Are we responsible for the lack of advancement in firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kharn and others are right imo,

It's the grabbers, who apply pressure both politically and through litigation, that makes it tuff on firearms makers. Barret's problems with California come to mind. Calico may face the same future.

I did read an interesting article comparing modern hunting tools to those of 50 years ago. Composite stocks, stainless steel, better optics, more cartridge choices, all were said to improve the hunting experience. But I agree that firearms are a mature technology. :)

If I was an engineer I'd like a gun that... (insert dream sequence wavy lines)

Used caseless cartridges that come in pre-packed, disposable magazines

Was self-cleaning and self lubricating, both charged from the disposable mag

Used a bullpup design to help weight and handlling

Offered an integral 2x10x45 scope/laser rangefinder with level and range information in the viewfinder

Had interchangable, stainless barrels of different weights and calibers

Offered a pre-bedded action in an stiff, composite, light weight stock, and a titanium liner

Allows shooters to choose from wild camo color mixes for the stock, that are interchangeable by using slip on/off covers

Ajustable cheek pad and pull

Integral gas action, recoil reduction buttpad

I would call my creation, The Brazles :D
 
Correia,

The history of invention is the history of lost and rejected ideas. Didn't Sam Colt, while being the only repeating pistol manufacturer going, go out of business once?

Firearms people are entrenched romantics. For a new thing to get anywhere at all, it has to be both perfect AND cheap. The Glock 17 would have been another VP70 had it not been so inexpensive and reliable. It was easy to accept. A P7 is arguably a better pistol, but not many people are going to try it at that price, so is it a bad idea?

Gun people will make any excuse for whatever pet gun does it for them, rather than searching out an improvement. Maybe it's because ultimately, it doesn't matter. Most people can't shoot well enough to tell a Sigma from a Sig 210 in a blind taste test. How many posters report buying multiple Colts (or whatever) over the years, but having problems with half of them? That isn't critical thinking at work.

A truly excellent new product will not delight the masses, they won't be able to perceive a difference. But that same product may get enough of the connesiours talking to get the masses on the bandwagon.

For the American market, guns really just need to be fun. A successful inventer must come up with a design that is either pretty, cheap, easy to shoot, even easier to understand or some combination of all four. But a really far out idea, especially if pricey, is doomed.

We are the land of reality TV and hotdogs. Unsuccessful marketing of a great product is almost a compliment.
 
The internal combustion engine is PATHETIC.. It too is an example of lack of technology. We have technology that is FAR better and 40x as efficient as the internal combustion engine, yet we don't use it. The oil industry can be thanked for that... what's the use of selling you a car that can go 200 miles a gallon?? They were just happy with the explosion of the SUV market.

I think the gun industry can blame anybody they want; but it's we the consumers that are to blame.

I can move to any 3rd world country and overcome 99% of all regulations.. So it's not the regulations, it's the market... that would be us.
 
All technical advances and consequent products go through a product life cycle. Firearms are well out the curve. Interestingly, when products reach the end of their innovative life, items that support original products become more important. Example, the automobile as a means of transportation is pretty predictable, so manufacturers empahsize not the auto but stuff in and used by autos. That's why CD players become important.

Shift to guns

Materials and manufacturing get more sophisticated. Marketing emphasis changes. Customer demand will change product availability. The recent increase in demand in small frame firearms was driven by customer demand which was "permitted" by gov't allowing CCH.

Stuff I'd like to see:
--interchangeable calibers by changing barrels and mags (Sigs)
--integral silencers (opps, fed.gov will have to "permit" it)
--cleaner powders
--higher visibility sights

If we are so fortunate as to have fed.gov permit us the use of "assault guns" I suspect the market will result in innovation but not to the basic firearm. Inovation will typically be limited to adjunct elements.
 
Yep, you just can't have a great idea you also have to have good marketing. Glock had a superb marketing plan.

As for Sam Colt going out of business once, you can have the best product on earth but if you don't satisfy your market and you don't get your product out there making people happy, then you are out of luck. You also have to have your finances in order, and that seems to be the biggest single killer of small gun companies now.

Sorry twoblink, I don't buy the 40X argument for one second. :) That is what small custom shops are for. If there really is a product that is 40 times better than a regular old engine, then somebody would be building it. Oil companies or not. And no I don't believe in the 200 mile per gallon carberator, nor do I believe that there is a secret car that runs on water and produces nothing but oxygen but it is locked in a hidden bunker somewhere. :p

Fact remains, if you want something better, build it and prove that it is better. Burden of proof is on the inventor, not the market.
 
If you take a look at systems like split-cycle engines, turbine injection diesel engines etc...

ICE's are like 30% efficient; where as we now can get engines that are like 90% efficient, and on a better power/weight ratio.

My dad makes car radiators; We can have solid state peltier radiators that are 1/10th the size, and no moving parts and no water... but that is not the case and I don't think that will ever be the case as long as the car manufactures are doing whatever they can to hinder progress.

I can't believe that John Moss Browning has a monopoly on gun designs. There has to be some improvements that the market has rejected..

If I make a handgun, I'll definitely call it the 1912!! :D
 
My two cents:

The chief attribute of a successful firearm is reliability. When you need it, you need it now and you need it to work.

Most firearms are simple mechanisms. Simple is better. The more parts, the more possible points of failure. Chaos theory teaches us that as systems become more complex on a linear scale, the possibility of unexpected consequences increases on an exponential scale.

IMHO, the reason why there is not a constant surge of new-product innovation in the gun business is that it's not needed. It's a fully mature product, and enhancements have to prove themselves worthy. A gun is not an SUV or cell phone. Adding scads of "features" doesn't do a lot for it. There have only been a few recent advancements that have shown themselves worthy, like polymer frames, night sights, and drop safeties. What new stuff do we really need?
 
http://iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=iol1047630378830C416&set_id=1

Meet the 'gun with brains'
March 14 2003 at 10:26AM

By Stuart Johnston

Pretoria inventor Nic van Zyl has developed what may be the world’s first "intelligent firearm", a handgun that can be operated only by its rightful owner. It could make criminal abuse of firearms a thing of the past

It looks like a cross between a sci-fi raygun and an industrial high-pressure cleaning device. Bulky and block-like, it displays none of the black-metal menace inherent in most civilian firearms, and frankly, it is not a thing of beauty.

Then again, there’s no rule that says a firearm has to be pretty. Some people might find the smoothly formed wooden hand grip and machined aluminium body downright compelling, especially if they’re at the wrong end of the muzzle.

newspic3e71c35aa16c3


Say hello to the Intelligent Fire Arm, a unique and thoroughly South African device that could change the way we think about guns – and the people who wield them. Although still in prototype form, it will soon enter manufacture.

Inventor Nic van Zyl, 65, is an ardent believer in firearms with brains.

“Until now, firearms have been dumb. They lie in your safe at home, or in your holster, and tell no stories. Naturally, this opens the door for all sorts of abuse. The Intelligent Fire Arm, also known as the ‘smart gun’, changes all that.â€

Van Zyl is managing director of Bansha Investments, the company that has produced the prototype of the IFA. Work began on the device in 1994, when the first of many patents was taken out. Now, eight years later, an international firearms company is poised to acquire the production rights to what may well be the world’s first foolproof firearm – at least in terms of criminal abuse.

The IFA, as it’s known, uses a biometric sensor located just above the handgrip to activate its firing capability. The sensor is encoded with the thumbprint of an authorised user (or users): unless it recognises the imprint, it remains inoperative. As Van Zyl says, an unauthorised person could use it to clobber someone over the head, but that’s about it.

“This is the first firearm to enter the electronics age in terms of authorised use. It could be used for personal protection, or in a responsible peacekeeping role. There is a real need for a gun like this.â€

In conjunction with the biometric sensor, the electronic chip located in the gun’s pistol grip will be encoded with a range of additional information regarding the user’s personal details, including fingerprints, identity number, and licence status (that is, whether the firearm is for personal protection, hunting, police or military use).

The device is designed to empower a country’s authorities with absolute control over the gun’s life history, says Van Zyl. When the firearm is issued, it can be “loaded†with one or more authorised users’ details. This data is stored in a fixed memory that cannot be changed. And it records each and every shot fired by the IFA.

“In addition to this record, we have added a tiny camera – similar to the devices used in mini-cam recorders – which takes a photograph every time the gun is fired. This information is downloadable by the authorities for use in a court case, if necessary, to document the circumstances in which the shot was fired.â€

Banshee intends to develop a smart card recognition system for the gun as a further safety measure. The smart card will be carried by the owner, and the proximity of the gun to his card activates the device to “ready†status. Again, it will not fire unless the biometric sensor above the grip recognises the authorised user’s thumbprint.

The IFA dispenses with the conventional percussive firing action, instead employing laser technology to ignite the charge in the bullet. This has required the production of special bullets with a built-in “windowâ€, allowing a laser beam to ignite the (conventional) charge. To prevent gas from fogging the laser beam, the inventor has installed a small plastic lens on the back of the bullet and an O-ring on each bullet.

Because there is no percussive or hammer device in the gun, it has been possible to incorporate the magazine and the barrel in one unit. The prototype uses a 10-barrel configuration, with two vertical rows of five bullets arranged side-by-side.

When all 10 shots have been fired, the magazine/barrel is simply ejected and a new, loaded barrel is installed, using a quick-release lever. The empty barrel (held in place by a clip that permits rapid removal and replacement) is returned to the dealer for reloading. It’s virtually impossible for ordinary users to make or reload the uniquely coded, caseless ammunition.

Van Zyl says it would be possible to develop many barrel/magazine combinations – accommodating different calibres and types of bullet – and considerably improve firepower, perhaps for military applications. With a large-capacity magazine, the IFA could be programmed to fire 50 or more rounds in single shots, bursts, or fully automatic.


For a street-legal weapon that complies with civilian laws, it would have a 10-round magazine and fire single shots only, requiring the trigger to be pressed each time. The IFA has been designed to fire at the rate of three rounds per second – fast enough to make even a Wyatt Earp happy.

“Sure, the prototype is bulky, but when we go into production it will be much smaller,†he says. The prototype was built by Kentron, a subsidiary of South African armaments group Denel.

Says Van Zyl: “A lot of the electronics contained in the handle or grip have yet to be miniaturised; the typical personal-use weapon can be made much smaller - the size of a conventional handgun, in fact.â€

Bansha Investments has acquired patents for the weapon in a number of countries, including Japan, China and Russia, but it is likely that the IFA will be produced by a European company, as yet unnamed. It’s known that other major firearm manufacturers have “owner recognition†guns under development, but Van Zyl is confident that none of these offers the simplicity or user-friendliness of his invention.

Cost? About 50 per cent more than a conventional, or “dumb†firearm.

“There are additional shot-recording features that are likely to be incorporated into the IFA, such as a GPS recorder, which will pinpoint the exact location where each bullet is fired.
“The prototype already has a clock installed that records each shot, and by using flame spectrometry techniques, the bullet’s DNA, so to speak, can be recorded. Even a fragment could be traced back to its origin, together with details on the person issued with that particular bullet.

“Using special bullets will obviously complicate the infrastructure needed to get the IFA into production, but it should be remembered that this device could change our whole approach to firearms.

“I’m only a scientist… I can’t change people’s minds. But I can make it very difficult for people to abuse a firearm.â€

The IFA has been tested by the SA Bureau of Standards in prototype form, says Van Zyl, and the test results show that it operates well within the spec of a conventional firearm in terms of accuracy and firepower. The 9 mm, 100-gram [sic] bullet speed was measured at between 370 and 400 metres per second – as good as a typical 9 mm pistol.

(note: The standard load for a 9mm is 115 grains, which = 7.5 grams. 100 grams would be 1,533.3 grains. 100 grams = 0.1 kg = 0.22 pounds. By way of comparison, a .50 BMG bullet weighs about 750 grains. - Mad Man)

“Accuracy is no problem, despite the short barrel used on the prototype. By eliminating the percussion firing action, which necessitates locating the barrel and the trigger device at the top of the gun, we have managed to balance the IFA, so there’s negligible barrel kick in an upwards direction.â€

Van Zyl says when the IFA goes into production it may well be for military applications, which saddens him a little. He’s always viewed the IFA in terms of safety, specifically in cases of theft and shooting accidents involving children.

“However, the United Nations has been moving more and more towards transforming military forces from aggressors to peacekeepers, and has made it clear that soldiers could be held liable for their actions under civilian law. In this respect the IFA could provide the necessary checks and balances to ensure that soldiers don’t abuse the power vested in them.

“It will even be possible, via the electronics, to establish a live link with headquarters whenever a soldier or policeman is deployed on an assignment. In effect, the curtains will always be open. When your neighbours can see in, you tend to be a lot more careful about the way you conduct yourself.â€

In the final analysis, a firearm serves the purpose of launching a missile – in this case, the bullet that comes out of the barrel. “It stands to reason that these bullets should be controlled and accounted for… that’s why we developed our system. Bullets are coded at thepoint of manufacture and recorded against the name of the purchaser, who is held accountable for their use.

“This is the weapon for the soldier of the future – a specialist peacekeeper firearm.â€
emphasis added
 
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=20&articleID=000B8945-6A35-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

Scientific American
April 1999

TAKING BALLISTICS BY STORM

An electronic gun with no mechanical parts fires a million rounds per minute
By Dan Drollette

"When you first hear of a gun without any moving mechanical parts, you tend to laugh. I know I had to withhold my giggles," recalls physicist Adam Drobot of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company based in San Diego that evaluates new technologies. "But once you see the videotape of this test-firing, the giggle factor goes away."

The gun in question is something that even its inventor says comes out of left field. Termed Metal Storm, the weapon has no hammer, no trigger, no breechblock and no shell casings to eject. Equally unusual, a single barrel fires at a rate equivalent to one million rounds per minute. In comparison, the fastest conventional firearms (Gatling guns) fire only 6,000 rounds per minute.

Metal Storm's origins are unorthodox as well. It was invented by former grocery wholesaler Mike O'Dwyer, a lone Australian tinkerer with no formal education in ballistics or engineering.
His previous patents are for devices such as air-cooled sneakers. ("They pump air through as you jog," he explains.) Yet after 15 years of trial and error in his tropical Queensland home, O'Dwyer came up with a gun prototype that recently fired 180 rounds of nine-millimeter bullets in 0.01 second during a demonstration before military officials in Adelaide. Metal Storm's bullets leave its barrel so quickly that they are only microseconds apart--when one bullet is flying through the air, the next is just 10 centimeters (four inches) behind. For current machine guns, the gap between bullets is 30 meters.

"It could replace our existing technology on the battlefield," says Maj. David Goyne, a weapons specialist at Australian Defense Headquarters. The gun is ideal for close-in situations, such as defending ships against incoming missiles. Goyne comments that it could also eliminate land mines in open areas such as Kuwait's deserts: a helicopter using the gun could hover above the sands and clear a minefield by spraying it from a distance, exploding mines harmlessly.

The gun works through a combination of specially designed bullets and an electronic firing mechanism, which O'Dwyer describes as "a barrel tube with an electrical wire attached." Jacketless bullets are lined up inside, nose to tail, and are separated from one another by a layer of propellant. When an electric current makes its way down the strip, the bullets are set off one by one. To stop them from going off simultaneously--a problem previously encountered when putting many bullets in a single barrel--O'Dwyer designed the bullets to work together. The high pressure caused by the firing of the first projectile makes the nose of the next one in line swell against the walls, temporarily sealing off the rest of the barrel. (In ballistics terms, the nose of the second bullet effectively acts as a breechblock to prevent an uncontrolled sympathetic ignition.) After the first bullet exits, the pressure drops, and the nose of the second one loosens up, enabling the bullet to be fired. This process continues for each successive bullet.

Other than the projectiles themselves, there are no moving parts. To get even more firepower, several loaded barrels can be set up side by side. Once a barrel is used up, it can be discarded or sent back to the factory for reloading.

Variations of electrically fired weapons have been tried before. For instance, Sandia National Laboratories developed an electromagnetic coil gun designed to hurl 100-kilogram (220-pound) satellites into orbit. But a number of differences separate the two approaches, observes Vinod Puri, senior research scientist with the Australian Defense Science and Technology Organization: "The electromagnetic coil gun demands lots of energy, achieves high velocities and sends large objects great distances. In contrast, Metal Storm requires less energy, works at lower velocities, uses normal gun propellant and sends out more, smaller projectiles per minute for shorter distances."

O'Dwyer points out another feature of guns like Metal Storm: because electronics are such an integral part of their makeup, they offer a good opportunity for built-in electronic safeguards, such as security keypads. If an unauthorized user tried to bypass the gun's security system by disabling the electronics, the gun simply couldn't fire. The device has many nonmilitary uses, too, Drobot notes. A slower version could replace the nail guns used by carpenters and roofers and may find a use in riveting and other industrial applications.

Goyne remarks that the technology still needs fine-tuning--it fires relatively small caliber bullets, for example. But physicists such as Puri say its basic design is "very solid." The Australian Trade Commission is promoting the weapon, which has attracted attention in Australia and Britain.

In the U.S., General Dynamics has tested it, and SAIC has been contracted to help develop it further. A. Fenner Milton, previously in charge of weapons acquisition for the U.S. Army and now running the army's night-vision lab, attended a test-firing of a Metal Storm prototype in Australia last year. "In my opinion, Metal Storm represents a truly innovative approach to lethality, that if further developed has great potential for defensive weapon systems that can take advantage of its extraordinarily high burst rate of fire," an impressed Milton says.

What seems to surprise most experts about the technology is its source. "It sometimes takes someone who isn't very conventional to come up with new ideas," Drobot observes. "My amazement is at the process--O'Dwyer didn't blow up a barrel or kill himself while making it."
emphasis added

FYI: MetalStorm's web site has video clips.
 
I think thereis a difference between lack of advancement and an complete paradigm shift.
The basic concept of the computer hasn't really changed since charles babbage invented the Difference Engine. They have become faster and electronic instead of mechanical but they still deal with turning things on and off. Likewise firearms have evolved since their inception. Even the 1911 has changed several times over the years -- beaver tails, safeties, external firing pins, even interchangable breechfaces and linkless barrels.
Man has tried for thousands of years to "reinvent the wheel" but it hasn't been done yet. Firearms will continue to evolve like everthing else in our society just the pace is slower because the technology is older, it is the law of deminishing returns.
 
Handy,

I of course agree wholeheartedly. Just look at the bicycle industry. Another "sporting goods" industry working in the same materials on mechanical devices sold in the same price range for the same profit margin. No one would think of racing a 1960's era bicycle, let alone one from 1910. And while some older designs (the classic steel frame bicycle) will always have a following, new stuff comes out constantly.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you used to be in the bike industry...

Anyhow, let's go down to Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a recumbent with hub-center steering.

What's that?

Innovations that didn't catch on?

But they're so superior!



The "massive advancements" you tout in the bike industry are almost all simply new materials.

New materials that, coincidentally, don't offer much benefit in handguns.


Most any name-brand "obsolete" Browning tilting-barrel short-recoil pistol is far more accurate than its owner, and still kills folks just as dead as its predecessors did 100 years ago.

Innovation needs a reason.

When pistols start missing targets, stop killing folks, or begin not functioning, a better mousetrap will be built, but until there's demand, there will be no supply.
 
But moving away from the electronic whiz-bang stuff of Metal Storm and the IFA, what about simpler stuff?

What about revolvers with grips more similar to auto-loaders?

This seems like a product improvement that would be very feasible and cost effective.

Mateba did something like this, but they had a funky recoil-action that also cocks the hammer. The starting price is about $1,000.

Autorevolver3-a.jpg


Note that the barrel is lined up with the bottom cylinder, not the top, to put the axis of the bore closer to the hand.

I don't see why a major manufacturer like Smith & Wesson can't make a standard revolver (no recoil cocking) with the superior ergonomics and handling characteristics of a semi-automatic pistol. It would be a good thing for a novice shooter.
 
Seeing as how...

...I own a Mateba as well as a conventional Smith and Wesson or ten, I consider myself a little bit qualified to comment on it. ;)

The Mateba is very mild-recoiling for a .357, and the trigger cocking is handy.

It's also awkward to reload, can't fire .38's without swapping recoil springs, no more accurate than a conventional revolver, full of fragile bits and pieces, a pain to strip, and bulky as all getout.

It's a fun range toy, though. :)
 
Tamara,

That's why I think the action on revolvers should remain conventional (unless somebody comes up with a more robust design), but the grip and barrel placement should be changed.

Get rid of the funky hammer-cocking action, and that should solve the problems you're having.

It sounds like the problems are due to the unconventional action, and not the shape of the gun. Unless there's something I'm missing -- which may be entirely possible, since I'm not familiar with the action of the Mateba. I just think the grip/barrel alignment is superior to the standard revolver design.
 
Tamara,

As impressive as your knowledge of bicycles is, I'll disagree. One innovation failure is not a failure of all innovations. I'm sure you didn't happen to notice that you can buy a light, full suspension mountain bike for cheap. Or that significant weight savings, aerodynamic improvement and grossly more reliable bike components have all become common place in a very short time. We went from difficult ten speeds to fast reliable 30 speeds, with GAINS in durability, weight saving and efficiency.

During the same period, gun designs substituted one material for another, with little attempt to mesh a design to the material. They rehashed some old caliber attempts, this time .40 worked (kinda). The biggest innovation anyone seems proud of is offering SA like triggers with no accompanying safety. Whoopee.

One of the greatest little innovations was the Benelli Auto system. Most shooters, while appreciating the Benelli, don't even understand how it works.

Your comments sound more like the 1800's Patent officer that wanted to close the office because "everything had already been invented".
 
We have technology that is FAR better and 40x as efficient as the internal combustion engine, yet we don't use it. The oil industry can be thanked for that... what's the use of selling you a car that can go 200 miles a gallon??

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

This topic seems to come up regularly. The question I have is - what do you want?

When I use my computer, if it pauses, I want more speed. If a fancy new game comes out, I want a better video card and when I get it, the benefits are obvious and immediate.

I do not expect my computer equipment to last more than a few years and I am constantly swapping and upgrading anyway.

Why do computers and electronics evolve so fast? Because the mission evolves so fast and gains are tangible and immediate.

My Commodore 64 will still do everything today that it did in 1983. Yet our idea of what a computer can and should do has expanded to a level unimaginable 20 years ago.

My computer that I am using right now operates at 1.53 Gigahertz (AMD 1800XP+). I have had it barely a year and already I want a 2.5 or 3.0 Gigaherts computer. Why?


My house gun is a S&W Model 10 - made when I could barely ride a bicycle.

However, we still use guns for the same purposes we have been using them for for at least the last century. Sure we have new body armor that could be an issue - but the reality is, human behavior and biology has not changed and firearms do today what they have always done - threaten, wound, kill and poke holes in targets.

"Progress" for its own sake is a waste of energy and money. Why don't we improve on the wheel or on hand writing or on the drinking glass? How about the wood screw or the fact that our homes are made of wood?

What about copper wiring or modern plumbing? What about the pencil or ink pen (oh, this is actually coming).

Why are our clothes still made mostly of cotton?


If we need so much progress in firearms, please articulate the problem we need to solve.

If anything, further progress would be a detriment - imagine a gun with a GPS and a wireless radio that let the government track it at all times. Imagine a gun that will not fire in the presence of a "safety beacon" or a gun that has to be connected to a network every 10 days to remain "active".

Be careful what you wish for :evil: (and see the last part of my sig)
 
Handy,

As impressive as your knowledge of bicycles is, I'll disagree. One innovation failure is not a failure of all innovations. I'm sure you didn't happen to notice that you can buy a light, full suspension mountain bike for cheap. Or that significant weight savings, aerodynamic improvement and grossly more reliable bike components have all become common place in a very short time. We went from difficult ten speeds to fast reliable 30 speeds, with GAINS in durability, weight saving and efficiency.

Yes, and those mountain bikes still have caliper brakes, derailleur gears, a round, spoke-y thing on each end with an inflated rubber covering. Handlebars that steer inefficiently through front forks, just like they did on velocipedes.

The big "differences" you're talking about here are no bigger than what you'd find on a, say, scandium Centennial or double-stack STI racegun. It's the same ol' thing with some bells and whistles. Your "1960s bike" that nobody would be caught dead on has the same layout, brake types, gears, pedals and whatnot as a modern Trek mountain bike (look into how old an "innovation" suspension is on a bicycle; I'll bet the first patents for coil-sprung forks were filed before JMB thought of your favorite antique pistol. ;))

Why is changing the the cross-section and material of a bike frame a "radical innovation", but an STI racegun is still an outmoded design?

Your comments sound more like the 1800's Patent officer that wanted to close the office because "everything had already been invented".

Funny that you're saying that to a science-fiction fan; maybe you didn't read my post.

When a better way is really better, it gets used.

Notice your BMW isn't front-wheel drive? How retro! How inefficient! (How superior for good control in high-performance driving. ;) )
 
Tamara.. not true!

I drove an Audi because Quattro is superior; but why is it then only Audi's and Subaru's have AWD? Superior in safety, but not used in all cars...

Because these companies are stubborn and as long as the consumers don't punish them for the lack of innovation, they won't innovate.

Look at Detroit, the American cars lag greatly behind, but you have the "buy America" campaign, where people buy American cars and trucks regardless if they are inferior or not. That is the kind of mentality that stiffles innovation.
 
Tamara said,

Notice your BMW isn't front-wheel drive?

Don't ever say that FWD bad word around me. :shudder:

Twoblink said,

I drove an Audi because Quattro is superior; but why is it then only Audi's and Subaru's have AWD? Superior in safety, but not used in all cars...

Costs and the balance of the car. If you stick AWD in say, a Vette Z06, it'll throw off the balance and handling characteristics of this fine machine. It'll make it heavier and less tossable. That poor Vette wouldn't be able to light up the rear tires like God intended Vettes to be driven.

AWD is superior sometimes, maybe even most of the times, but not all of the time. Oops, I've veered off topic. Um, I bought a new gun yesterday!
 
You want a better gun? Build it. It's that simple.
But don't forget to get insurance.
Oh yeah, and the fleet of lawyers that you'll need.
And the political get-out-of-jail-free card.
And the... <list shortened for ADD people like myself.>

Simple, huh?
 
Are we responsible

for getting a gun design thread into bicycles and cars?

What we ARE responsible for is what we will ACCEPT in gun quality and design by what we spend our money for.
 
Since the use of analogies has already started, I’ll try one:

M1911 = small block Chevy – It’s been refined and tuned. It’s more “approachable†to the hobbyist than something with unubtanium-filled, fully variable, semi-sentient valve trains, and it still gets the job done. (No offense intended against semi-sentient valve trains).

That said, there’s a couple of innovations that I’m really sorry didn’t make it – number 1 being the MBA Gyrojet. The thing I remember from the breathless reviews of the time was the prospect of extremely long range shots without appreciable “dropâ€. The thing could be quiet, too.

I was also enamored of caseless ammo. From my limited reading, it appeared that most of the benefit would be in enhancing the cyclic rate of full auto arms, but anything that gave Kristen and Josh a case of the vapors was OK by me – one can learn so much from hysteria and hyperbole: http://www.vpc.org/press/9307case.htm I wonder if the Daisy VL caused similar indigestion? One can only hope.

OT: But the one thing I really, really wanted was a ’63 one of these: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html There was a lot of tinfoil hat type conjecture on why the car disappeared, but from what I’ve seen of turbine pricing, the real reason was likely more prosaic.
 
Last edited:
Techbrute, you bet it is.

I'm doing it myself. I'm putting my money and time where my mouth is. I'm building my design. I'm prepared to go the distance to see my idea turned into steel, plastic, and aluminium.

Ideas are just ideas. Anybody can have an idea. Whoop de fricking doo. It doesn't mean anything until it exists.

And it ain't going to exist if all you do is talk about it. People aren't going to materialize and throw big sacks of money at you just because you have a nifty idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top