Best Ergonomic Design for a handheld ranged weapon

Question

I know I’m flirting with “Primarily Opinion Based” here, but I’m hoping there’s some established knowledge out there in the community that I might be completely oblivious to.

If you look at pretty much any science fiction setting, the design for any kind of ranged weapon is based on a modern gunpowder firearm. My issue is that these weapons are primarily designed around the requirements of the mechanism. Modern rifles and handguns are just about as ergonomically optimized as they can be, but the primary design considerations always start with the receiver/magazine/barrel assembly, and the next most important thing is recoil control.

So, the question is: If you have a solid-state kind of ranged weapon, directed energy or otherwise, where you can start with a clean slate on the shape and mass distribution, what would it look like if your PRIMARY design objective were to make it as easy as possible for a human being to aim intuitively and instinctively.

For the purposes of this exercise, assume the weapon isn’t going to be applying any force vectors itself (no recoil or vibration), but that we DO want to make the point of aim as stable as possible.

I feel like the right answer is probably:

• Three points of connection to the body at both hands and one shoulder (just like a modern firearm).
• Center of mass directly above the firing (rearward) hand, or directly above the line from the firing hand to the point of connection at the shoulder.
• Weapon’s axis of fire should be aligned as closely with and to the line made by an extended index finger from the firing hand. (e.g. using the weapon as a natural extension of the
  hand)

Are these the right assumptions though? Are there better and/or more stable ways to hold a ranged weapon to optimize hand-eye coordination? Am I missing any important ergonomic factors here?

EDIT: For this particular question, I'm looking for designs that passively align themselves most effectively to the body's natural hand-eye coordination, rather than something that (for example) relies on servomotors and measurement of the user's eye movements to mechanically align the aimpoint of the weapon to the eyeline of the user.

Answer 1

From OP: what would it look like if your PRIMARY design objective were to make it as easy as possible for a human being to aim intuitively and instinctively.

If you want instinctive, it would look like a rock. Humans would throw it.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/one-thing-humans-are-better-other-species-throwing-180949897/

The more we learn about animals, the less seems separates them from us. Elephants are brilliant, dolphins are dastardly, apes can do almost anything humans can. But there is at least one thing that does set us apart: our ability to throw stuff.

Evolution has nothing to do with bows and arrows, or rifles, or catapults or cannons. But humans are instinctive and intuitive rock throwers. Our bodies and minds are evolved to throw rocks with precision. We have got culture and learning up the wazoo but if there is something we are hardwired to do as a species, it is to throw rocks. Even little kids are so much better at throwing than our ape cousins that the apes just look pathetic when they try to throw stuff. Humans are fearsomely lethal with thrown rocks.

A projectile that behaved like a thrown rock would be very easy for humans to use because thrown rocks are very easy for humans to use.

Answer 2

I think it should just be a pair of laser binoculars. If you can have a "clean slate" for pure accuracy and aiming purposes, I would make the weapon hit where you look through some binoculars. For example, in Zelda BOTW, there is a scope, similar to binoculars where you can aim it and click a button to leave a pin where you pointed. Do something similar, but have it be a death disc of destructive energy or something. If it is closer to your eyes, and it can pass through the same location you look through, then it will be very accurate. I know you wanted it more involved with the arms, but the most accurate way to shoot it would be to center it around your eyes. For stability, you can strap it around your head, and stabilize your head the way we know best, lay down. This takes the off center arm aspect and the aspect of an unsteady hand as well.

Answer 3

A Smart Weapon

The issue isn't so much the shape of the weapon but how you target it. The weapon in theory doesn't even need to be held or even near the shooter.

The idea weapon then is a pair of glasses. It can track eye movement and lock onto what the shooter is looking at. A voice command, button press or even a thought could then trigger a smart gun with a tracking guided bullet to hit the target.

Suddenly it doesn't matter if it's a hand gun or an orbital cannon or even a cruise missile. You could even go hands free parrot gun like in Predator.

Answer 4

The most natural way to indicate a target is to point at it. So, a weapon that allows you to point would be effective - something wrapped around the wrist and arm.

Answer 5

There are examples of what you might be looking for in special mounts for cameras or scopes where a primary consideration is stability. Take, for instance, something like the BushHawk:

And here's a single-handed version:

You'll note the main points: two or three contact points for stability (hands and shoulder). The primary mass is carried between the dominant hand and the shoulder support, which keeps it close to the body and allows for quicker movement of the "muzzle" end. Because recoil isn't an issue, the frame can be very lightweight, and the attachment to the actual "weapon" doesn't have to be heavy; theoretically, you might be able to keep the same basic carrying frame and switch out the package, so swap the actual specific type of weapon you're carrying while keeping all controls in exactly the same positions, making it easier for the user.

Were I to make that a weapon, I'd give it a folding or collapsible stock so the size could be reduced as needed. The aiming system would be remote: connecting to a pair of protective glasses/sensor goggles/whatever I'm looking through that could act like a HUD, displaying the point of aim if I'm looking in that direction so I don't need to get my head behind the weapon, or as a full video display so I could, say, peek and shoot around a corder just by sticking the weapon out without exposing my head or torso. The latter would also enable it to work like a telescopic sight.

Iron sights would be included, of course, just in case.

Answer 6

As Paul TIKI points out, the length and design of a modern rifle isn't just about maintaining the mechanism -- a longer barrel is actually much more stable to aim. The answers that suggest a glove-based or camera/lens/glasses-based design are missing this essential point: even a tiny movement (such as the operator's breathing) will change the aim profoundly at distance. Therefore, a longer barrel is a good thing, much more accurate and stable, and safer. That's why we train our kids on BB rifles and not on BB pistols.

The chief limitation of a long gun is that it's bulky, can be heavy to carry around, and can limit your ability to aim it quickly (for example, when going through a doorway if you want to be able to rapidly scan left and right). Many people prefer shorter-barreled rifles (aka carbines), shotguns, or pistols, for home defense situations because of that. They give up a little long-range accuracy (not needed inside a building) to gain speed and freedom of movement.

In your science-fiction scenario, therefore, you will probably keep the general size and grip style of a modern combat rifle, but you can make a few ergonomic changes based on hand-waving the technology. For example, maybe the barrel can telescope from a pistol-length to a rifle-length for different situations. Maybe the pistol grip and the "front grip" are the only actual hardware components, so you can holster one piece on each hip, and the rest of the weapon is force fields or laser lights that only come into effect when you put the two pieces together. That'd be a lot easier to carry around and still put into action quickly!

Answer 7

It's going to depend on the mission.

An infantry soldier who has to slog through some difficult terrain is going to want light weight, reliable, probably rapid fire. He wants something that he can carry 20 km through mud and brush and weeds, and have it fire without fail when the opposition shows up. Maybe he hasn't time to aim, he just wants to give the other side things to think about other than shooting him. Switch between single-shot and rapid-fire is good. A round that will reliably kill anything he hits is also good. But the rounds can't be too heavy because he has to carry a lot of them. Noise and smoke from the weapon may actually be desirable as psychological things.

A sniper wants distance, accuracy, and the ability to fire and not be detected. So minimal smoke, for example. And minimal muzzle flash. It would be nice if the weapon didn't weigh too much. But snipers can operate in teams, and move slowly through the area of the battle, so that's less important than for infantry. Maybe less noise is important, but maybe not. A very heavy round is not so bad because he may only carry a small number. Or he might stash a bunch in a convenient location. Maybe he has a second weapon for less accuracy-requiring situations. Maybe recoil isn't so important, as he might be able to brace the weapon.

Vehicle mounted military are going to have very different desires. They want a weapon that is gross overkill. When the guys in the armored transport with turret mounted guns show up, they want to be seen as things to run away from. You get into vehicle design very quickly. How much armor and where. How much engine. What sensors and what coms. Vehicles can also have a lot in the way of computer assist. They can have heads-up-displays and over-the-horizon assist from things like radar planes. They can mount a lot of stuff like ultraviolet and infrared cameras. And they can have tons of counter measures like smoke, loud speakers, special purpose rounds like tear gas, etc. They can do crazy stuff like putting their scope on a periscope, or launch a drone and use it to laser-paint a target.

Answer 8

Aiming and maintaining your point of aim, as the OP states is paramount.

There are components to modern rifle design that impact a weapon's performance. You are right that some of it is based around the mechanism. Another large factor is barrel length, which has a large impact on accuracy. Longer barrel, better accuracy over distance. The third design aspect is use case. A design called a Bullpup compacts as much of the mechanism into the shoulder stock to bring the barrel back as close to your shoulder while leaving the trigger in a natural position for your hand. It gives you similar accuracy as a standard rifle, but given the weapon's shorter overall length you can use it easily in more confined areas like inside buildings.

Some of these aspects have additional benefits. Barrel length also impacts how you aim as well. With a very short barrel, like a pistol, very small movements alter the point of aim significantly. A longer barrel tends to be more stable on point of aim because small movements won't impact point of aim as much. I recently read an article comparing two pistols (I wish I could find it now) Both pistols had the same length of barrel. One was about an inch overall longer. This resulted in the slightly longer distance between front and rear sight creating a noticeable more accurate weapon.

All of this to say the human ergonomics are as important to your weapon design as the physical mechanisms of today's weapons.

Now, If I had the tech to create a non mechanical weapon with a directed energy beam, I would mount it to my shoulder with a stable gimbal mechanism with servos to quickly alter the point of aim. Link it digitally to glasses with a HUD, so one could aim with their eyes. The trigger mechanism would be in the glove. All of this to create a weapon that you just wear, doesn't impact movement, and will likely be far more accurate than any traditionally carried weapon. Think the three dot aiming mechanism in the movie Predator.

Just keep thinking about how it is to be used, and that may help you decide how to design it.

Answer 9

Given your constraints (where a handheld energy weapon would appear to qualify)I would say something shaped like brass knuckles, the device would wrap around the fingers with the emitter lined up with the base of the middle finger and the trigger mechanism falling under the thumb. If accuracy is needed without invoking anything like goggles showing where the beam would land the user would hold out their arm and aim across the back of their palm.

Of course if some amount of tech is allowed for aim control (even fairly near-tech) like a camera in the device that shows where the beam would hit even holding out the arm wouldn't be necessary. In that case accurate aiming could be accomplished from nearly any position, perhaps braced on something if distance is involved. However I suspect recoilless light-speed weapons would have far less issues with distance as compared with firearms. Firearms need far more mass than I am imagining for an energy weapon, both for the mechanism and to bring recoil under control. With that great mass reduction I believe holding a stead aim would be much easier, there is also the issue that there wouldn't be recoil to bring the weapon off target for even a moment.

Answer 10

Technically not hand-held, but it is a one-handed weapon.

Aiming is intuitive and precise, and the signal to fire is unambiguous.

How it works: An onboard computer infers the line of sight from the position of your eye and the position of the fingertips the moment they touch. From there it is simple to solve for the correct line of fire, adjust a servo-mounted weapon, and shoot. And as you can see from the second image, the trigger mechanism allows for a quick rate of fire.

Answer 11

TL:DR: Look at drone jammers and man-portable rocket launchers

I'm just going to point out that there are currently weapons we have developed that don't have recoil.

We have rocket launchers, recoilless rifles and guns, and now we have drone jammers (which might not technically count as weapons, but I think they count since you do have to aim at a moving target.)

(RPG-7, image by Michal Maňas via Wikimedia, cc-2.5) (US Special Forces soldier firing a Carl Gustav rocket during a training exercise conducted in Basrah Iraq. Note the backblast. U.S. Army, public domain)

Now, recoilless rifles and rocket launchers, when used by a soldier, have to go over the shoulder because of the exhaust gases. However, we can still take notes from them. Some rocket launchers do have a pair of pistol grips, while others don't. The ones that don't (like the US M72 and AT4) must simply rest in the user's hands, which we don't want. Balancing over the shoulder might be a good idea, as it balances the weight better. It also puts the pivot point at the middle of the weapon, which makes it faster to move it but less stable. You'll also notice that even the RPG-7, which does have two pistol grips, has no stock because it has no recoil, and is not intended to be fired while moving. These weapons will probably benefit from a stock since they'll be the primary weapon and as such will be used in more situations.

Now, drone jammer guns are pretty much the closest thing we have to DEWs. They're recoilless, have no backblast, and need to be pointed at the target to work. So what do they look like?

(Australian police holding a drone jammer gun. Via ZDnet)

That's right, they look like guns that shoot bullets and have recoil. Because bracing against the bulk of the body and having both hands on the weapon turns out to be pretty effective against recoil, and what's effective against recoil turns out to be pretty effective against things shaking the weapon other than recoil as well. Plus, bracing against the shoulder means the weapon is close to the eyes for manual sighting or using a scope. And while you can use some sort of smartsight system that gives the ability to look around corners, the systems in development put those under the barrel, to not interfere with the ironsight.

Answer 12

How about a tube (stock) with another tube (barrel) attacked, like a boomerang, or a pipe (tube)? It has a button near the thumb, or perhaps pressure sensors, so the user just holds the weapon with both hands, points their index finder, maybe braces on their body, points the weapon and squeezes their hand. You can edit the tube's weight however you like. The human eye can align a point at the end of a tube relatively well, that's how early humans calculated length and distance.

Answer 13

I think the form that best takes advantage of eye-hand coordination is the hand.

Since the weapons are directed energy and not projectile their use can take advantage of correcting the aim while the weapon using continuous fire -- say 1-2 seconds or 0.5 half a second duration.

Then, the attack would be a chopping or a twisting motion with the hand.

See our opponent, draw the thing that fits in your hand and point at your target and power it up. If you missed, sweep the beam into the center of mass, slashing your opponent. Since the weapon is instantaneous, a warrior would be trained to have stable hands like surgeons and delicate movements like a fencer to bring down their foe with a minimum of power expended.

R. Heinlein used this style of weaponry for dueling in "Beyond This Horizon"

Answer 14

Look at target shooting

The three criteria you make, copying modern firearms, are mostly there for the purposes of managing recoil, so that recoil doesn't alter your aim, especially in the first fractions of the second while the bullet is still in the barrel. If you remove recoil from consideration, then those aspects aren't as important anymore.

The most accurate tools we have for low recoil shooting are the olympic target pistols. The main difficulty in firing them accurately is the fact that the trigger squeeze tends to slightly alter the aim.

Based on that, it seems that the winning design for a very accurate weapon would be an "pistol" - essentially an aiming device with accurate sights - on your dominant hand which allows you to intuitively&quickly point at short range targets, and also very accurately point at long range targets; combined with a trigger that's pressed by your other hand.

Answer 15

A Steadicam

The ideal targeting device should remove the uncontrollable human movements from the equation, such as breathing and unsteadiness, while giving easy and fast adjustments to aim. The modern steadicam is a good starting point, anchored to the body for stability. Assuming you don't need a lot of mass in the weapon, you could make it much smaller, maybe to the point where it can just sit against the users chest when not in use, giving them full use of both hands.

For aiming, either add a screen and aim from the waist, the way the current steadicam works, or raise the height so that you aim at eye level. You can customize resistance on the fly with a button, the same way professional gamers today switch between high- and low-sensitivity to allow both fast reactions and prices, small adjustments.

The end result? Imagine a soldier sprinting aross a battlefield, jumping over obstacles, breathing heavily, etc, all while maintaining steady fire with high precision. She dives to the ground, catching herself with both hands, but it's not a problem because the weapon is fastened to her chest anyways.

Answer 16

There are a number of answers already dealing with this, but I couldn't resist quoting. What you are looking for is basically this:

Maybe with a ring on index finger with a targeting reticle for precision fire. If you remove constraints of size, the weapon should indeed be attached to your wrist, with a flexible barrel attached to the underside of the index finger. Possibility to change shooting modes or ammo by attaching a sensor to one or more other fingers.

Basically you are looking at magic combat, as frequently portrayed: wizards shooting fireballs. Only with science.

The question about long barrels seems to be irrelevant unless there are more constraints on weapon type (long/short range required).

You can just have a variable-strength magnifying scope in your targeting reticle ring and use your other hand for stabilization. If you want to go sniper mode, you could also have a monopod expanding from your wrist to the ground. Or perhaps an balanced antigrav cushion + mass amplifier for the weapon.

Answer 17

If there is no mass or size requirement I would say something head-mounted like a pair of glasses. Something like google glass but with a weapon instead of a camera. Trigger on a separate handheld controller. Look, shoot, look, shoot, look, shoot.

Answer 18

Before 1970, John Brunner wrote in his novel The Jagged Orbit: "Man is made to use a club, and a gun is the ultimate in clubs. Just point and make a fist, and if your enemy is close enough to see well, he'll go away."

I would submit that it's hard to imagine a ranged weapon more intuitive to aim and use than a well designed pistol. Something between the Colt 1911 and the Luger P-08 will give the perfect grip angle for a gun that points naturally, and fits the Brunner rule: point and make a fist.

The only way I see to improve on the natural pointing of a well proportioned pistol is a weapon from Joe Haldeman's The Forever War -- the space suits worn by Mandella's unit during their training on Pluto had "laser finger" weapons built in. Point, and kill.

Answer 19

It would depend on the intended combat style.

For close combat weapons, accuracy is probably less important than speed. I see three options:

• The obvious thing would be to use gaze direction, as even untrained humans can already rapidly and accurately focus their gaze on a target. There would be a component that accurately tracks gaze direction, and the weapon itself would have fast servos that match it. It is the best option, although you have excluded it.
• The next closest thing is head direction. Turning your head to align with your eyes is slower, but still very fast, precise and instinctive. You can make this passive by mounting the weapon on your head. Cons: Can't do it for heavy weapons, puts head in harm's way (what if the weapon explodes?).
• "Point and shoot" where the weapon is directed by the hand or wrist. This was actually a shooting style taught for pistols by US military around WW2. It leads to terrible pistol accuracy, but that has to do with recoil and trigger pull. If you can arrange the trigger mechanism so that activating it doesn't disrupt your aim, you can do pretty well with something aimed with the index finger or the hand in a similar position. As you can observe from laser pointers, it is not very precise unless some feedback is allowed for, so you will probably need to fire 3-5 shots per target. If the weapon is moderately heavy, you can attach it to the wrist. Heavier weapons can be mounted on the chest and rely on instinctive alignment of torso with gaze, or hang from the shoulder and aimed with the hands like modern bullpup submachine guns. Weight allowing, these weapons would be dual wielded, pointing in different directions at rest, to minimize how much they need to be swung for any given target.

At the so called intermediate ranges (300-400 m) accuracy becomes important so you want something that can be pointed precisely, for extended time. For lighter weapons your posture would be similar to an assault rifle, with a bent arm stabilizing the weapon against the shoulder or chest, with sights in line with your eyes. Unlike an assault rifle, the weapon need not extend past your wrist unless barrel length is a factor. It can be shaped like a circle, triangle, or any other shape that fits into your elbow. Heavier weapons can be balanced on the shoulder (like a modern camera) to prevent the weight from interfering with aiming. At these distances it is nigh impossible to instinctively point with accuracy, so sights are necessary. Gyroscopic stabilization would be very helpful when making fine aiming adjustments. These weapons should also be designed to be usable when lying flat on the ground, so they would be flat on at least one axis.

Longer range weapons (1 km+) would have advanced sights and stabilization, at least a bipod or tripod. The closest analog here is a telescope or sniper rifle. You could deliberately make it long or heavy to help fine aiming. Beyond the concept of aiming through a sight, instinct is not useful at this range.

I think the weirdest design would be for fire-support weapons such as machine gun. These could evolve into something like Steadicam. The operator can then fire accurately while moving, and weight of the weapon (eg. battery packs) actually improve accuracy as well as allowing greater volume of firing, which in turn helps suppress the enemy and make up for the exposed posture. Because the whole point of this design is to make the device hard to move, it would not work at closer ranges where you need to cover a wider arc.