Nightcrawler
Member
Something I've been wondering about. When is a gun "obsolete"? I mean, a World War I Enfield will kill you just as dead today as it did in 1914. Some say that it's obsolete as a battle rifle because it's a bolt gun. But bolt action rifles are still used world wide by military forces, just for different purposes.
So what makes a gun obsolete? The easy answer is when something better comes along. But what makes one "better"? With things like jet fighters, it's kind of easy to tell. But small arms haven't changed a whole lot in the last half-century.
New advances include things like polymer frames. Is polymer really "better" than steel or aluminum? Or does it have disadvantages?
The US service rifle, the M16 family, is somewhere along the lines of 40 years old. Since then, a plethora of 5.56mm rifles have come along.
Is the M16 then "obsolete"?
Is the 1911 "obsolete" because there are newer pistols that will do exactly what it does that cost less to make, have fewer parts, and are lighter?
You know what I think it really is? In the last fifty years, it's gotten a LOT harder to shoot down a fighter aircraft. They've gone from 500 miles per hour to in excess of Mach 2; they've gone from service ceilings of 30,000 feet to over 100,000 feet (in the case of the F-15).
Yet, one well-placed bullet still kills a man, just as it did in 1953, in 1853, in 1753. Guns haven't evolved a great deal, especially in the last century, because we've already gotten them to the point where they're just about optimum for what we ask of them. A lot of what we have now might even be more than is necessary for many situations. (I mean, you're probably not going to need a thirty round magazine for home defense. It's nice to have, but a 4+1 shotgun will almost always work just as well.)
Just looking for your thoughts. I love "obsolete" guns. Garands, bolt guns, revolvers, leverguns, oh my!
So what makes a gun obsolete? The easy answer is when something better comes along. But what makes one "better"? With things like jet fighters, it's kind of easy to tell. But small arms haven't changed a whole lot in the last half-century.
New advances include things like polymer frames. Is polymer really "better" than steel or aluminum? Or does it have disadvantages?
The US service rifle, the M16 family, is somewhere along the lines of 40 years old. Since then, a plethora of 5.56mm rifles have come along.
Is the M16 then "obsolete"?
Is the 1911 "obsolete" because there are newer pistols that will do exactly what it does that cost less to make, have fewer parts, and are lighter?
You know what I think it really is? In the last fifty years, it's gotten a LOT harder to shoot down a fighter aircraft. They've gone from 500 miles per hour to in excess of Mach 2; they've gone from service ceilings of 30,000 feet to over 100,000 feet (in the case of the F-15).
Yet, one well-placed bullet still kills a man, just as it did in 1953, in 1853, in 1753. Guns haven't evolved a great deal, especially in the last century, because we've already gotten them to the point where they're just about optimum for what we ask of them. A lot of what we have now might even be more than is necessary for many situations. (I mean, you're probably not going to need a thirty round magazine for home defense. It's nice to have, but a 4+1 shotgun will almost always work just as well.)
Just looking for your thoughts. I love "obsolete" guns. Garands, bolt guns, revolvers, leverguns, oh my!
