Gunowners Shoot Themselves in the Foot Regarding R&D

N

Nathan

New member
Part of it could be that gun owners say that they want innovation and new and exciting stuff but then when someone actually creates something new they act like a bunch of curmudgeons and gripe that their 100+ year old gun design by John Browning is better than any of the new fangled folderol that these young whipper snappers are coming up with.
Click to expand...

I stole this from another thread. If you look at 100's of posts, you wil see this sentiment expressed...even by me. My idea of new fangled technology is a 1911 in 40 S&W!

Why did the GAP die? The 45 ACP IS too long.

Why can't 9mm earn respect as a manstopper? I can't respect it, but I also don't want to be shot with a 9mm.

Why do I ccw a 5 shot S&W J frame? I should be carrying something like an M&P 9, right?

Why is the 327 mag j frame not selling better than the 38 spl j frame?

Why won't the 300 Win Mag die? The 300 WSM and 300 RUM are clearly superior.

There are 100 more why's, but the key is why do we as gun owners crush all the new ideas? ....or why do gun makers have such bad new ideas?
 
Intersting post and I agree to a point. With lighter bullets the 300 WSM may have a slight edge over the WM, but certainly not with heavier pills and/ or longer ranges without upping the barrel length.
 
Why did the GAP die? The 45 ACP IS too long.

---- Most folks wanted a better configurer Glock to take advantage of cheaper, existing 45 ACP

Why can't 9mm earn respect as a manstopper? I can't respect it, but I also don't want to be shot with a 9mm.

----- It has great respect from those who know a bit more than internet cliches or still babble about the Moros.

Why do I ccw a 5 shot S&W J frame? I should be carrying something like an M&P 9, right?

---- J's work and are quite concealable. The pocket nines can be spotty.

Why is the 327 mag j frame not selling better than the 38 spl j frame?

---- There isn't a small light J frame in 327 yet. There is a SS one from Smith but its heavy. Is there hope for an LCR? One wishes!

Why won't the 300 Win Mag die? The 300 WSM and 300 RUM are clearly superior.

---- Existing guns and maybe it is a zombie.

There are 100 more why's, but the key is why do we as gun owners crush all the new ideas? ....or why do gun makers have such bad new ideas?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...There are 100 more why's, but the key is why do we as gun owners crush all the new ideas? ....or why do gun makers have such bad new ideas?...
Click to expand...
And probably enough new things aren't better enough to be worth bothering with.
 
IMHO both the .45GAP and .327Mag are suffering from what I like to call the "Chicken & Egg" problem. Both are theoretically appealing to many potential buyers, but only if a gunmaker releases a ________ (fill in the blank) chambered for the cartridge, but the gunmakers are leery of making a _______ because of the perceived lack of demand for the cartridge.

I'd buy a Walther PPS-type single-stack automatic in .45GAP. I've been saying for almost 3 years now that I'd really, really like a Smith & Wesson "Model 616" stainless 7-shot K frame in .327Mag, adjustable rear sight, 5" barrel. Ditto Glenn's post; IMHO the lack of a lightweight 6-shot S&W or Ruger pocket revolver in .327Mag is really hurting the cartridge.
Why won't the 300 Win Mag die? The 300 WSM and 300 RUM are clearly superior.
Click to expand...
.300 Win Mag kills large game nice and dead, and many shooters already have a .300 Win Mag rifle and don't intend to replace it.

It's the same thing that keeps the .303 British and .32 Win Spl alive. It's literally been generations since significant numbers of guns were produced in these calibers, but hunters still use them and keep buying the ammo.
 
It is like a law of nature. Good ideas DO succeed, but the gauntlet of opinion from consumers are part of the test along the way. Some good ideas get pooh-poohed and then years later come back and are accepted much later. Just like some ideas are wildly successful for a year or two, then lose support over time.

Being accepted is not the same as being a better idea.
 
There are 100 more why's, but the key is why do we as gun owners crush all the new ideas? ....or why do gun makers have such bad new ideas?
Click to expand...

Because most gun owners are Republicans. And Republicans, for the most part, do not like new ideas:p

^^^that's a joke, don't get all defensive
 
"why do we as gun owners crush all the new ideas? "

Because there's not enough money to buy one of everything? We're not out to get anybody and crush their product, it's simply death by neglect.

John
 
First, let me say that I too am kind of an idea crusher.

I like guns like 1911's in original form or simply modified form.

I like 45 ACP.

I didn't buy a 308 Marlin Express or whatever that was.

I never have liked, or understood why the 45 GAP.

I think 300 Win Mag is a nice proven caliber.


That said,

I can see how the 300WSM is better. It is better because it is designed to headspace on the shoulder which delivers better accuracy. It has a short neck, but still works well with 210 Berger VLD's out of my gun. 300 Win mag is a better hunting round. It will never misfire due to headspace because it headspaces on the belt. Still, if I say I want a 30 caliber target/hunting rifle, there will be 75% of us saying 300 Win Mag or 308 Win!

I too see how the Chicken/Egg issue kills some things. i.e. 45 GAP Glock made it in a double stack, but that is still huge. I wonder if something Firestar, except lighter, or Kahr sized was made in 45 GAP, if it would take off. Frankly, I like the idea of a small 45 and 45 ACP can't really be designed into a small gun well. Since we never bought the Glocks in 45 GAP, no one is going to design a new gun around it, . . .so it is dead! I know if I start a thread called, "I want a 45 GAP," I will be beat into the ground.

Yes, some ideas will fail, but I just see a lot of things fail and then some things go great guns like safe action when it is all marketing and sales management.
 
A better question is this: have firearms really changed all that much in the last 50 years or so? Even the most cutting-edge, space-age, "tacticool," or whatever other label you care to attach firearms use concepts and features that are decades, if not over a century, old. For example:

Polymer Frames? 40+ years old (HK VP70)
High Velocity Bottleneck Pistol Cartridges? 100+ years old (7.63x25 Mauser)
High capacity detatchable magazines? 70+ years old (Browning GP-35 Hi Power)
Shortening an existing cartridge but retaining similar ballistics? 100+ years old (.45 ACP vs. .45 Long Colt)
Lengthening a cartridge to get higher velocity? 70+ years old (.357 Magnum)
Bullpup rifles? 100+ years old (Thorneycroft carbine)
Intermediate rifle cartridges? 60+ years old (Stg. 44)
Striker-fired handguns? 100+ years old (Roth-Steyr M1907)
Hollowpoint handgun ammunition? 100+ years old (.455 Webley Mk. III)
Purpose-built AP handgun cartridges? 30+ years old (5.45x18)
Caseless ammunition? 150+ years old (Volcanic pistol)

So, you see, there is really very little being done with firearms that hasn't already been tried. That which has merit is usually retained or later recycled while that which doesn't usually goes by the wayside.
 
The problem is that they are putting a new idea that is only slightly different than a significantly established caliber. How many .45 ACP handguns are out there that people already buy ammo for? You think people are going to drop their trusted .45s to go buy a new unestablished cartridge? Same thing with .30-06, .375 H&H, 300 WM, etc.
 
I'll go with the thought that a lot of the "improvements" are thought of as a solution looking for a problem, as in "do we really need a .32 cal. on steroids, just because we can?"

Also the ,45GAP, what that means to me is Get Another Pistol, for what? I'm ok with the ACP sized grip.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of new stuff as long as there is a true market for them, I just don't see some of them as truly useful.

I should add that with almost any "improvement" in ammo, there is (I'll call it rumor) that another well established cal. has become obsolete, as in .380acp, .38s&w, .38spl., all three of these, and possibly more that I am not recalling at the moment, just won't cut it anymore, although they have been used for decades.

I have to say that this train of thought extends to the plastic marvels that have hit the market, I'll pose this question, "How many 100 year old Glock pistols do we expect to see, well used but still in working order?

Sorry for the long rant, but I have been shooting for almost half of a century, and I have come to respect the old ways.
 
The premise that gun owners want innovation and new and exciting stuff is flawed.

More like manufacturers are looking for new product to boost their sales. Sometimes they hit a homerun....other times it flops. To hold the buying public accountable for a marketing geniuses screw up is another example of solutions in search of a problem.
 
Claymore1500 (and others in this thread),

I have to say the .45 GAP was not a solution looking for a problem. It may have not been a problem to you or me, but I know people that read about it, bought it and felt it was the solution to a problem that had kept them from buying a pistol in .45 ACP. Small hands. Short fingers. Sometimes a small change makes a big difference. I can think of other examples, but they are off the topic of firearms.

Not trying to start an argument, but every change that comes along is not a solution looking for a problem. Some definitely are. You can appreciate "the old ways", as do I, but every idea that comes along deserves some consideration.

I remember seeing a pic of the .264 Win Mag on a gun mag cover in '64. The fast and light vs. the heavy thumper debate was already in full swing then. It was ... that's right, a solution in need of a problem by most accounts of the day.

The .38 S&W ... .38 S&W Special ... .357 Magnum ... .357 Maximum evolution brought the same arguments.

But I don't necessarily think we are our own worst enemy here. If we were, Glock would be a joke in firearms history today. (I've GOT to get me one of those ... I think they're here to stay. ;) )

Mfrs will continually introduce stuff and make studies/inquiries to see if there is a market for their new doo-dad. We don't like all of them, just some of them. See the SHOT Show.

Peace.
 
The premise that gun owners want innovation and new and exciting stuff is flawed.

More like manufacturers are looking for new product to boost their sales. Sometimes they hit a homerun....other times it flops. To hold the buying public accountable for a marketing geniuses screw up is another example of solutions in search of a problem.
Click to expand...

Interesting view. I own mostly guns which have been around forever. Still I'm surprised by the value I see in the Star Firestar 40 which never made it.
 
The answer is simple; we do want new and exciting things. The problem is that most "new and improved" products that come out are just old designs with a new coat of paint or is not worth the expense of changing. The .45 gap is a joke so why would the whole shooting world rush to the gun shop and fork out tons of cash for new guns, ammo, and equipment. If I already have a .300 WM, would it benefit me that much to go and start over with a .300 WSM? If there was true innovation in the gun world and was not prohibitively expensive, people would buy. Until then, most will stick with what they know rather than continuously buying new variations of the same old things that they will not be able to get ammo for in a few years anyway.
 
The premise that gun owners want innovation and new and exciting stuff is flawed.

More like manufacturers are looking for new product to boost their sales. Sometimes they hit a homerun....other times it flops. To hold the buying public accountable for a marketing geniuses screw up is another example of solutions in search of a problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't even know why gun makers even bother trying to make new guns or new gun products. It has all be done before and there is nothing good that can come from innovation or change, LOL.

I do have to agree that the fault isn't with all gun owners. The firearms industry seems to do little in regard to buyer-based innovations, seeming to introduce products without having a very good idea on whether or not the product is desired or needed by the people to whom they intend to sell them. In other words, I am not sure they have a good grasp of their target demographic in many cases.

What I have often found amazing about gun owners and the attitudes to products is that so many seem to have the attitude that only they know what is good and right for everybody. The right guns people should have are whatever the curmudgeons own or approve. Not only will these curmudgeons not consider some of the new products for themselves, but they will denegrate others who embrace them. I am sure early US Glock owners got an earful when they showed up at the range with their abominations.

I have to say that this train of thought extends to the plastic marvels that have hit the market, I'll pose this question, "How many 100 year old Glock pistols do we expect to see, well used but still in working order?

Sorry for the long rant, but I have been shooting for almost half of a century, and I have come to respect the old ways.
Click to expand...

I didn't know it was important for a gun to be working after 100 years, but I am confident that YOU will never see a 100 year old Glock. I am not even sure why you are concerned with how many 100 year old Glocks will be in working order after you are dead, but that is the sort of mentality that I was talking about.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating older products, but to create silly evaluative criteria that will never affect your life or that you will ever live to see is a bit absurd. Why would you even be worried about that?

I'll go with the thought that a lot of the "improvements" are thought of as a solution looking for a problem, as in "do we really need a .32 cal. on steroids, just because we can?"
Click to expand...

If you don't like a particular caliber, cartridge, gun, etc., what does it matter to you if somebody else likes it and wants it? America has a long history with doing things just because we can. After all, do we all really need to own a bunch of guns just because we can? Is that not a solution looking for a problem?

I will be the first to say that I do not like Glock pistols. I don't like the trigger, grip size, grip angle, and takedown procedures. I have shot a bunch of them and dislike like them all profoundly. With that said, I think they are generally fine guns and proven performers...for folks other than me. Heck, my 76 year old mom carries and shoots a Glock for crying out loud.

Despite my personal dislike for Glocks, their introduction into the US market was a real kick in the pants for a lot of US handgun makers like Colt that realized how much they had like their product (1911) slip over the decades.

I would find it very disconcerting if firearms and related industry manufacturers gave up on innovation. I think they might do better with their innovations if they had a better understanding of to whom they were trying to sell their guns.
 
I was pondering this whole business the other day. Fact is, I believe, that cartridge firearms have hit an apex in performance, and until some system other than primer/case/propellant and slug is developed, we will continue to see the alphabet soup of cartriges and seemingly redundant firearms.

Best two examples I can think of are the SA revolver and the bolt rifle. Both are fully capable of performing their intended task just fine, over 100 yrs after their birth. Same for the classic cartridges they fire, say .45Colt and the '06. By anybody's standard, great performers and fully capable of their intended purpose, 100 + yrs later.


The world saw the flintlock, the percussion lock, and the cartrige firearm evolve fairly rapidly by comparison.

We're now at a stick point, and until a technology comes along that is superior, we will see GAP's and WSSM and Leverlou...and ...........

Hope I'm long gone!!!
 
Thanks Spy. That is the argument I was trying to make. Why do we tell the guy with no gun to buy a 45 ACP or 30'06 rifle? To the level that some will even blister a fella for asking about a 357 sig or 7mm WSM.

Anyways, thanks for all the response. This has been good. I too tend to not buy the newest out of fear I will be stuck with a gun which costs $5 a round to shoot!
 
One reason we tend to stick to the old tried and true is that we are confident of it being there when we want or need it.

A great number of cartridges have literally come and gone in the last century. .45 GAP may work fine, and even fill a niche for some people, but if I don't think I'll be able to get ammo (other than special order), then a large segment of the potential market will pass it by.

We are fortunate today, that thanks to the interest of cowboy action shooting creating a demand, nearly all the deceased calibers have been revived at least a bit.

It costs a bit, but you can get ammo for lots of old guns today, when for many years it was real scarce. Will all that, why get something new, with an unproven record for staying power?

Its not that we won't accept new ideas, its just we won't instantly, fawningly accept new ideas until we decide they are good ideas. As a market. There are exceptions, of course. The Judge comes to mind.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top