standardization tends to 'settle' on the lowest common denominator, over-time.
This observation, if true, is probably a consequence of the Law of large numbers.
Having economically feasible access to a larger variety of calibers, should be, in my view, celebrated and supported by firearm enthusiasts.
It helps to encourage the industry to stay above the 'common denominator', and thereby find better improvements at a faster pace.
I think .40 and .357 Sig should include marketing of 'bundles' a carry pistol and pistol-caliber carbine together that offers similar trigger and other controls.
These particular calibers benefit from the longer barrel.
But also give a better support for 'gradual' learning, that is, getting a comfort for new shooters over time with the operating controls (partially) and the ammunition of the carry gun.
I think the industry is retiring .40 and .357 Sig way too soon. They require better frame design, better though in recoil control of the firearm.
But in exchange, they give flatter trajectory, better penetrating ballistic, small game hunting options, and greater design freedoms of the bullets (as in case of .40).
For example, designing frangible rounds, or snake-rounds as an option, when needed, may be easier with a larger caliber rounds and larger powder capacity.
While the resources and needs of law-enforcement agencies drive a lot of personal-protection market, research methods an standards -- I would also prefer the actual self-defense public/market segment is brought together in some more organized fashion, to sponsor/fund the research methods and standards -- outside of the law enforcement needs.
I suspect that will result in faster progress and less of 'least common denominator' standardization.
This observation, if true, is probably a consequence of the Law of large numbers.
Having economically feasible access to a larger variety of calibers, should be, in my view, celebrated and supported by firearm enthusiasts.
It helps to encourage the industry to stay above the 'common denominator', and thereby find better improvements at a faster pace.
I think .40 and .357 Sig should include marketing of 'bundles' a carry pistol and pistol-caliber carbine together that offers similar trigger and other controls.
These particular calibers benefit from the longer barrel.
But also give a better support for 'gradual' learning, that is, getting a comfort for new shooters over time with the operating controls (partially) and the ammunition of the carry gun.
I think the industry is retiring .40 and .357 Sig way too soon. They require better frame design, better though in recoil control of the firearm.
But in exchange, they give flatter trajectory, better penetrating ballistic, small game hunting options, and greater design freedoms of the bullets (as in case of .40).
For example, designing frangible rounds, or snake-rounds as an option, when needed, may be easier with a larger caliber rounds and larger powder capacity.
While the resources and needs of law-enforcement agencies drive a lot of personal-protection market, research methods an standards -- I would also prefer the actual self-defense public/market segment is brought together in some more organized fashion, to sponsor/fund the research methods and standards -- outside of the law enforcement needs.
I suspect that will result in faster progress and less of 'least common denominator' standardization.