What is the dividing line between old and modern handguns?

[Buzzcook]

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.

Eli Whitney was the first person to build guns with standardized parts. I'm pretty sure Colt and others continued that practice.
I agree that manufacturing technique is as good a dividing line as any. Perhaps a bit more specificity would be in order.

A lot of technology is adapted well after it was physically possible. Steel strong enough to make a handgun capable of high pressure ammo dates back at least to the Bessemer process of 1840 and probably much earlier than that. The difference between the 1840's and 1900's was more quality control.

Cartridges were possible as soon as fulminate of mercury was developed in 1800. The difference between striking a stone against steel and chemical reactions is a bigger difference than moving from charcoal and salt peter to nitrocellulose.
The way we shoot changed a lot then too. Not having a gout of flame shooting up in your face made aiming lots easier.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[jad0110]

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.

Beat me to it.

Either that, or the division between black and smokeless powder arms.

 

[spacecoast]

easy, Glock was the dividing line between old and modern

Yeah, without Glock we wouldn't have the "Glocks at 800 yards" threads

 

[Old Timer]

1836 was the year the "pin-fire cartridge" was developed by French gunsmith Casimir Lefaucheux. It was the first "expansive cartridge case" that contained its own propellent, primer, and bullet. That simple invention forever changed the manufacture and use of firearms and variations on that type of cartiridge case are still in use today.

(PS: Anybody who thinks the Glock was significant must have smoked his socks for lunch! Browning I would have partially accepted but even he took notice of what Peter (Paul) Mauser was doing as early as 1896.)

 

[SilentHitz]

(PS: Anybody who thinks the Glock was significant must have smoked his socks for lunch!

Or consumed a 55 gallon drum of that Koolaid. I'm no Glock basher, I've owned at least 1/2 dozen, but they are far from being the dividing line between old and modern firearms...which is the subject of the thread.

 

[old bear]

The first three of the options in the poll are so closely related; I really felt the need to think about these. So in my H.O. I believe that the “Improved metallurgy or manufacturing techniques.” Is the most important of the three. Once weapon and ammunition designers realized they had the ability to work with steels that would be withstand higher pressures they were able to design more powerful cartages and the weapons to safely fire these from. The early S&W triple locks come quickly to mind Followed by the S&W 38/44 heavy duty, which is the grandfather of the .357 magnum round; which in my H.O. is one of the most important if not the most important handgun inventions in the 20th century. I will argue that without the success and wild popularity of the .357 magnum, Elmer Keith would not have been able to develop the .44 magnum and other engineers/designers would not have had a tested platform (the .44 magnum) for the super-magnums that have been developed over the last 30 years.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Old handguns are any that haven't appeared in an XBox360 game!

::runs screaming out of thread::

 

[Dave85]

Defining the word 'modern' in relation to guns is like defining the word 'tasty' in relation to food. Any attempt at standardizing milestones will be dependent on type, and subjective to personal perspective. Any mark can only be generally accepted by most, and will undoubtedly be loudly protested.

Glock really lays no logical claim to any epochal milestone as far as pistols are concerned. The design is based on a Browning design from the early decades of the 20th century, high capacity magazines were not uncommon, and the use of polymer as the major structural material in the frame was pioneered by HK in their VP70 almost a decade and a half earlier. The genius of the Glock design lay not in technological innovation, but in packaging. It's success in that regard is evident in the numerous derivative designs on the market today, but that preeminence was evolutionary.

I would guess that scholars will someday define this time in the history of handguns as the "Age of Glock." However, just as Cubism is a sub-movement to Modernism in art, the Age of Glock exists within the larger Modern Age of handguns.

Placing ourselves objectively in historical perspective, I think it's fair to say that all auto pistols should be considered 'modern.' Though some seem ancient to us, in the grand scheme of things they are all (even the worst of them) precision machines made possible only by advances manufacturing processes, designed around ammunition using smokeless powder.

Also, while it is a close match to the historical appearance of autos, as they were coming onto the scene right about 1898 (give or take a couple years), I do resist allowing the law to define 'modern' in more than a very narrow dimension. The law was written not by scholars seeking truth, but by politicians seeking regulatory power. If I go by the opinions of the politicians here in Michigan, my old Crosman 1377C air pistol was a firearm. I just can't bring myself to accept that.

 

[Glenn Dee]

^^^ Here! here! on the post above.

 

[B.N.Real]

I have shot a few Glocks but I do not own any.

No one can deny that the Glock companies success at the products they have manufactured has fundamentally changed the way firearms are made and sold.

Yes,the design was similar to what came before but many manufacturers tried to introduce cheaper ways to make guns without much success.

When Glock handguns were accepted enmass by police units worldwide,it was a sign of fundamental change in the firearms world that continues today.

KelTec took the Glock idea and introduced the concealed carry weapons they make.

Ruger has taken this idea and ran with it with their P series guns,LCP and the new LCR.

Smith,H&K,Sig all makes polymer framed handguns because Glock showed not only was it possible to make a sellable product but that it was durable and CHEAPER to produce.

The bad thing about how successful Glock has done with these new polymer components is that this has convinced all firearms manufacturers to find ways to get away from the dedicated all steel and stainless steel handguns.

All steel handguns are expensive to produce and they require careful fitting.

This takes dedication of effort,retention of skilled guncrafters and the want to invest the money to keep them putting out a great product.

Times are changing very quickly.

I never thought I'd see CZ put out such a cheesy looking polymer semi auto but it has.

This,after decades of producing some of the best semi autos on the planet.

Sig also has run into problems selling their P250 model.

There has to be a balance of style,quality and price that is easy to get away from when producing a polymer firearm.

Even Beretta changed the look of their Storm semi to make it appeal to a wider consumer base.

But the bottom line is,for a very long time,firearms design and production was a fairly steady process,only changed by war or the occasional firearms handloader and gunsmith.

Glock changed all of that.

Glock is'nt the best handgun ever.

It is the dividing line when the entire firearms industry saw a more modern and cheaper way to make firearms.

I did'nt drink the 'koolaid'.

I just have my eyes open.

 

[James K]

The only legal line is 1 Jan 1899. A gun made before that is legally an "antique."

Other than that, it is a matter of perception. Many folks would call an S&W 1911 a modern gun, but it is actually almost a century old in regard to design. I have an S&W Model 1899, that is a century old and it looks and feels just like the current Model 10.

What amuses me, as an old timer, is seeing someone describe a gun like I bought new as "an antique" or a "real old gun my granddad had." Yikes, it is heck to get old!

Jim

 

[gyvel]

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

Get real.

 

[Fishslayer]

The best thing that ever happened for Glock was a howling firestorm of publicity over a "plastic" gun.

"IT WON'T SHOW UP ON METAL DETECTORS!"

"Age of Glock?" I find it highly unlikely that 50 years from now anybody is gonna be going gaga over an "ANIB with paperwork" Glock. More likely the "age of lawyers.":barf:

 

[gyvel]

"Age of Glock?" I find it highly unlikely that 50 years from now anybody is gonna be going gaga over an "ANIB with paperwork" Glock. More likely the "age of lawyers."

The "age of lawyers?" I think not. More likely the age of "don't get caught with a firearm."

 

[Dave85]

"Age of Glock?" I find it highly unlikely that 50 years from now anybody is gonna be going gaga over an "ANIB with paperwork" Glock. More likely the "age of lawyers."

They very well may never invite the collectors' dollars like all-steel guns. Then again, the fact that Glocks are not as likely to spend their life as pampered safe-queens might mean that pristine early examples may end up so rare as to do just that. These things tend to defy prediction. Either way, their ultimate value to collectors is irrelevant to their contemporary value in common culture, and their historic value as a benchmark design.

While this certainly is the "age of lawyers," that is a much broader cultural trend independent of developments in firearms design and technology.

 

[Buzzcook]

Perhaps "post-modern" could be a label for the CAD/CAM and polymer crew.

Certainly the use of computers is a sea change for manufacturing.
I tend to think polymers are a cross between the introduction of stainless steel and stamped metal parts, historically speaking.

Polymers kept helped keep the cost of firearms relatively low and increase resistance to corrosion.

I don't see Glocks as being a big enough change to say "before this none and after this every".

 

[Fishslayer]

Then again, the fact that Glocks are not as likely to spend their life as pampered safe-queens might mean that pristine early examples may end up so rare as to do just that.

That's a good point. Though I'm sure a good portion of those Glocks bought as a HD weapon do spend most of their lives in a safe with an occasional trip to the range (or driveby. Sorry. Couldn't resist)

While this certainly is the "age of lawyers," that is a much broader cultural trend independent of developments in firearms design and technology.

I was referring to internal locks, magazine safeties & a raft of other useless crap brought about in an effort to drive the gunmakers out of business...

 

[Dave85]

I was referring to internal locks, magazine safeties & a raft of other useless crap brought about in an effort to drive the gunmakers out of business...

You are right on there. We are definitely living through a sad chapter in annoying gun features aimed at creating the appearance of safety enhancements on the behalf of the manufacturer. I do hope this era ends without the necessity of an all-out societal collapse.

 

[Boats]

The premise of this thread is rather pointless in many ways.

Is the line between wheel-guns and semi-autos, going back to the Borchardt C-93? It could be except that the toggle lock pistol and its Broomhandle and Luger successors were eventually an evolutionary dead end.

Is the line drawn at the Browning M1900, the first semi to use a slide? Perhaps, but there is something distinctly pre-modern about a semi-auto missing most of the "modern" controls that shooters today take for granted.

The M1911 presents a powerful argument as the demarcation line in that nearly every other major caliber service pistol since uses a variant of the Browning designed short recoil lock-up using a reciprocating slide, a slide release lever, and a thumb actuated magazine release.

Then again, one would have to account for the presence of the double action auto pioneered by Walther through the PP, PPK and P-38, a rather radical operating departure from the SAO auto, but still more or less formatted like earlier pistols.

I personally don't think that mere material construction differences make the case for a dividing line between "old" and "modern." The polymer frame is really not much more revolutionary than the use of the aluminum alloy frame before it. Heck, one could argue that SIG once upon a time stamping out slides was revolutionary if manufacturing processes are the line. Besides, aluminum alloy frames were once all the rage, only to be increasingly supplanted by polymer. What's to say that 10 or 20 years from now won't see polymer supplanted materially by some superior material process like carbon fiber nanotubes or something? Polymer as we know it today could be yesterday's news tomorrow.

Besides, the plastic fantastics, with a notable exception in the Beretta PX-4, all still use modified Browning lock ups and other controls first grouped together on the 1911.

There is no line, but if there was, the period between "old and "new" should be drawn where something once invented is still not obsolete. All signs point to the era between 1899 when the first S&W hand ejector appeared, and 1911, when the namesake pistol appeared. Nearly everything since has been but a riff off of the originals save for a few notable developments that create strong off branches, but do not form the trunk of the evolutionary tree.

 

[Fishslayer]

The premise of this thread is rather pointless in many ways.

This is the Internet. If everything had to have a point it would still be a couple dozen eggheads trading deep thoughts with Mosaic...