What is the dividing line between old and modern handguns?

[Buzzcook]

There are often threads which mention modern handguns. They give various dates, post WWII, post 1980 etc.

imho the big line is the introduction of smokeless powder and handguns developed to handle the extra pressure. That would put the line in the 1890's.

There are a lot of other options, from the introduction of metal cartridges to the introduction of synthetic materials.
We could also use modern in a social, rather than a technological term. Certainly the two world wars are used as pre and post modern dividing lines sociologically.
Perhaps there's a specific gun that is the threshold object such as the Borchardt C-93, or the Smith & Wesson Model 1.

Give your opinion.

 

[KevinBeyerJr]

fine line?

Then: Revolvers
Now: Semi Automatics

 

[Buzzcook]

Kevin, would that make the Borchardt more modern than the Ruger LCR?

 

[Big Bill]

old old guns were front stuffers...

then came black powder cartridge guns...

then came the smokeless powder cartridge and higher pressure guns

So, IMHO, innovation in firearms was powered by ammo development.

 

[SilentHitz]

New development of ammo and propellants was the beginning of the modern firearms IMHO. Shortly after the invention of metallic, self contained ammo...came the invention of many weapon designs we have today.

Cap & ball pistols were converted to metallic cartridge, as were breech loading rifles that were using paper cartridges. Then came lever and pump guns for the new ammo, then came smokeless powder...and yet newer design guns came to handle the higher pressures...ect, ect....

A good argument for metal improvements can be made also, anyway I think those are the top 2 factors...then again, I could be as wrong as Tammy Fay Baker's makeup consultant.

Too slow, BB beat me to it.

 

[Teuthis]

Attitude is the difference. At what point did getting hit with a pistol bullet as opposed to a revolver bullet become more modern? Does modern actually translate to "superior?" If there is any real difference I would say it is in the ammunition; and principally the reliablilty of ammunnition under adverse conditions. And that happened some time ago in the past.

 

[B.N.Real]

The first day a Glock was sold on the consumer market.

The manufacturing processes and materials used to make a Glock have changed the entire manufacturing future of the firearms industry.

 

[ClayInTx]

Cartridge

The question in the OP has a limit of only one choice, the break point between old and new.
The only category in the OP is handguns.
There was no span of time defined in the OP question.

Therefore this has to be the one major change in guns at which time all previous designs are old and all later designs are new.


These are the historical major changes in handguns:

1. Revolver enabled multiple shots without reloading, although the charge was still similar to muzzle loading, just done for each chamber rather than through the muzzle.
2, Cartridge replaced component loading.
3. Automatic firearms developed using part of cartridge energy.


Other than the three major events listed above all other changes were merely developments to improve the design.

Number 2 was a logical development after Number 1 was invented but could be used for a single shot, and still is, so was not dependant on the revolver for invention.
Number 3 needed Number 2 in order to be invented.

Therefore the choice has to be for the cartridge: Improvement in ammo or propellants.

 

[ClayInTx]

B. N. Real, pay heed to the following message

Attention all Glock Owners

It is time for obeisance.

Bow down, with butts in air, toward Austria.

Repeat five times:

Glock, Glock, O glorious Glock. How we love Thee and spurn the infidel handguns not of Thy making. Glory to Glock forever.

 

[Amendtwo]

It is difficult to identify one particular improvement or event as the dividing line between old and modern handguns. They continue to evolve, along with the ammo and accessories used with them, so that what was modern in 1980 may not be considered so in 2010 (the use of +P ammo being one example).

 

[Jkwas]

"One word......Plastics"

 

[Boarhunter]

"Before I was born" are the old guns; "After I was born" are the new guns. That puts the cutoff at 1954. September. The 15th.

Boarhunter

 

[NightSleeper]

Attention all Glock Owners

It is time for obeisance.

Bow down, with butts in air, toward Austria.

Repeat five times:

Glock, Glock, O glorious Glock. How we love Thee and spurn the infidel handguns not of Thy making. Glory to Glock forever.

LMAO ...

 

[michael t]

I have a 100 year old revolver I carry at times and a 2 year old auto both shoot when you pull the trigger. I carry a flintlock if all I could get .

 

[DonutGuy]

easy, Glock was the dividing line between old and modern

 

[Cremon]

To me, the line between a gun I have vs one I don't is the dividing line between old and new

 

[oneounceload]

The dividing line is the use of mostly plastic/polymers in the construction of a gun

 

[darkgael]

Glock???

Don't get me wrong. I like Glocks. I own a Glock. One of my best friends is a Glock. But.....aside from the polymer frame, what is really different about a Glock? (since it has shown up a number of times so far as an example.) It's an adapted Browning design.
Do the manufacturing and material processes make a gun like a Glock function better than other methods? If you took the Glock design and made the pistol completely out of steel would it be less reliable? I think not. Most of the gun is steel in any case.
So....I don't buy the plastic/manufacturing thing at all.
Revolvers. Revolvers are old technology according to some of the posts. (So are semi-autos.) But (again but)....the development of more powerful ammo has forced the development of finer and stronger and more accurate revolvers. In a sense a Freedom Arms revolver (to pick one) shares a design relationship with Sam Colt's first six gun. Beyond that familial connection, though, there is no real comparison. The need to contain vastly more powerful ammunition has resulted in a gun made of better materials and to closer tolerances. (I admit that I am out on a limb there, having measured neither gun. I am fairly certain that I am correct, though)
I vote for the ammo as the driver. Is it an accident, do you think, that Hiram Maxim, Hugo Borchardt, Paul Mauser and John Browning all developed designs for semi and full auto weapons in the twenty years that followed the development of smokeless powders? The big change in ammo was the development of smokeless powder. Guns made for BP = old. Guns made for smokeless = modern.
Certainly we do have modern production of BP firearms but that may be a whole 'nother discussion. (a modern smokeless designed firearm can safely, if inefficiently, fire BP; a modern BP firearm cannot safely fire smokeless propellants - yeah, I know....people do. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.)
Pete

 

[44 AMP]

Read the law

I believe the date used in current law is 1898. Cartridge firearms made after that (even if designed before that date) is considered a modern firearm.

Muzzleloaders have a seperate designation.

 

[treg]

When old guns were made they didn't work without significant amount of craftsmanship: machining, measuring, fitting, polishing, etc.

New guns are made mostly on automated machinery with little human intervention and a calculated percentage of warranty work to be done when they leave the factory.