Why the apparent disdain for most new guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I noticed the same thing in a thread about mag/slide safeties. People seemed outright insulted as if it did something to them personally. I can pretty much guarantee that I'm at least 20-30 years younger than most of those people, but then again maybe not. I just figured I'm from a different "era" of guns and don't know any better and couldn't care less. They really don't bother me so just let the haters hate I guess. Also gun owners tend to be very conservative and change (in all things) isn't comfortable to some.
 
It's a phenomenon not specific to guns. Car people nowadays think that classic muscle cars were the pinnacle of automotive engineering while in the muscle car days the old heads thought that classic Plymouths and Oldsmobiles were the bee's knees. Guitar players always say how modern guitars are lacking compared to classic telecasters and Les Pauls. I chalk it up to nostalgia. The longer a product is produced, the cheaper the production method gets. It's just good business. Why pay skilled laborers to machine and fit a pistol when you can stamp them out by the hundreds with a machine?

Its normal. The last real car built was a '69 Mach 1. Im still not over that.

You are forgetting the beauty that is a SS 454 Chevelle
 
I second both of saxon pig's posts

I like steel and wood. Polymer is not for me, what I consider ugly others may like, God bless em.

I like what I like. Spend your money as you wish and enjoy.

Just give thanks you can have the freedom of choice.
 
I have always liked blued steel and walnut. That said I carry a Steyr S9 and like the way it looks, but I think Glocks are as ugly as a mud fence. No, that doesn't make any sense.
 
I got nothing against new guns; I am simply baffled by the huge popularity of gimmick guns such as the Judge and derivatives. I am equally baffled by the popularity of the Toyota Prius and other hybrids that do nothing better, and many things worse than a well engineered turbodiesel car.

The bottom line is that some people really are attracted to catchy names, flashy advertising, and the "cool" factor. Hey, if it makes them happy, more power to them. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
 
most of the disdain comes from the fact that many new products are not made by the "ideal" companies.

example, when the judge first came out, people said it was crap because it wasnt made by SW.
SW has a .410/45lc/45acp revolver out, people are calling it junk without using it.

taurus has a new 22lr/22wmr da revolver that lets you swap the entire crane/cylinder assemblies out to change calibers. ive wanted that for years in a big centerfire caliber, but always told it was impossible to do so due to variations between the part of cylinder the hand pushes against to rotate it.
 
The Taurus Judge in .410 was a cool concept, but an unnecessary one, and now they have expanded that futile concept even further (what is it 28ga now?) The gun fills a niche with some people so it sells and they make more/expand based on sales.


Posted from above-- whey not let the mfgrs make what they want and let the market place decide if it is any good-or not!! A novel idea? no
 
Theodore Sturgeon's Revelation - 90% of science fiction is crap. (he was booed for this.)

Issac Asimov's Corollary to Sturgeon's Revelation - So, 90% of everything is crap.


And gun owners know that most companies cut every corner possible and try to do just barely enough work to get a new design out the door. And 90% of it is crap in the long run.

Which leads to another famous science fiction saying - The Golden Age looks so good because we've forgetten the 90% that was crap.
 
I like guns, I am among the group that says cool it goes bang! BUT I don't spend my money on marketing, or on hype. I do my best to really evaluate what is out there and get something that fits my needs the best for the money. I think the judge is a cool concept, a solution to a problem that I don't really have. They IMHO are neat but big, bulky, and to much. The only reason I can see for me to carry one is if there were some real BIG snakes around! LOL.

I like old guns, new one, etc but they have to fit my needs, and give me a good value. I thought the Ruger scout rifle was neat, again I don't see the need to have one. It doesn't do enough, better for the money than what I already have AND as was pointed out in threads about it, their are some things that could have been done to make it better. I own and carry at Keltec P32, and an old Chiefs spec 38. Pretty wide range of difference between the two, but they both meet different needs that I have and do it well. Don't think that makes me fickle, IMHO I am just thoughtful about what I need and careful to spend my money wisely.

I like the idea of the KSG, I currently have a pistol grip pump 12ga that is right at hand at home. When I get the KSG into my hands I will decide if it give me a better bang for the buck than what I have. If it does I will buy it, if not....... Even if I get one, I am sure that I and many others will come out with things we want to see improved. It is just human nature.
 
Especially in the gun community there is a strong resistance to innovation I've found.

Gun owners tend to be the most conservative people I have met. Semi-automatic handguns were coveted in both World Wars, but police in the U.S. were using revolvers well into the Sixties. When companies started making semi-automatic handguns out of materials other than steel, nearly everyone claimed they wouldn't last. No country in the World currently uses the 45 ACP but people will swear with their dying breath that it is the only handgun round to use.
 
My only problem is the government deciding what I need to protect me from myself. Lots of folks welcome locks, extra safeties and we get warnings not to carry the firearm loaded? I must be missing something, if it ain't ready to go "bang" why should I carry it when a baseball bat has a longer reach? I stick with older, proven designs and only had problems with a "black" rifle back in the '60s at a bad time.
 
Excellent posts by Jason_W and Carter, I fully agree.

I find shooters, or at least those that participate on shooting forums, to be extremely negative about anything new. Seemingly without reason. No, I'm not one easily fooled by marketing but I also understand that not everything good, useful or beautiful has already been invented. No, I'm not a polymer pistol freak either. I only own two and one of them is a 22/45 with 1911 grip panels. I'm just passionate about this stuff and look forward to the new offerings each year. Does that mean I blindly buy everything new without applying logic and reason? Hell no. It just means that I keep an open mind. It means that I look for the good, the useful and the beautiful rather than putting on my critic hat. Which reflects my outlook on life. Hell, anybody can be a critic. Do I expect shooters to simply embrace everything new? Not in the least. I only wish they were more open minded and respectful. If you don't want it, if it doesn't appeal to you, don't buy it. Don't go on a three page rampage about how useless it is and how upset you are that they "expect" you to buy such a useless POS. Because you're probably deriding somebody's new favorite toy.

I was excited to learn of the new .327Federal cartridge. Here we had a cartridge that did everything I got from the heavily loaded .32-20 with more robust brass, it fit into smaller sixguns (the Single Six) and we had a new Gold Dot. So were many others. Meanwhile, every thread on the `net was about how useless it was and how it didn't do anything their vaunted .357 could, blah, blah, blah.

Same for the Ruger Scout rifle.

Like the man said, people are natural born complainers. We see it everywhere, every day, about everything. Nothing is gonna change that.
 
Personally, everytime I open a copy of American Rifleman, Guns and Ammo, or any other popular firearms publication, I see pretty much the same thing on every page. I don't know what people expect... firearm manufacturers aren't exactly reinventing the wheel. Every product that gets introduced is more or less the same as something else already on the market. Not exactly surprising, companies have been ripping off designs from each other since the dawn of the industrial revolution and beyond. It will continue to happen invariably until technology produces something that does reinvent the firearms industry. Then of course, that technology will be copied packaged and reproduced by competitor companies the world over.
The Judge was something new, kinda, and the niche it filled was gimmick firearms, in my opinion. But pretty much every place I walk into can't keep them on the shelves. I'm all for new items, such as the Kel-tec bullpup shotgun, but people are fickle (to use the OPs term) because what is being advertised as new really isn't new at all. Yawn inducing rifles like the Ruger Scout are not new, but just a shuffling of features from pre-existing items.
But people being people, when the next revolution of firearms does come out, it will be met with disdain as well as excitement.
 
It was just as true in the 80s. There were gunshops just outraged when the Sigs and Glocks started being sold. Sig's first attempt at the American market with the 220 was a failure because it was too ugly and not invented by John Browning. Look at the posts in this thread about steel and wood. Wood in a rifle is an inferior material for anything but esthetics. Its not a stable material and its used as stocks which demands stability above all else. You still hear how those plastics pistols will fall apart one day despite the fact there are guns out there that are thirty years old. I've said it before if this forum existed in the 1800's we could go back and look up posts about how those new fangled cartridges won't last and I'll load my chambers myself the way god and Sam Colt intended.
 
"When companies started making semi-automatic handguns out of materials other than steel, nearly everyone claimed they wouldn't last. "

The first ones aren't even close to 50 years old yet. Let's see how they hold up over 100 or 150 years of use.
 
Personally, everytime I open a copy of American Rifleman, Guns and Ammo, or any other popular firearms publication, I see pretty much the same thing on every page. I don't know what people expect... firearm manufacturers aren't exactly reinventing the wheel. Every product that gets introduced is more or less the same as something else already on the market. Not exactly surprising, companies have been ripping off designs from each other since the dawn of the industrial revolution and beyond. It will continue to happen invariably until technology produces something that does reinvent the firearms industry. Then of course, that technology will be copied packaged and reproduced by competitor companies the world over.
The Judge was something new, kinda, and the niche it filled was gimmick firearms, in my opinion. But pretty much every place I walk into can't keep them on the shelves. I'm all for new items, such as the Kel-tec bullpup shotgun, but people are fickle (to use the OPs term) because what is being advertised as new really isn't new at all. Yawn inducing rifles like the Ruger Scout are not new, but just a shuffling of features from pre-existing items.
But people being people, when the next revolution of firearms does come out, it will be met with disdain as well as excitement.

The question I have is, where do gun makers have to go? IMO, the technology has reached its limit. At a certain point, this happens to anything. You can't invent a revolutionary spear or sword, or even internal combustion engine and firearms are similar in this respect.

Sure, manufacturers can come up with exotic materials for stocks, change the shape of a stock or grip, and do some other tweaking in terms of function, but at the end of all that, you still have a firearm, and that firearm will work like any other that has existed since maybe 1925 or so.

In order to continue to enjoy firearms, we may have to accept the fact that short of some sort of breakthrough in propellant technology or hand held energy weapons, all future gun desings are going to be in some way rehashing that which already exists.

Why not just look at new tweakings of the old as something that adds a little spice to the mix. To continue the bad metaphor, spices aren't necessary, but they do make eating more enjoyable.
 
The first ones aren't even close to 50 years old yet. Let's see how they hold up over 100 or 150 years of use.

I really don't think I'm going to care how the plastic firearms hold up in the next 150 years.

And I'm not interested in paying big bucks for the latest and greatest cost-savings "feature" on the newer Smiths or any other guns. I don't want internal locks, two piece barrels, billboard warnings on the barrels or any of the other great new features imposed by the government or the lawyers.

If they suit you...so be it, to each his own.

150 years from now your great grandson looks at it and says "Yeah, thats a piece of plastic my great grand dady bought back in eary 21'st century, still looks like a Bic pen don't it?" :)
 
I know some people will cringe at this, but I look at most things as tools. If my daily ride gets a serious problem, I'm ditching it (either scrapping, selling, or turning into a project) and switching to another bike that gets the same job done, just as well.

So what if a gun doesn't last 100's of years, no machine will. Just like it is possible to shoot out an AR gun, or any other mechanical device. I'll use it until it reaches it's end of life, then get another. No need to get emotional. Sure I'll look at aesthetics, but first and foremost I'll look at "will it get the job done." That is part of the reason I ride an '85 Kawasaki as my primary vehicle. It ain't pretty, but it does what I need.

Looking back at this, I'm not sure what this has to do with not liking new guns, but I suspect that people like me like simple things, and currently the problem is a lack of simple improvements. What we see currently is mostly small "improvements", to people like me which don't like much in modern cars after fuel injection, seems unusually complicated. Just more and more attempts to create more specialized, or "cool".

Oh, and I'm 22.
 
... One place I despise "innovation" is with magazines -- things like the FNP and FNX requiring different magazines. If spares were $10 each it wouldn't matter much but when they ask $30-$40 and change them with every gun revision I call rip-off unless the gun is shipped with three magazines at least...

Ummm... both the FNX and FNP come with three magazines. That was one of the many reasons I bought the FNP-9.
 
Semi-automatic handguns were coveted in both World Wars, but police in the U.S. were using revolvers well into the Sixties.

What?!

Revolvers were still used by most police until the 80s and 90s.

The transition started primarily in the 80s and was still happening well into the 90s.
Here is an article of NYPD beginning to phase out .38 special revolvers with 9mm handguns in 1993:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/21/n...to-replace-revolvers-with-semiautomatics.html

On the opposite side the of the nation LAPD made 9mm semi-autos an optional authorized purchase starting in 1987:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/guns-of-the-lapd

Even the average FBI agent switched to semiautomatics in the late 80s.


Most departments across the nation were still looking to and switching to new revolver models as the latest and greatest in the early 80s, and most had not even decided to switch over until the mid to late late 80s. The FBI really set the tone for change in the late 80s, after they began the switch after the 1986 incident.
With some still in the process of switching over to semi-autos in the 90s.
Even in the 90s it was not uncommon for older officers to still have a revolver on their belt in many jurisdictions if they had not elected to change over individually.
 
Last edited:
"When companies started making semi-automatic handguns out of materials other than steel, nearly everyone claimed they wouldn't last. "

The first ones aren't even close to 50 years old yet. Let's see how they hold up over 100 or 150 years of use.


That is true, and widespread use is even more recent. While not the first polymer handgun the Glock was the first widely issued polymer handgun, and that didn't happen in the USA until shortly after the switch to semi-auto. Around the early 90s. They then would become a more common purchase of non-LEO.
So most polymer handguns in the USA are only around 20 years old or newer.
 
Last edited:
The Lord knows I loathe Ruger but you got to admit that the LCR is about as new and different as can be and still be a revolver.

Also the Chiappa Rhino looks pretty interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top