Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by The Last Outlaw, Nov 11, 2020.
When you invent it, I'LL BUY IT!!
(the perfect solution to ROAD RAGE!!!!)
The C-130 Hercules has been in production for 66 years, and the CH-47 Chinook, for almost that long.
Claw hammers have been made for 180 years.
Most of the innovation in product design in recent years has come about because of the advent of integrated circuits and things like lasers and LEDs.
Except for sights, there are few opportunities in firearms to benefit from those things.
Ya, but today's Herc is a whole new airplane. Did you see them fly that thing at the last Paris Air Show? Holy cow!!
(next variant they're going to have to come up with performing a Lomcevak to outdo themselves yet again)
What do you replace your C130 Hercules fleet with?
A C130 Hercules fleet.
Yes, the "new" C130J and other variants are new -- since the 90's. The turboprop engine is new -- since the 50's and maybe earlier.
The true wonder is that they keep producing them. BTW, I was an engine mech on them for the AF Reserve.
And back to guns, it's true, there is not much innovation in form or function and design, but there has been some in materials and manufacturing processes.
Quite possibly caseless ammo, or directed energy weapons will come about for the handheld market sometime -- if the industry is allowed to bring it out to consumers.
Look at the advances in laser energy and subsequent downsizing of components and energy sources.
Part is physics, part is economics. A .30-06 is adequate for pretty much anything in North America, and the recoil is manageable. Any significant increase in performance is going to significantly increase recoil. But even if you design a system that will give you .338 Lapua performance with .223 recoil, for nearly your whole customer base, you'll be competing with standard production .30-06 in price, because, it's adequate for everything in North America and manageable. So, you aren't just innovating performance of the firearm, because, taking recoil management and shooter ability into account, you're innovating performance of the shooter as well.
If the firearm is just the delivery system for the projectile, maybe the innovation is drones.
"Innovation" is in the eye of the beholder, too.
The definitions get pretty critical, quickly, too.
A Ferrari at the 1955 Le Mans is not substantially different from one at the 2015. The latter has been through more wind tunnel testing; the tires have been through more testing--chemical as well as performance--the machining standards are to a different standards all together.
But, both are four-wheeled vehicles using internal-combustion engines, with friction brakes, optimized for racing.
Are disc brakes more innovative than drums? Is fuel injection (with or without boost) more innovative than 'natural' carburetion?
Firearms are very similar. You have a barrel to align a projectile, projected with a a dry chemical self-oxidized propellant using demand ignition.
Really, a musketeer could be taught to use a modern rifle readily enough. Especially with modern sights. Modern military tactics would take far longer, but the tool would be close enough for extant skills.
For real innovation, a firearm would need to change some fundamental part of its nature. Like not using dry propellant. Or by using some external propulsion. Or doing away with the barrel. Or something similar. (Imagine having a propellant in the base of the projectile which is converted to a plasma by a laser in the firearm.)
Hand tools no doubt are anther industry that has pretty small innovation. They rarely break yet snapon and mac and craftsman make/made millions selling more of the same. They do get lost a bit more than guns I hope. I did think of that in my other post. If you went through a 50s or 60s wish book then about the only things you would recognize in their exact form would be hand tools and guns.
Yeah. It is. We have 700+HP factory cars (from dodge....no less. Not supercars) with full factory warranties and 20mpg. Base camaro and mustang with 400+ naturally aspirated. My 2012 Toyota according to my bi- directional scan tool has 242 active sensor parameter just in the ecm side to run the engine. That's no body control. No srs. None of those. Just engine control. My 04 GT mustang has 40ish. Thats 8 years of innovation. My 66 352 has the factory carb and maybe 200HP. Gets 15 mpg on a good day. My 79 with a 4 barrel gets single digits and thats tuned for AFR (on any day with any load....no better no less) with its rudimentary electronic smark advance.
Funny you chose 55 le man's. That year a jaguar and Austin Healey with disc brakes (yeah they are better) was going to pit and slowed faster than the drum equiped mercedes behind them. Was the deadliest disaster in racing. Mercedes quit professional racing for years. Nearly 100 died. Many more injured. Ferrari was lagging by a good bit back then and was pretty terrible at the time. Average HP was maybe 250 in 55 le mans. Cars were fast due to weight. 170mph for some. The Mercedes had a magnesium frame.. Contributed to the fire and deaths when they tried to hose it down with water. Had rudimentary fuel injecting too. Open top cars....drum brakes.....no roll bars.....No seat belts....no barriers......running 170. Back then they couldn't get 300 laps. Now they do 400.
A lot of the safety innovating was from that very race. The barrel barriers we use are called Fitch barrels. John Fitch was the driver who held (ETA should have said consoled) the Mercedes drivers wife when he got killed in that crash right in front of the pits
And I don't want innovation in my guns either. Don't get the idea I'm complaining. I don't feel like they need it. I have a new sig 320. I prefer an old Glock or 226/9/0. The modular part is nice but I don't think many will ever use it. I just think it's an amazing industry. Where the 100 year old 1911 isn't just " still competitive". It's still one of the most bought guns 110 years later. Most of this stuff is nice when it works but not so nice otherwise. I get paid to work on it. Bleeding brakes with a computer and watching timing advance from 0-40 degrees in a second via a tablet is my hobby that happens to pay me as well as my job. The AI and learning in cars now makes Christine just look like a dumb Mopar. A mean one... but not so smart. Just today I worked on a car that had power steering to the left but not to the right because of a valve.... Is that innovating or going backwards? Idk.
I like tech in some ways. My 4k led tv. My memory foam mattress. My cell phone that can do anything and takes pictures a good as a camera I paid 2k for 10 years ago. Lol (d300s) yet I personally won't depend on a red dot on my guns. I have one mounted on a 6 inch Glock but I still wouldn't carry one. I've had 2 biometric safes go bad and not open. One I had to break open. The other I still use with the key. No way I'd want tech for my guns.
This year I did my shotgun hunting with two shotguns over 100 years old even though I own newer. I'll deer hunt with a 1911 (10mm) or Redhawk too. Do my rimfire hunting and target shooting with a K frame. Carry an early Glock 27.
The 60s wishbook i mentioned earlier with the red dot.... Fun to look through now.
There is a saying in Arabic: "Min al-bidda, il al-naar". It means "innovation leads to Hell".
And the Arabs got that right. Ever since this "smokeless" powder fad has come along, the shooting sports have been going to Hell in a hand basket. First it was these teeny, tiny bullets in silly little calibers like .30 "But they go so fast..." Then it was these abominations called " autoloaders". First it was that vile 1911 thing and now these whiz-bang ray gun looking pistols in the little Nazi cartridge that hold like 50 rounds a go. Why, in the last 20 years or so, these little plastic, toy rifles that "autoload" and fire bullets barely suitable for squirrels have come all the rage. The only good that's come of it is the fact that you can now buy one of those new-fangled "bolt guns" that shoots little microscopic groups for a fraction of the cost of a custom rifle made by the likes of those Griffin & Howe boys.
It was bad enough when they brought out those darned "cartridges". There sure has been innovation. And it's taking us to Hell, along with all that hippy music and $10 coffee. Hopefully, it's just a fad...
IMHO the advances in firearms are more evolutionary than innovative.
I'm a retired stonecarver/stonemason. The tools I used haven't changed in 4000 years or so. The most innovative gun related things I have are red dots.
Here is a question for you guys - Adjustable sights on firearms are a relatively new innovation for guns. When were they first made available to the public?
They had adjustable tang sights in the old west. On handguns they had drift adjustable sights 100 years ago. i do not know about fully click adjustable But it's not in the last 70 years. Smith had them in the 50s at least
They had telescopic scopes back in the 1800s
I don't know ... the Sharp's rifle in the mid-1800's had an adjustable rear sight, so it was sometime before then.
Innovation can be revolutionary or evolutionary. Most of the improvements made to firearms in the last 100 years could be described as evolutionary, but that's still innovation.
Saying there's no innovation in firearms is like saying there's been no innovation in the wheel in 5,000 years. But it took some serious thought and development and trial and error to get from a cookie sliced from a log to where we are today.
How 'bout the "Buff?" The B-52 StratoFortress ...
What about frame-mounted de-cocking safeties on semi-auto pistols? That seems pretty innovative to me. How can one say there's not been innovation with regard to optics? And ultra-light handguns are innovative, not evolutionary. Aluminum, alloys, scandium, titanium frames should be considered innovative. Innovation to me means thinking out of the box, experimenting, be it with raw materials, sighting systems, trigger systems, springs, whatever.
Yeah, all this stuff can be considered evolution, but the innovation drives the evolution.
I couldn't agree more.
Separate names with a comma.