges (as in counter an enemy's siege engines), and generally make war too costly. The economics of guerrilla warfare likewise scale towards the guerrillas or "insurgency" (whether armed or not). Protestors demanding a dictator stand down can bring out riot cops and soldiers, but the operating costs of the riot control outweigh starving citizens with nothing to lose. What happens from there is up in the air.

There is another topic I would like to touch in, in the wake of recent tragedies in the US and China. The mass shooting in CT and the school stabbing in China presented examples of the pathetic, deranged behavior of spree killers. While laws may prevent these demented individuals from acquiring weapons through legal channels, those so inclined will still find a way. There's a few cases of individuals using legal weapons to stop spree killings. I hold that all have a right to self defense utilizing lethal force if required.

I believe the motivations behind spree killers may often be stress, a perverse desire for attention, and feelings of desperation. A missing social safety net (which has been thoroughly gutted) can prevent individuals from getting the mental health help they need. (Also, crime and weapons-related deaths may be significantly reduced if the Drug War was ended, but that's another topic.) Renaming those pathetic killers as "Idiot #6" or "Moron #32" may also dissuade those seeking infamy.

Regardless of motivations, I am highly skeptical of any political efforts arising from tragedies. Politicians will ride a tsunami of blood to prominence whenever they can, from the PATRIOT Act rammed through Congress after 9/11 to other ill-advised bills. Firearms and weapons bans, even if they pass, are likely to be ignored by such idiots, and the ease of manufacturing firearms will not go away anytime soon. The lethality of firearms also cuts the other way, with even the elderly and disabled able to employ them against a would be mass murderer. Spree killers are a statistical outlier in firearms deaths in the USA, as even drug gangs come in second being shot by the police.

I believe that self defense starts with oneself. Self protection, whether by weapon or martial art, is the last ditch effort if all others fail. Self defense is a variety of techniques one can use to prevent harm to oneself and one's body. Chief among them is common sense: be aware of your surroundings, don't walk into the bad parts of town at night, travel in groups, tell friends where you are going, and so on. Another one is that if you encounter such a situation where you are attacked, flee. Even if you have a weapon. Always assume your enemy has a better weapon and more skill with it, and he's got friends with weapons on the way. This is why "duty to retreat" makes sense tactically as well as legally. A method of self protection, whether a concealed pistol or krav maga, is for when running fails. This is one reason I practice parkour in addition to martial arts and shooting.

Knowledge, in the form of common sense and training, is the basis for a democratizing self defense. The protagonists of "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson create an online database on waging defensive warfare and the like. In an upcoming novel of mine, a character trains in the fictional discipline of EAST (Evasion-Assault Survival Training), a combination of parkour, krav maga/combatives, and combat shooting for when firearms are available. In the setting, it was developed by a group of Mohist-inspired martial artists and military vets. They post instructions and strategy online, free for all.

While one cannot always defend oneself in the manner one envisions (if ever), having skills and equipment and not using it is better that not having it at all. A smart self-defender will not go into a back alley and call out every shady character for a fist fight. That's behavior more worthy of a Darwin award than anything else. As the interests of the social/economic elite and general public begin to differ, we'll have to start doing more stuff on our own. So best get used to it now.

Open Source Alternatives

Chronicling the supervillainy of the era would not be complete without discussing methods of countering it. Trying to work within the system for positive change nowadays is mostly a the soul-crushing labor and sisyphean task, given the extent of regulatory capture by the corrupt interests. This is by no means limited to Russia, China, and the third world. The US, UK, and EU are rapidly closing the 'corruption gap.' The future of the world seems to be one giant neofeudal oligarchy or kleptocratic banana republic, the pattern of most of human history.

Add in fossil fuel depletion, more crazy climate events, widening inequality, and diminishing resources, and you've got a recipe for disaster. Not merely one or two disasters, but a chain of epic failures that governments and institutions will muddle through without an idea. They are highly centralized, fragile behemoths, but their downfall could drag down much of the infrastructure we depend on for power, food, water, and other essentials. This is what Kunstler called "The Long Emergency," in his book of the same name. He posits many of our technologies may stagnate or be lost, at least under the current consumerist model of technological development.

As resources decay, feudalism returns, and things fall away, is there an alternative? Are we condemned to live as indentured servants, subsisting on the whims of our drone-wielding neo-feudal overlords? There are some in the works now, using an ethos that should be familiar to most hackers and geeks: open source. Open source is for more than just software, and is being applied to everything from hardware development to architecture to small arms design.These designs can be produced at low cost and using mostly local resources. Even if global supply chains break down, there's still plenty of rare materials that could be gained from salvage and old landfills.

I believe the mega-slums of the third world offer a more apt picture of the future than pre-industrial agrarianism (although local food production would definitely be back). Of course, the Internet infrastructure itself is weak in many areas, but local wireless networks are fairly viable. Even with diminished energy resources, the generation of electrical power itself could be changed to a local scale (backyard mini-turbines, rooftop solar cells, even century old designs based on 'water-wheel' style electric turbines in streams could work). Of course, those methods would be unable to power a regular American style McMansion filled suburb in the middle of summer or winter, but you would probably not need that much power for these machine shops (AKA hackerspaces or makerspaces). These machines would be built to last, rather than built to break down after a year. There are more engineers, scientists, technicians, and hackers alive today than any other point in history, so even if there's a mega-disaster, some are statistically likely to survive.

That said, open source hardware and software is one of the best things for a free market. A constantly improving free system provides a baseline from which competition can occur. Many 'less complex' machines I refer to have had their patents expire decades ago. This means more manufacturers can make parts or their own variants on old designs. Take the firearms market, for example. In the USA, the M1911 pistol (that classic century-old .45 ACP design by John Browning) and the AR-15 (based on Eugene Stoner's AR10) are common amongst shooters. This is because the patents have expired, and there is a veritable market of custom parts and specialized models for every conceivable niche. From concealed carry firearms to sporting ones to military and police versions, the possible combinations and permutations on those designs are limitless. And let's not forget the most common "open source" firearm, the AK47, which is still manufactured in Russia as well as in caves with a box of scraps. AKs are built pretty durably, one reason they'll probably outlive many of the people using them. While many an internet forum has had flame wars on the AR15 vs. AK47, there are now enough after-market parts and custom variations to essentially make stereotypes about both obsolete.
 
There are already promising signs of this relocalization of life, but they're off the radar of the mainstream media and most politicians. They want to preserve the globalized, corporate socialist world they've built for themselves. They still have the power to do great harm, mostly in the form of trying to delay the inevitable and destroying alternatives at birth. This is not due to malice, but rather incompetence. Most politicians are concerned with staying in power (whether they were elected or not), and would rather not shake the boat so much, so to speak. The truth is, we don't need them. True change comes from bottom up, not some corporate or government policy (like there's much difference between them any more).

A decentralized, democratic group of citizens are probably one of the best defenses against such neo-feudal kleptocrats taking over. That was Thomas Jefferson's vision for the US (self sufficient, educated civic-minded citizens), ironically enough. Looks like that has to be relearned the hard way. If you want to get involved in building this new future, I recommend seeing if there's a hackerspace near you. I also recommend John Robb's excellent Resilient Communities site. Learn to code, fix something yourself, maybe grow a garden. You won't be totally self sufficient, but that's not the point. You're diversifying your own skills to better prepare for your future. Don't go gently into the long night.