Why the apparent disdain for most new guns?

[jbrown50]

Insecure people hate positive change or innovation. They see it as a threat to their chosen way and become defensive.

They attach themselves to their jobs, companies, property (guns, etc.) and other material things in society and use them as a symbol of their accomplishments and importance in life.

It's their baby and don't you dare do anything that would threaten to make it less meaningful or important.

 

[oldfool]

well, I cannot get myself real excited about most "new & improved", but every now and then, someone does something that tinkles my windchimes
and you can only have just so much fun, buying yet another of the exact same great old stuff make/model/caliber
(druther own 7 k-frames than just one, but only got two hands, and never was any good with my left hand nohow)

Kel-tec, for one, not a lot of their stuff rings my chimes, but they do innovate more than most, and have hit at least one marketing jackpot
if anything, there is too much imitation and not enough innovation

mostly wally hit on one of my own peevish points, i.e., magazines
far too many times the gun makers latest/greatest comes with a magazine that is different solely for the sake of making sure it will not retrofit
I call that a dirty trick, if/when there is no truly functional design reason for that change

 

[earlthegoat2]

Most of my beef is, and this just a one gun example:

Until someone makes a K Frame size revolver in say 38 special without any locking device and real wood grips with a smooth trigger that doesnt rattle like crazy at a price that is only marginally higher than I can buy them for used then I will bite on a new gun.

The truth is though is that this is not cost feasible. So I dont buy or even look at new.

The above example can be used with a variety of guns but revolvers have really gone downhill in modern times.

 

[Mike J]

I tend to look at new designs critically because I am not going to spend my money just to buy a gun. That is to say if I buy a new gun I want something to fill a different niche. While I don't have as many firearms as many here I do basically have what I need covered. As far as the Ruger/Gunsite scout rifle goes-It would not do what I use a bolt action rifle for any better than the old model 70 I have had for years. It looks neat. I like the concept but I will not be buying.

Sometimes firearms manufacturers own hype works against them. Ruger sent me E-mails about the LC9 for a couple of days telling me how it was a new must have firearm before they announced it. Then when they said what it actually was I was not impressed. It isn't like they reinvented the wheel. There have been small 9mm's around for a long time. Then you have the seemingly unending supply of new cartridges that don't usually do anything better than what was available previously. I am critical because I need to get as much value for my money as possible.

 

[CraigC]

Insecure people hate positive change or innovation. They see it as a threat to their chosen way and become defensive.

They attach themselves to their jobs, companies, property (guns, etc.) and other material things in society and use them as a symbol of their accomplishments and importance in life.

It's their baby and don't you dare do anything that would threaten to make it less meaningful or important.

That is a mighty interesting and profound assessment. I think you might be right.

 

[NMGonzo]

I want a modern pocket hamerless

 

[Sam1911]

That is a mighty interesting and profound assessment. I think you might be right.

Yup!

And this one is, too:

I am critical because I need to get as much value for my money as possible.

So there's lots of reasons for folks to be critical.

Now there are two somewhat related processes at work here:

critical   
–adjective
Def: inclined to find fault or to judge with severity, often too readily.

This would be the knee-jerk antipathetic reaction against something simply because it isn't some other thing you like, or merely because it is new. A blinded and pointless dislike that benefits no one. A prejudice against something you don't really understand.

But there's also:

criticism 
–noun
1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2. analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

This is a more analytical and cerebral process, and one we should all strive to practice. Asking, "What does this DO? What does this do BETTER than what I have or other things like it? Do I need the attributes this possesses? Is this worth the investment, to me?"

And so forth.

Sometimes we fight various external forces when trying to exercise our criticism. E.g: peer "pressure" (well, peer-enthusiasm, at least) and definitely MARKETING.

And often, when we've exercised our criticism, in the face of strong community enthusiasm, usually driven by manufacturers' very strong marketing drive, we tend to over-state our own ideas of what the worth and value of the object is, TO US, as we attempt to justify our own resistance to peer enthusiasm and marketing.

And that blurs the line between being critical and exercising valid criticism.

 

[CraigC]

This would be the knee-jerk antipathetic reaction against something simply because it isn't some other thing you like, or merely because it is new. A blinded and pointless dislike that benefits no one. A prejudice against something you don't really understand.

This is what I take issue with the most, the kneejerk reaction, like it was a sport to see who could be the most negative the quickest. When there is seemingly no logical thought behind it whatsoever. Much of it, I think, is people trying to show everybody how smart they are. What is most irritating, is when it comes from folks who would've never bought it anyway. For example, all the rhetoric about buying an old Enfield instead of the Ruger Scout rifle. If that's your response, you were never gonna buy one anyway and could apply that logic towards the purchase of anything new.

If folks put as much effort into the positive as they do the negative, the world we live in would be a much better place. It's not about being blindly sucked into something, it's about perspective. Negativity for the sake of itself is no way to live.

 

[Guillermo]

If comparing like products I find the workmanship, metallurgy and materials to have been superior in the past.

Obviously, were I looking for a plastic framed gun I would look to the new market. Were I looking for a super light gun I would look to the new market. Were I looking for a mega hand-cannon I would look to the new market.

Beyond those categories the new handguns have been cheapened in many ways, including but not limited to, materials, workmanship, QC.

Of course some are "early adapters" and have to get the newest. More power to them.

The "raging judge" may sell just fine...but not to me.

 

[CZguy]

We live in a consumer based society. It only works (well) when people consume as much, or more than their income permits. It's the manufacturer's responsibility to design and market new merchandise, so that people continue to keep buying. It's our responsibility to resist, and figure out what we really need. This is harder than it sounds when you consider how much time and resources are devoted to scientific research in order to find out what will make us buy more than we need.

Consider it this way. Many of us who are older remember a time when you repaired things and they lasted a long time. Now look at how long various things that we all use daily last. When was the last time you repaired anything as opposed to just buying a new one because it was cheaper than repairing, and it had a warranty.

 

[chucksolo69]

The way I look at it is, ANY industry NEEDS to find new ways of doing things. Being a purist, I love the lines of the 1911A1 and Single Action Army. I find "modern" firearms like the Glock, SIG, etc., to be too "sterile" looking. I find though that a firearm is uniquely personal. You buy a gun that you like and is pleasing to you when you shoot it. We all have our preferences though; for me, I absolutely refuse to buy a handgun that doesn't have a hammer. I have never bought a striker fired gun and don't intend to. It's all a matter of personal preference. Case in point, I don't like the Ruger Vaquero although it is a fine weapon, because to rotate the cylinder, you simply have to open the loading gate. I much prefer the 2 hammer clicks, open the loading gate to rotate the cylinder for loading. I would also prefer in a SAA clone that it have a fixed firing pin to a transfer bar hammer setup. I like the idea of only loading 5 rounds and keeping one chamber empty. Go figure.

 

[oldbear]

I’m of the opinion that any caliber developed after the .357 Magnum is a waste of time, and revolver developed after the S&W M-27 is unnecessary, but I’m a cranky old man! So I have no distain for all of the new products on the market I just don’t see any need for them.

 

[dirtykid]

ditto,CZguy hit it right on the head,, we ARE a marketing-driven society so there will always be a push for "new".... And yes they dont make things like they used to, repair/rebuild isint an option with ANY new products nowadays,,,,

 

[TexasBill]

I am perfectly happy with new guns. From a functional point of view, most modern pistols are light-years ahead of what was offered when I bought my first autoloader back in 1970. I have great respect for the Colt Government Model, but I can buy a better pistol for less money from a variety of manufacturers and I don't need to spend a thousand dollars to get one that works right out of the box.

I like the S&W Model 27, as well, it's a fine revolver and one of the best .357 Magnums ever made. However, I would buy a new one, complete with MIM parts and the lock, before I would buy one made in the later Bangor Punta era. The later 1970s and 1980s were poor years for Smith & Wesson; I actually quit buying their products after multiple disappointments. As far as I can tell, the new revolvers are better-made than the ones that came before. I have a couple of Smiths now and they work just fine, have nice, smooth triggers and I can't quibble about the fit and finish, though I can complain all day about the price (the inflation-adjusted list price of a Model 10 should be about $550.00. So why is it $719.00?).

Of course, we are all going to buy what we want and, for some of us, there needs to be more justification than "I wanted it." So we seize on isolated incidents, old wive's tales and conventional wisdom, which is always conventional but often not actually wisdom, to reinforce our selections. And we come to forums like this one seeking validation.

And me? Well, I'm here, ain't I? I'm not a whit different.

 

[thorazine]

I find most new auto designs (Glock is a great example) to be boxy looking and ugly. I like smooth, rounded lines, not sharp corners.

Many current revolvers are the same thing: ugly.

Also, the main objective with new guns is cheap manufacturing costs. Makes cheap looking guns.

I don't like guns that require keys. Or have the entire owner's manual stamped on the barrel.

Older guns had beautiful bluing. That takes time in polishing and time costs money so new guns are flat and dull looking.

I like parts made from forged steel, not hammers made by gluing metal dust together.

Barrels should not require a separate shroud held on with a screw.


This is what an auto pistol should look like:

http://www.fototime.com/A5FEE7C0F084410/standard.jpg


This is what a revolver should look like:

http://www.fototime.com/C7AF980D3E6FECB/standard.jpg

I would to get those two pistols!




So...

I can sell them and buy a hk or glock. =p

 

[Fastcast]

I think most tend to over analyze these things and forget the big (basic) picture. Out smarting themselves by believing there's some complicated, rationale behind everything. :banghead:

I think Bushmaster summed up the OP's question quite nicely with his below post.....Simple to see, feel and understand for all that are willing to truly look and compare with an open mind.

I think there is general impression that the new guns in the range that most of us can afford are not made as well as the old ones.

It only takes a few moments with a Colt revolver, a Model 12, a Model 37 or a Model 31 to realize that they just don't make them like that anymore.

 

[mgmorden]

Several factors here:

A. Some people just don't like certain types of guns. You have some people that loathe anything old fashioned. A guy was out shooting an old cap and ball revolver out at the range a while back and I overheard a few younger guys a stall over discussing that and asking what as the point of shooting something that was so much work. BY THE SAME TOKEN however, a lot of times when a younger person brings out a tricked out AR15 or FN Five Seven or the like, you have the old timers throwing around the "tacticool" slurs and such. Neither group seems aware of the fact that both of them are just shooting what they like, and both types of weapons are functional and have their uses.

B. To some degree. Innovation is a bit limited in terms of practical applications. The stark reality is that it's hard to go all out on designing truly advanced and innovative civilian arms without ticking off the lefties. Increase capacity too much? Can't have that. Ban it. Full auto? They already got rid of that. Armor penetrating rounds? Nasty filthy "cop killers"! Ban it! Reduced weight via polymer parts? OMG they're trying to get around metal detectors! Ban it! (that was actually a real concern of the uninformed when Glocks first came out)

The reality is that to a large degree gun technology for civilians has peaked. Not because of a technical limitation, but because of political limitation. We have achieved, at the core, about the most advanced firearms that they're going to let us peasants ever own. About the only area where they can still innovate these days is concealability, because with concealed carry laws being passed they can argue a legitimate legal market for it. Hence, lots of new products in that area.

Overall though, many new products focus on cosmetic changes. Not that they're anything wrong with that. I like my cars to look nice and I certainly don't mind my guns looking nice either, but I do see some possible grumbling from the less patient when they see yet another gun that is essentially just a different packaging as what we had before released.

 

[Deamont]

I was never a 1911 fan. I'm not knocking them, they just aren't my cup of tea. When everybody and their brother introduces a new 1911 clone every year, my enthusiasm is underwhelming.

Smith & Wesson have introduced a number of changes over the last few years, almost all of which were negatives.

1911 in a lot of ways are obsolete. For instance, you could get a glock 21 that woud far out preform it in a nasty battle situation-(for most, I will be preforming blasphemy with this statement), but the 1911 is sort of THE muscle car of the gun world. It looks mean, it's powerful, and like the chevy 350 engine block, you can buy anything for it, or do anything to it.

Plus, when you think about it, it still hangs with or outdoes some modern firearms after 99 years of service.

 

[Deamont]

I’m of the opinion that any caliber developed after the .357 Magnum is a waste of time, and revolver developed after the S&W M-27 is unnecessary, but I’m a cranky old man! So I have no distain for all of the new products on the market I just don’t see any need for them.

what about .44 mag?

 

[KBintheSLC]

It is not just with guns...

Back in the old days, new and improved products rolled out much more seldom. And when they did, it appeared more impressive due to its scarcity. Nowadays, we expect upgrades every other day. And when they come, we are usually underwhelmed.

 

[CZguy]

1911 in a lot of ways are obsolete. For instance, you could get a glock 21 that woud far out preform it in a nasty battle situation

Take it back quick.....throw salt over your sholder.......have you never heard of gun karma.

Besides with that grip angle you're just going to shoot over their heads.

 

[txhoghunter]

Gun folks might be varied on what we like.....but even if the person next to us wants to own a gun that we think is the ugliest piece of junk on the planet, we will ALL stand by his right to do so

 

[CraigC]

Some people just don't like certain types of guns. You have some people that loathe anything old fashioned. A guy was out shooting an old cap and ball revolver out at the range a while back and I overheard a few younger guys a stall over discussing that and asking what as the point of shooting something that was so much work. BY THE SAME TOKEN however, a lot of times when a younger person brings out a tricked out AR15 or FN Five Seven or the like, you have the old timers throwing around the "tacticool" slurs and such. Neither group seems aware of the fact that both of them are just shooting what they like, and both types of weapons are functional and have their uses.

An excellent point! IMHO, folks should try a little harder to respect the positions of others. Myself included.....sometimes.

We see it all the time in discussions of anything "tactical". Fact is, they're a lot of fun to own, tinker with and shoot. No, I'm not in any way, shape, form or fashion a "mall ninja". I live 70miles from the nearest mall and wouldn't wear black BDU's to one anyway. I just enjoy them. They are a small part of my shooting collection and greatly outnumbered by single action revolvers, leverguns and traditional blackpowder guns but I enjoy them all the same. Multiply the animosity and disparaging comments tenfold if the discussion is about "tactical" .22's. Hell no, we're not talking about a .22LR as an entry weapon for SWAT teams or for patrolling the streets of Baghdad. It's just the best word to describe a type of rifle that is styled like a "tactical" rifle, only chambered in .22LR. They offer some utility and are a lot of fun to shoot and I'm tickled to see so many on the market now. Love to have one of everything. They get used right alongside my Winchesters and SAA's.

 

[JohnBiltz]

The reality is that to a large degree gun technology for civilians has peaked. Not because of a technical limitation, but because of political limitation. We have achieved, at the core, about the most advanced firearms that they're going to let us peasants ever own. About the only area where they can still innovate these days is concealability, because with concealed carry laws being passed they can argue a legitimate legal market for it. Hence, lots of new products in that area.

I don't think this is really true or rather not completely true. I look at the pocket pistols and think there are some people doing new things, I don't own one but I'm pretty sure eventually I'm going to get over my .380 aversion and buy one. I look at the subcompact autos and I'm really amazed. These are truly guns that while small give up nothing in handling and practical accuracy. I look at the AR and think back to what it was in the 80s and again am amazed. In terms of reliability, choice of caliber, choice of options and quality I'm not sure its even the same gun anymore. I've said it before, I'll say it again we are living in a golden age of fire arms.

 

[macadore]

I don't think this is really true or rather not completely true. I look at the pocket pistols and think there are some people doing new things, I don't own one but I'm pretty sure eventually I'm going to get over my .380 aversion and buy one. I look at the subcompact autos and I'm really amazed. These are truly guns that while small give up nothing in handling and practical accuracy. I look at the AR and think back to what it was in the 80s and again am amazed. In terms of reliability, choice of caliber, choice of options and quality I'm not sure its even the same gun anymore. I've said it before, I'll say it again we are living in a golden age of fire arms.

I remember when the 9x19 was considered inadequate for self defense and the .380 didn't even get mentioned among the cognoscenti. The same was true for the 5.56. Real men carried .30 calibers. My how times have changed. It wouldn't surprise me to see the 5.7 become the premier round in the next few decades.