Innovation in handguns
- Thread starter BlueTrain
- Start date
Doc Intrepid
New member
A lot of the matter depends on how you define terms.
The revolver and the semi-automatic pistol were significant innovations, but since then revolvers and semi-autos have been incrementally "refined".
Even with changes in materials, etc. if Sam Colt or John Browning could pick up one of today's handguns they would have little problem with recognizing the cycle of firing of either 100 years later.
That said, I think that taking a complex mechanism and significantly simplifying it is also "innovative", and refinements such as those of designers like Glock and Justin Moon of Kahr certainly merit recognition.
I don't think we'll see significant change, however, unless technology changes drastically. And some of those changes we might not like - such as 'intelligent' handguns that recognize biometric characteristics of their owners and will only cycle if the person who holds the gun has been programmed into its database. Advances in Nano and Nano-bio technology along with metametals may begin to alter handguns beyond the familiar designs we've become accustomed to over the past 100 years or so.
Not all change is good.......
The revolver and the semi-automatic pistol were significant innovations, but since then revolvers and semi-autos have been incrementally "refined".
Even with changes in materials, etc. if Sam Colt or John Browning could pick up one of today's handguns they would have little problem with recognizing the cycle of firing of either 100 years later.
That said, I think that taking a complex mechanism and significantly simplifying it is also "innovative", and refinements such as those of designers like Glock and Justin Moon of Kahr certainly merit recognition.
I don't think we'll see significant change, however, unless technology changes drastically. And some of those changes we might not like - such as 'intelligent' handguns that recognize biometric characteristics of their owners and will only cycle if the person who holds the gun has been programmed into its database. Advances in Nano and Nano-bio technology along with metametals may begin to alter handguns beyond the familiar designs we've become accustomed to over the past 100 years or so.
Not all change is good.......
In my opnion, this is actually an example of one factor that inhibits innovation. Justin Moon took someone else's basic ideas and put it in a smaller package. This is anti-innovation, but obviously it pays.
The opposite of that would be coming up with some totally new action (like H&K's squeeze cocker for instance)
The path that Moon took was relatively low risk with decent pofit potential. H&K didn't actually just come up with something and then try to market it, they were taking part in a competitive bid sponsored by the West German Police, so it's not the same as just coming up with a great idea and then trying to make it pay, but anyway, my point is that Kahr is an example of why we don't see innovation in handguns. There are better models for profitablity.
The last pistol that came out that I thought was very innovative was the Sig P250, just for the mere fact that you could remove the fire control mechanism and swap it into a completely different setup. You have one registered part, and you could have a full size 9mm, a compact 357 Sig, a subcompact .40 S&W, whatever you want, just by purchasing the conversion kits. I thought it was an awesome idea, especially for people living in states where you are restricted on how many handguns you can purchase.
I forgot to add that the one area you are seeing some real innovation in is the subcompact world. They are really taking it to the extreme these days with getting the largest caliber, in the smallest, lightest platform possible, and making them reliable. That takes some real engineering and ingenuity to do.
Doc Intrepid
New member
I tend to agree with this statement.IdahoG36 said:
It is refinements in metallurgy, ammunition, and engineering that make todays micro sub-compacts possible - and while some might point to those as refinements rather than innovation, I regard them as significant improvements.
In that regard, C0untZer0 and I must agree to disagree. As with Intel, who have progressively put larger circuits and capabilities into smaller and smaller micro chips, I regard engineering substantial defensive capabilities into smaller packages as innovation rather than anti-innovation.
I'm quite impressed with the number of 9mm and .40S&W platforms out there which offer substantial defensive capabilities, but are extremely small handguns. It may only be a refinement of an initial design, but it represents some significant effort to make that work reliably and consistently.
Just a different opinion....
ice monkey
New member
In economics we study “innovation” and label it “technology.” Very simply, countries economies are ranked by how they both acquire technology and how they utilize it. There have been huge changes since the turn of the century.
As stated, on a macro level, handguns are seemingly low tech. But – if you had the handguns that you have today and went back in time to say, even the 1970’s! Well sir, you would have the firepower out of a reliable platform that many would kill for. Moreover, even the way we hold and utilize the firearm is different and more effective! But that’s not to say that you aren’t simply still just shooting a gun and asking a projectile to do your bidding the same as it’s seemingly always been.
Administrations as far back as I can remember have been calling for a way to get away from foreign oil! The technology to do so would need to be realized in order to do so. The fact that we haven’t, shows an unwillingness OR our ability to make better a technology that for all intents and purposes gets the job done.
Firearms (handguns) have and continue to do the job that’s asked of them. Nowadays at an increasing rate and in a smaller platform – if we want massive tech changes we need to look to electricity/lasers or what have you – in the mean time we (as evidenced in the seemingly multitude of school shootings) have to ask ourselves if we really want better platforms!! We do after all have bombs for aggression – do we need a better platform for self protection?
As stated, on a macro level, handguns are seemingly low tech. But – if you had the handguns that you have today and went back in time to say, even the 1970’s! Well sir, you would have the firepower out of a reliable platform that many would kill for. Moreover, even the way we hold and utilize the firearm is different and more effective! But that’s not to say that you aren’t simply still just shooting a gun and asking a projectile to do your bidding the same as it’s seemingly always been.
Administrations as far back as I can remember have been calling for a way to get away from foreign oil! The technology to do so would need to be realized in order to do so. The fact that we haven’t, shows an unwillingness OR our ability to make better a technology that for all intents and purposes gets the job done.
Firearms (handguns) have and continue to do the job that’s asked of them. Nowadays at an increasing rate and in a smaller platform – if we want massive tech changes we need to look to electricity/lasers or what have you – in the mean time we (as evidenced in the seemingly multitude of school shootings) have to ask ourselves if we really want better platforms!! We do after all have bombs for aggression – do we need a better platform for self protection?
The biggest limitation to innovation of a handgun (or really any firearm for that matter) is the ammunition. All designs basically have to accomplish the same three things: insert a cartridge into the chamber, fire a projectile, and remove the spent shell casing from the chamber so that another can be inserted and the cycle started over again. Of those three things, firing a projectile is the defining characteristic that makes something a firearm so the insertion of a cartridge and removal of a spent casing are really the only two points upon which the design of a firearm can be innovated.
Over the last 150 years or so (since the dawn of the self-contained cartridge) those two functions have been accomplished just about every which way you can accomplish them be it through manual means (revolvers, single-shot/multi barrel guns, and manual repeaters like bolt, pump, and lever actions) or through harnessing either the gun's recoil or gas (full and semi-automatics). For about the last 100 years, the majority of the innovation has come in the arena of automatic weapons, and even that hasn't really changed all that much over the past 50 years or so.
Look, for example, at the popular semi-auto handguns of WWII and earlier as opposed to those of today. Nearly all use either the Browning short-recoil method of operation (1911, Hi-Power, TT-33, Glock, Sig), locking-block recoil operation (Walther P38, Beretta M92), or unlocked blowback operation (Walther PP, Beretta M1934, Colt M1903, Mauser HsC, Sig P232, Hi-Point, Astra 400). Trigger actions are either single-action (1911, Hi-Power, Springfield XD), Double Action (Walther P38, Sig, CZ-75), or some combination of the two (Glock). Just about every successful semi-auto handgun since WWII feeds it ammunition from a detatchable box magazine that is inserted through the grip and is of either single-column or staggered column. Even the ammunition isn't all that different, both 9mm and .45 ACP, cartridges introduced in the first decade of the 20th century, are still among the most popular cartridges available.
Over the last 150 years or so (since the dawn of the self-contained cartridge) those two functions have been accomplished just about every which way you can accomplish them be it through manual means (revolvers, single-shot/multi barrel guns, and manual repeaters like bolt, pump, and lever actions) or through harnessing either the gun's recoil or gas (full and semi-automatics). For about the last 100 years, the majority of the innovation has come in the arena of automatic weapons, and even that hasn't really changed all that much over the past 50 years or so.
Look, for example, at the popular semi-auto handguns of WWII and earlier as opposed to those of today. Nearly all use either the Browning short-recoil method of operation (1911, Hi-Power, TT-33, Glock, Sig), locking-block recoil operation (Walther P38, Beretta M92), or unlocked blowback operation (Walther PP, Beretta M1934, Colt M1903, Mauser HsC, Sig P232, Hi-Point, Astra 400). Trigger actions are either single-action (1911, Hi-Power, Springfield XD), Double Action (Walther P38, Sig, CZ-75), or some combination of the two (Glock). Just about every successful semi-auto handgun since WWII feeds it ammunition from a detatchable box magazine that is inserted through the grip and is of either single-column or staggered column. Even the ammunition isn't all that different, both 9mm and .45 ACP, cartridges introduced in the first decade of the 20th century, are still among the most popular cartridges available.
In reality I just want a device that will make me safe. If I had a button that would teleport me out of danger that would be fine. If I had a device that would put up an impenetrable force field that would be fine. If I had a device that would induce narcolepsy in a bad guy - that would be fine too.
As far as firearms go - I'm not really looking for a device to kill or even severely injure an aggressor. I just want something that will incapacitate him - make him incapable of continuing hostilities.
It just so happens that putting a hole or multiple holes in an aggressor, especially perforating vital tissue, seems to be the most proven way of immediately stopping the aggression in the broadest spectrum of various dangerous situations. And a kinetic weapon using chemical explosive to accelerate the projectile happens to be the most economical and practical way of doing that right now.
I want a weapon that is only 4 or 5 inches long, but points like an 8" gun, only weighs 10 or 11 ounces, has recoil like a .22Lr but hits the bad guy like a load of 00 buck from a 12 gauge.
Unfortunately the gun manufacturers have the laws of physics to contend with.
As far as firearms go - I'm not really looking for a device to kill or even severely injure an aggressor. I just want something that will incapacitate him - make him incapable of continuing hostilities.
It just so happens that putting a hole or multiple holes in an aggressor, especially perforating vital tissue, seems to be the most proven way of immediately stopping the aggression in the broadest spectrum of various dangerous situations. And a kinetic weapon using chemical explosive to accelerate the projectile happens to be the most economical and practical way of doing that right now.
I want a weapon that is only 4 or 5 inches long, but points like an 8" gun, only weighs 10 or 11 ounces, has recoil like a .22Lr but hits the bad guy like a load of 00 buck from a 12 gauge.
Unfortunately the gun manufacturers have the laws of physics to contend with.
Last edited:
ice monkey
New member
LMAO!!! Don't we all - well worded!!
I don't totally agree with this statement. It's not the satisfaction of the users it's the economic capability of the users that drive innovation. No major innovation in firearms is ever going to come out of Zimbabwe because neither the government nor the populace can fund innovation or afford innovative weapons.
If you look at the effort to develop the G11 which required cooperation between H&K and Dynamit Nobel - this was a VERY expensive effort. If the effort hadn't been funded by West Germany, and had potential buyers in NATO and the U.S. the innovations would never have been achieved. Governments realize that you can't ask a defense contractor to risk bankruptcy in developing weapons - if governments did that; there would never be advancements in defense technology or military equipment.
The ACR program was a $300 million program; I don't know how much OICW cost but probably a few hundred million dollars.
There are some instances where the per capita income of a nation soars - it's usually due to the discovery of some natural resource. But anyway, if the average gun owner had $30,000 - $35,000 of discretionary income to spend on firearms and could spend $25 - $30 per projectile, then we would see tremendous innovation. We would see very very light weapons being made from materials like Titanium, or advanced alloys that would be much lighter and much stronger than traditional gun materials are now. Because the materials would be stronger the weapons could be and probably would be much lighter, and we would see things like casesless ammo and other innovations being used by the average gun owner.
I'm just saying this to make my point that economics - not necessarily the desire or wants of the potential consumers - is an over riding factor in innovation. I'm sure Zimbabwe would love to have G11 rifles and XM25s. But there is a reason that Zimbabwe didn't develop them and won't be equipping their armed forces with those weapons any time soon. - No Money.
We're going to be stuck with guns that continually get cheaper to mass produce for some time to come. The profit margins are much higher when you're manufacturing a weapon that's mostly plastic and stamped metal. This frees up far more capitol for advertising costs, which in turn are all about the "advantages" of light, cheap to manufacture weapons. If they could figure out a way to make them out of styrofoam, they would.:barf:
In the world of handguns today, there is not a lot of pressure to be innovative. But introducing well made pistols that are compact, reliable and durable but not particularly new or novel is not anti-innovative, at least not to me. Kahr apparently fits that model to a T but really, in some ways, they have been innovative. Who else makes something just like a Kahr?
I am reminded of several sayings and the first one is "I could have done that." I've also read here people saying "I'm going to wait until they get the bugs worked out," referring to some new model, then in a slightly different context, "they don't make them the way they used to." But I understand what people are thinking.
I don't see anything wrong with people following the lead of the police in selecting handguns. Usually, police weapons are selected in a rigidly logical way, something many ordinary people can never do. Our gun buying more often than not is highly emotional. Our buying may or may not be driven by cost factors and usually whatever we end up with will not be subject to the everyday carry demands of policemen. And the police have been behind some of the innovations.
It is true that not all change is good but rarely is there a change simply for the sake of change--unless market driven. No one has ten sets of dishes at home, yet manufacturers continually introduce new patterns, only rarely innovative. In the 1950s it was plastic dishes (Melmac), later Corning came out with something that seemed old fashioned by comparison, yet it was much more innovative than it appeared on the surface, something that could be said for a few firearms.
Now at this point, let us take a little detour to talk about plastic guns.
We usually think the most wonderful thing about Glocks and similiar firearms is that plastic frame. Yet the fact is, just as much of their good reputation for durability and resistance to rust is the finish they put on the slide (blocky though it is). If we can ignore their relatively unusual trigger mechanism (equally innovative) for the moment, I would suggest that an unappreciated innovation from Glock would have to be their superior metal finish. It is unappreciated only because of the novelty of the other features of their handguns. It may not necessarily be all that innovative in some senses of the word but it lends a qualtity to their products that tends to allow the other features to stand out even more, if you follow me. That may be overstating the case but they really built a better mousetrap.
I am reminded of several sayings and the first one is "I could have done that." I've also read here people saying "I'm going to wait until they get the bugs worked out," referring to some new model, then in a slightly different context, "they don't make them the way they used to." But I understand what people are thinking.
I don't see anything wrong with people following the lead of the police in selecting handguns. Usually, police weapons are selected in a rigidly logical way, something many ordinary people can never do. Our gun buying more often than not is highly emotional. Our buying may or may not be driven by cost factors and usually whatever we end up with will not be subject to the everyday carry demands of policemen. And the police have been behind some of the innovations.
It is true that not all change is good but rarely is there a change simply for the sake of change--unless market driven. No one has ten sets of dishes at home, yet manufacturers continually introduce new patterns, only rarely innovative. In the 1950s it was plastic dishes (Melmac), later Corning came out with something that seemed old fashioned by comparison, yet it was much more innovative than it appeared on the surface, something that could be said for a few firearms.
Now at this point, let us take a little detour to talk about plastic guns.
We usually think the most wonderful thing about Glocks and similiar firearms is that plastic frame. Yet the fact is, just as much of their good reputation for durability and resistance to rust is the finish they put on the slide (blocky though it is). If we can ignore their relatively unusual trigger mechanism (equally innovative) for the moment, I would suggest that an unappreciated innovation from Glock would have to be their superior metal finish. It is unappreciated only because of the novelty of the other features of their handguns. It may not necessarily be all that innovative in some senses of the word but it lends a qualtity to their products that tends to allow the other features to stand out even more, if you follow me. That may be overstating the case but they really built a better mousetrap.
There used to be a really good Chinese restaurant by my house. They made fantastic Kung Pao Chicken. They used big chucks of chicken breast, and big squares of bell pepper. It was really great and it cost about $8.00
Then this budget “Chinese Buffet” opened up about 2 miles away from my favorite restaurant. They had a $5.00 lunch menu. Their Kung Pao Chicken was mostly chicken scraps from thighs and backs, they threw in some vegetables. There was no comparison between the two dishes – I thought the Chinese Buffet was horrible.
But people flocked to the $5.00 lunch menu at the Chinese Buffet and my favorite restaurant went out of business.
I wonder if the same thing is happening with handguns?
I’m a capitalist so I can hardly believe I’m saying this, but sometimes the market gets it wrong.
Then this budget “Chinese Buffet” opened up about 2 miles away from my favorite restaurant. They had a $5.00 lunch menu. Their Kung Pao Chicken was mostly chicken scraps from thighs and backs, they threw in some vegetables. There was no comparison between the two dishes – I thought the Chinese Buffet was horrible.
But people flocked to the $5.00 lunch menu at the Chinese Buffet and my favorite restaurant went out of business.
I wonder if the same thing is happening with handguns?
I’m a capitalist so I can hardly believe I’m saying this, but sometimes the market gets it wrong.
Karnak sees the gun of the future.
Micro electronics;
* Improved battery, both output and life
* The gun that recognises the key fob in your pocket, otherwise inoperable.
* the sensor that adjusts sights to the light level.
* Micro lasers and lights.
* Electronic ignition.
* Talking guns... "you have three rounds left."
Materials;
* Ceramics, crystals, new alloys, wonder-plastics
* Buckyballs, carbon fiber
* Diamond use?
Ammo;
* Al Gore's biodegradable bullet. It's coming.
* Ever smaller and smaller rounds ... ie: 5.7 and 4.6 type rounds
* Wonder material case or caseless... no more brass.
* ever more effective non-lethal projectiles.
Sights;
* Ever better optics through electronics.
* Sight "lock on" device with barrel stabilization.
Computer integration;
* Why not?
I can't wait to see what HK does with it's new caseless 4.6 ammo, diamond lined barrel, laser sighted/ lock-on sight with holigraphic display, telling me I "hit the target" and "I'm a sexy beast". It never needs to be cleaned, the battery lasts 40 years and can access my e-mail. Cool.
Micro electronics;
* Improved battery, both output and life
* The gun that recognises the key fob in your pocket, otherwise inoperable.
* the sensor that adjusts sights to the light level.
* Micro lasers and lights.
* Electronic ignition.
* Talking guns... "you have three rounds left."
Materials;
* Ceramics, crystals, new alloys, wonder-plastics
* Buckyballs, carbon fiber
* Diamond use?
Ammo;
* Al Gore's biodegradable bullet. It's coming.
* Ever smaller and smaller rounds ... ie: 5.7 and 4.6 type rounds
* Wonder material case or caseless... no more brass.
* ever more effective non-lethal projectiles.
Sights;
* Ever better optics through electronics.
* Sight "lock on" device with barrel stabilization.
Computer integration;
* Why not?
I can't wait to see what HK does with it's new caseless 4.6 ammo, diamond lined barrel, laser sighted/ lock-on sight with holigraphic display, telling me I "hit the target" and "I'm a sexy beast". It never needs to be cleaned, the battery lasts 40 years and can access my e-mail. Cool.
None of my guns uses batteries. They're all spring operated. Just wind them up...
One factor that operates against all new guns and not just those that are innovative or otherwise highly desirable is the used gun market. This could be said for cars, too. While there has always been a used gun (and used car) market, they particularly compete against the low end of the new gun market (and yes, cars, too). Why buy a Jennings revolver, if there was such a thing, when you can buy a used S&W Model 10?
Not that I see that many used Model 10s for sale.
One factor that operates against all new guns and not just those that are innovative or otherwise highly desirable is the used gun market. This could be said for cars, too. While there has always been a used gun (and used car) market, they particularly compete against the low end of the new gun market (and yes, cars, too). Why buy a Jennings revolver, if there was such a thing, when you can buy a used S&W Model 10?
Not that I see that many used Model 10s for sale.
ice monkey
New member
LOL! Welcome to the real world!! Capitalism rocks ... but it's got her flaws!