Thread 64174494

When you look at firearms in the 1980s vs modern firearms not a lot has really changed since the introduction of polymers and striker-fired handguns. Every "new" product is mostly just some variation on the Glock or AR15 with very little innovation actually happening. Take automobiles as an example of a similar product (a semi auto firearm is basically a gunpowder engine with fewer overall parts in mechanical terms so it's the closest comparison I can think of) and look at how drastically different a car made in the 1980s is from a car made today. Almost every single industry has gone through some kind of "Silicon Valley" phase in the last 20 years where a younger generation came in and massively innovated on the product but that never really happened to firearms and I am wondering why that is.

I will say I don't think its for lack of possibilities as just off the top of my head I can think why not make electricity-fired guns? While yes its something else to keep track of there are ways to mitigate this and has several advantages, the most major being it bypasses the NFA as it does not have like half the parts to be legally called a firearm. (The AR-15 has started to run into this problem in recent years when people started realising there's no real allowance for the upper and lower receiver thing and the ATF has been trying to avoid a court ruling on it as it would fuck them over) This would allow for the sale of automatic weapons with no size or attachment restrictions, almost no moving parts that could literally have a programmable fire rate along with integrated electronic attachments such as optics and lights/lasers. Yet despite all those benefits, no one has really even tried? I just don't get it.

> why not make electricity-fired guns?
why would you? it doesn't do anything better that what we have now, and the whole part about it getting around the NFA is just wrong. the only part that is a firearm under US law is the receiver, so nothing changes. P.S. fuck off nogunz fag

>>64174511
This is flat out wrong. The NFA defines what a receiver is. Pulled from Cornell Law
>that provides housing or a structure for the component (i.e., sear or equivalent) designed to hold back the hammer, striker, bolt, or similar primary energized component prior to initiation of the firing sequence, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component (i.e., sear or equivalent) to the housing or structure.
While there is an allowance for changes in development, the problem is that an electronically fired weapon would have literally ZERO of the mentioned components, making it extremely difficult to apply.

>>64174494 (OP)
It's not slow. We peaked, and then it stagnated. We've hit the limit of smokeless gunpowder, steel, polymer, brass, etc.

>>64174565
>sear or equivalent
>or similar primary energized component prior to initiation of the firing sequence
electrically fired is an equivalent.
also electrically fired guns already exist, for quite a while now. if it was a way around the NFA we would be able to get M61 Vulcan cannons, but we can't.

>>64174494 (OP)
>electricity-fired guns
oh my god, you fucking retards just won't let that retarded meme go
theres no fucking reason to have a standard gun be electrically fired, theres no genuine benefit

>>64174586
Not really... Not going to count rifles here as they are somewhat of an exception, but the form factor of both pistols and shotguns both have barely changed when there are ways to improve them both but no one has even tried.

To use handguns as an example the fundamental shape of most handguns has not changed since the 1911 and honestly the only major change to them since then was the advent of strikers. The thing is the form factor of handguns was largely an afterthought as in the early 1900s they were largely used for experimenting with semi-automatic actions. There has never been a handgun built all the way from the ground up for the explicit purpose of personal protection. I am certain of this because of the glaring defect of how easy handguns are to knock out of battery in a fight, considering looking at data there's a very good chance you will end up fighting over the gun in hand to hand. Most firearms seem to do this where they mirror what old designs did without ever trying to figure out if they could do it better from scratch and that's kind of the point of this thread.

>>64174621
Honestly I am of the opinion it isn't because no one has actually tried to challenge them on it. American gunowners refuse to just tell the ATF to fuck off for some reason and always just take it in the ass.

>>64174637
Was just using it as a potential example.

>>64174649
>Honestly I am of the opinion it isn't because no one has actually tried to challenge them on it.
Do you have a legal education or is your opinion as worthless as it sounds?

>>64174494 (OP)
the thing is we have outside the box stuff since like the 70s, telescoped cases have been tried in artillery even eugene stoner has been working with it
but the lsat program has been dropped and the textron rifle lost ngsw

we are in a plateau of gun design, flintlock had been the standard for about 300 years until caplocks came to be.
until something radicly new happens like telescoped cases or caseless g11 style ammo we will see more of the same and honestly we have pretty good nowadays its not uncommon to see a mid ar15 shoot 1 MOA not long ago 1 MOA was a crazy hard standard of accuracy

>>64174649
>American gunowners refuse to just tell the ATF to fuck off
we do, all the time. so let me say this again. electric guns already exist, they are classified as firearms and subject to the NFA like all others, in fact the NFA probably prevents electric guns from being made common for the exact reasons you state. here's a video on an electric bolt action https://youtu.be/8qP6Q9ZEsEo

>>64174494 (OP)
with modern matsci and CAD/CFD, it could be worthwhile revisiting some novel concepts like squeeze bore or super energetic propellants.
something like a handgun package that hits with the speed and power of intermediate rifles should be possible with current tech

>>64174649
>Was just using it as a potential example.
which is a self-report example that only an absolute midwit would use

you want your answer of why shit won't advance?
>money
yup, thats it, money
it would cost money for them to change their tooling, invest in marketing, and set up production sources for materials
and then you know whats gonna happen after that?
some dumb nigger is gonna say "but muh psa ar do that for $5 less!!!!!", and every faggot on the block is going to agree, and nobody is going to buy it
plus, whatever gunstores that are around won't have it in stock, and if they do, they have abysmal service & will act as if you're invisible, and all the online stores will have it listed as sold out, attached to a dead link, or requires in-shop-pickup-only at a place thats 70 miles away

on top of that, whoever the hell they keep hiring for marketing these days, should be given a class action lawsuit
the amount of ads i see that don't even mention the name of the product, OR EVEN THE COMPANY, is literally insane

>>64174494 (OP)
>car made in the 1980s is from a car made today.
idk if thats a good example lol
cars have gotten progressively shittier but more comppex and more expensive
while guns are basically subjected to the most insane standards (which is a good thing)
cara are a normie thing but look at who seriously uses guns, military, police and civilian shooters that are either competition oriented or are turbo autistic about firearms, guns simply have to live up to a higher standard than cars

>>64174494 (OP)
They already did everything, between the 2nd half of the 19th century and the early 20th.

>>64174494 (OP)
Firearms innovation peaked in the 90s/2000s, and ever since, the market has regressed to constantly hunting for just "good enough" rather than excellence. Military/LEO contracts dictate the direction of the firearms market, and it turns out that they really like Glocks and ARs because they're the easiest guns to put in the hands of retarded recruits and still do the job with minimal training hours required. Innovation isn't slow, companies have just refused to continue innovating because there's no money in it anymore.

>>64174494 (OP)
1. there is less war than before
2. wars are decided by artillery, logistics, aipower, electronic warfare, and a whole lot of more important stuff to put money towards
3. international standardization prevents innovation

>>64174494 (OP)
Because you keep buying the same cheap pieces of shit, and every year they change the designs in the plastic and you buy the same piece of shit over again.

>why lots of innovation at first, and very little recently?

This happens to every product. The biggest and most major improvements happen in the first few generations, but as the product gets closer to its optimal form (a predetermined final form does exist), there is less distance between its current incarnation and that final form, so fewer things to change, and with smaller magnitudes of change. It’s happened to literally everything. The bicycle, the iPhone, the car, the chair, the toaster, etc. it even happens with animals in a static environment as their biology approaches the optimal form for that environment/niche (crabs, crocodiles). just start thinking of these inventions as “discoveries” and their ‘final form” as “a pre-existing property of the universe”.

It’s like adding 0.5+0.25+0.125…. The limit you’re getting at is 1 but each successive term is a smaller step towards 1.

All that said, I don’t actually think guns have become crabs yet. Close, but not quite. And I don’t think “different for its own sake” is a desireable thing to do. It usually just means “worse”. Of the examples you gave, what does one gain from a variable cyclic rate, and is it worth the massively increased complexity of the gun, switching from analog to electronic, etc?

>>64174816
This too. There is less pressure now for weapons evolution/developement. Thank god for the existence of the US civilian market continuing to apply this pressure.

>>64175305(me)
>This happens to every product.

This sentence needs a qualifier so here’s the updated version.
>this happens to everything undergoing iterative change/improvement in a static environment.
The environment for guns will be, like, that humans are meat targets, then the developement of body armor will change things up and require a diff sectional energy/velocity, then the terrain/landscape on which conflicts happen will decide range, things like that.

>>64174649
>pistols and shotguns both have barely changed
Yeah, because weaker guns peaked first. If there was a need to change and an opportunity to improve, it would have happened years before you made this thread.
>glaring defect of how easy handguns are to knock out of battery in a fight
A simple revolver doesn't have that defect.

>>64174649
Pistols nearly peaked with the 1911, and were perfected with the beretta 92. There's literally nothing else to do.

>the glaring defect of how easy handguns are to knock out of battery in a fight
This was solved three times, with blowback guns, revolvers (wasn't a problem in the first place), and gas operated guns, and it never caught on because this actually doesn't happen to non-retarded people.

>>64174494 (OP)
>Why is innovation in firearms so slow
Regulations and cost effectiveness.
That's it.

Newest innovations are new optics. The Red Dot is going to supplement and then nearly completely replace iron sights other than for redundancy reasons over the next 20 years. We haven't even begun to see the impact this will have yet.

I would say this is a slow uptake, but then again 25 years ago a Trijicon or other red dots were basically unavailable for rifles (3000 dollars plus). Now optics that are decent enough for daily use are 1/10th the cost and pistol optics are now approaching prices that will make them standard from the factory equipment. This is a major change if you are over the age of 30. Iron sights were 15 years ago basically all you were going to see unless you were looking for significant magnification. Big big changes.

>>64175305
Just because something hasn’t changed in a while does not mean there is no room to improve it further.

Putting wheels on luggage didn’t become popular until the 90’s.
Left and right shoes for your left and right feet weren’t even invented until like the 1800’s.
Stirrups, I’m sure you know were invented thousands of years after we started riding horses.

Or, probably the most pertinent example, the compound bow. Wooden compound bows exist and could have easily been made in ancient times, but they weren’t invented until 1966.

>>64175383
All true, you just kinda have to give it time. By no means does “no/minimal change over x time” mean “no further change is possible”. But a lack of change over a long period of time hints at a strong probability that there isn’t much more to be done. Especially when you have entire industries of tens of thousands of brains all applies to the same task and none can come up with a substantial improvement to the current incarnation of the product, so it isn’t a lack of effort or obsolescence of the product.

The timeline of some things is just weird though. We will have the capacity to make x at year y but only get around to it or figure it out at year y+500 or whatever. And in hindsight, things like this always seem obvious. I think spitzer bullets were discovered emabrassingly late. Didn’t we have machineguns before pointy bullets?

But, I did also say that guns haven’t peaked. So there’s that. And maybe we don’t have the technological ability to create the guns of the future. Maybe this requires another technological revolution. Idk. I’m not from the future, I don’t know what it contains.

>>64175383
>wooden compound bows could have easily been made in ancient times

Well, this does require both the ability to fabricate the bow and the knowledge of the math and physics behind its principles of operation. Did they know all that back then?

>>64175375
>trijicon red dots cost $3000+ 25 years ago

Fucking really? If this is true, well damn, what a great time to be a firearms enthusiast, where I can buy a red dot for a couple hundred and it’s like an extension of my eyeball.

>>64174494 (OP)
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH65jS-EseQ
<3

>>64175432
They didn't make red dots 25 years ago.

>>64175442
Here’s one from 50 years ago

>>64175427
Yes and yes. Enough to get the job done, at least. The main principle of a compound bow is using pulleys to create mechanical advantage. And they were certainly familiar with both that, and the concept of energy storage and draw weight. Would they have understood the exact physics of force draw curves and what not? Probably not. But if you can figure out a ratcheted winch for your crossbow or balista, it’s not a gigantic leap to make.

But people did (and do) a lot of non-optimal things even when they theoretically should have known better.

>>64175416
Spitzer bullets are less to do with actual bullet design and more to do with the advent of rifling, good metallurgy and smokeless powder. Minié balls were essentially spire-point projectiles but we still saw flat and round nose projectiles dominate early repeating rifles. Why? Personally I think that the engineers of the late 1800s understood they were at the limit of capability in terms of pushing up chamber pressures and therefore velocity so the bullets benefited more from extra mass yielded by a fat round nosed design. Once smokeless powder and more reliably robust metallurgy became standard, they leaned further into the KE equation and were willing to give up mass in exchange for the lighter, more aerodynamic projectiles that then evolved. We're seeing the ultimate incarnation of this with cartridges like 6.5CM, the PRC cartridges, 6.8saar, 7BC, etc. I think if you dropped a copper jacketed spitzer bullet in some gunmakers lap in 1750, there still wouldn't be much change to the bullet development time line.

>>64175416
>I did also say that guns haven’t peaked.
What you actually said earlier was that firearms hadn't peaked. Which was wrong; guns that use a powder propellant are about as good as they can get; any improvement in one area comes with tradeoffs in another area.

As for guns that aren't firearms, maybe we'll get a cool sci-fi gun eventually.

>>64175566
> guns that use a powder propellant are about as good as they can get; any improvement in one area comes with tradeoffs in another area.

Wrong. This is not guaranteed. Consider high pressure cases increasing the energy density of the cartridge case. The drawbacks of high pressures cases can 1) conceivably be ameliorated by future metallurgy and 2) are not of equal magnitude to the benefits of increased energy with no penalty in cartridge mass and volume.

Also consider quad stacks more than doubling the capacity in your gun with no real shortcomings.

>I said guns didn’t peak
>”no you said firearms hadn’t peaked”

How are these two statements different from eachother?

>>64175686
>Also consider quad stacks more than doubling the capacity in your gun with no real shortcomings.
Something that already exists but rarely gets used due to its drawbacks is your example that improving one area wouldn't come with a tradeoff in another? LOL Try harder.
>conceivably be ameliorated by future metallurgy
So, we're capped out at steel, like it was mentioned earlier, got it. It sure does sound like we peaked and stagnated if we have to wait for sci-fi materials to eventually show up.
>How are these two statements different from eachother?
A firearm is a specific type of gun. All firearms are guns; not all guns are firearms. Like how a railgun or a coilgun is a gun but is not a firearm.

>>64175427
If a trebuchet could be built a compound bow could. They just built crossbows instead because it was good enough while being easier to make and use.

>>64175703
>durrrr guns and firearms are different things

You pedantic midwit, you obviously know what I mean. Yeah no I’m talking about how directed energy guns have peaked and plateaued. Retard.

> Something that already exists but rarely gets used due to its drawbacks is your example that improving one area wouldn't come with a tradeoff in another?
What trade off? And when you said that every improvement comes with a tradeoff, the implication here is that the magnitude of the tradeoff is equal to the magnitude of value gained by the improvement, rendering the change a sidegrade at best.. So this tradeoff must be equal in magnitude to more than doubling magazine capacity and all the benefits that entails. Go on enlighten me.

>were capped at steel
You don’t know that, and the likelihood that we have already reached peak metallurgy is zero.

A new thing offers new benefits but is not without cost. So identify the cost/shortcoming and try to engineer a way around it, or simply accept it as a necessary price. This is true for literally every change ever made to any product, ever. If everyone in the world was a dumbass like you, we would’ve never moved past the Chinese hand cannon.

>>64175442
Reflector sights were patented in 1900.
They were on aircraft in WWII.
The original Aimpoint was available to civilians in 1980.

>>64174494 (OP)
>Electronic guns that can be programmed to be full auto surely is a workaround for...
ATF has written opinion letters stating that you'll get raped in prison if you tried and we still have to pretend they have the ability to legislate. In short the answer to all your questions is the government is gay and draconian and it's stymied any granual progress beyond firearm designs that existed a century ago. That Glock brand Glock at its heart is a browning tilt barrel action, everything else about it is cosmetic and manufacturing changes on a technology over 120 years old.

Remington made an electronic ignition rifle almost 30 years ago. It was a bolt action to avoid all the cool things everyone could speculate about the technology because that would be illegal.
>It did poorly

Related are things like IRL aimbot and auto aiming guns which on paper are a common C+ Arduino project for a summer coding camp/shitty engineering school thesis but due to aforementioned "everything is gay and retarded" you have anti booby trap laws, indiscriminate weapon conventions, etc. to contend with which is why a gun that shoots everything in front of it is only officially used on the North Korean border. To the point the whole idea has been leapfrogged by tech into the disposable wire guided Alibaba package drone+mortar shell combo "legally" used for anti personnel in the great slavnigger trench war of 2014-2016/2020-2024+

>>64175375
>Iron sights were 15 years ago basically all you were going to see unless you were looking for significant magnification.
Guys coming home even before the surge 07-08 were already sold on dots, holos and prisms through firsthand experience.
You only had the Big 3 then though. No Vortex, Holosun, Sig

>so slow
Small arms don't matter. (Artillery and air power does, see for example >>64174816)
FIrearms really don't require 'innovation' at a rapid rate, in modern smokeless powder cartridge guns nothing changed substantially in 120 years.
A substantial change would be not so much in the guns but in cartridges (such as actual caseless ammunition) which requires a major advance in chemistry, propellants and materials science, long term storage and temperature/moisture immunity of ammunition that has no metal casing. Rocket-projectile and 'mag-lev' individual weapon guns have gone nowhere, too complex or otherwise ineffective/redundant.
Sure, various types of firearm actions-mechanisms have been invented/come along in the past century. Also cartridge chamberings (for example the so called "intermediate" class of cartridge that placed 'assault rifles' in between submachine guns and mil rifles/machine guns).
In terms of what is going on rn, the only 'advance' in semiauto handguns are (in addition to the post-1970s proliferation of polymer-frame-striker-fired) are the rotating-barrel actions from Beretta, Grand Power and now Glock (with its 46). Almost every other handgun still uses the tilt barrel delayed Browning pattern no matter if hammer- or striker-fired.
AR-15 pattern has come to dominate mil rifles, even though piston-mechanisms exist and have been hybridized with other designs. Bolt actions of the Mauser-style remain standard (with a few straight pull bolt rifles for the hunting market), and also other single shot / falling block actions used by hunters and custom builders.
Shotguns are still the same after 100 years.

>>64175305
>This happens to every product. The biggest and most major improvements happen in the first few generations
This. But it doesn't tell the whole story either. In addition, there's also the constant pressure to offer something NEW for people to CONSOOOM. So, once all the good ideas get used up there's only bad ideas left, and it's only a matter of time before they start getting shoe-horned into new designs, making them worse.

Cars are a great example. The earliest ones had shit performance and safety, very low range, etc. They soon became a lot more reliable and safer, easier to drive, less maintenance required. But then cars got filled with touch-screens, headlights require network access, and the cars track everything you do.

Technology follows a curve. We're well past the peak with most firearms. There is plenty of room for improvement with optics, however.

>>64174649
>the fundamental shape of most handguns has not changed since the 1911
The fundamental shape of the human hand hasn't changed since then either, and that happens to be what handguns are made to fit. If you're making a hand-held bullet launcher the big two things to change are how well it fits in the hand and how well it launches bullets, and we've got those two down to a pretty good science by now.

>>64174494 (OP)
>“An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity, a physicist tries to make it simple, for an idiot anything the more complicated it is the more he will admire it, if you make something so clusterfucked he can't understand it he's gonna think you're a god cause you made it so complicated nobody can understand it. That's how they write journals in Academics, they try to make it so complicated people think you're a genius” - Terry I wrote my own compiler Davis
You are a fucking idiot shut up and never post again

>>64176388
I agree.
See this excerpt from my post
> And I don’t think “different for its own sake” is a desireable thing to do. It usually just means “worse”.

I was gonna ask if those “different for the sake of it” features shoehorned into products are just fly by night fads, whether or not they last, but then your example of touchscreens in cars answered the question. I fucking hate them so much. I have to brace my hand and divert my attention to the screen. But they’ve been around for years and they’re not gonna go anywhere. That’s one area where a more-or-less analog interface is superior to a touchscreen.

>>64174649
>>64176418
If you’re making a chair, you need a flat or slightly concave horizontal plate for the ass, a flat vertical plate for the back, and some legs. 3 is too few, 5 is too many. 4 is right. Voila, you have a chair. There is an optimal form for it. Every other item, especially those that interface with our bodies, is just a more complicated version of the simple chair.

> how easy handguns are to knock out of battery in a fight
But IRL, has this ever really been a problem? Has someone lost a fight or died because his pistol was knocked out of battery? It’s a shortcoming of pistols, yeah, but idk if it’s that serious. If it is, the simple solution is a vertical plate (or compensator) that sits in front of the muzzle, but is mounted to the frame.

>>64174637
If it can allow for thinner primers, then cartridge case capacity would increase. Makes no difference for rifles, but could change things up for pistols or any application where severe dimensional constraints are placed on the cartridge case. It could also allow for a variable cyclic rate. Idk how useful that is but it sounds cool af. 1500rpm full auto but you could also fire at 500

>>64174586
> We've hit the limit of smokeless gunpowder, steel, polymer, brass, etc.

How is it even possible to know this?

>>64175442
>>64175464
>>64175736
WW2 aircraft sights.

>>64175442
25 years ago was the year 2000, when CCOs were already being issued in limited numbers. 25 years ago was not the 1980s like your crusty cobweb-filled millennial mind thinks, time moves on; people who were born after you were young and hip are now have college degrees.

>>64176545
>now have college degrees.
Degrees in "dender studies" don't command respect.

>>64176545
If he were a millennial, he would have been aware that red dots existed back then because he was alive back then, zoom zoom.

>>64174494 (OP)
Police and military dominate the firearms industry. Its always been this way, anyone thinking their was that much more variety in the boomer days is seeing it through rose colored glasses.

Back then, the majority of the time if you wanted a a pistol, youd have a revolver or 1911. If you wanted a rifle, it was an M1 derivative. If you had money and wanted to be special ad different, maybe an AR, or some wonder nine.
But most of the time you were using the same generic stuff as everyone else because thats what was issued to the military and police, and they dont need anything fancy. Most of the time they dont even need anything "good" just enough to check the boxes


And just like now, if you want a pistol youre getting a generic striker fired 9mm, and an AR15 of some kind for your long gun. Im sure 50 years from now some kid will be pulling out his grandpas CZ SP101 and AUG, complaining that they "dont make guns like back then", but the reality is grandpa was just autistic.

war never changes

>>64174494 (OP)
>innovation
>Glock
Their first pistol was innovative, but Glock hasn’t made any innovations since they released that first pistol.

>muh innovation
fuck off, techfaggot. Not every new gun needs to be "innovative." The pointless chase of innovation is the reason we have shitty AI chatbots, stupid looking cars that break down all the time, and why I can't find a decent house for less than 300 grand. If I can pull the trigger, it goes bang, the bullet hits and kills whatever I'm shooting at, and it isn't retarded expensive, then it's good enough.

>>64175812
>ATF has written opinion letters stating that you'll get raped in prison if you tried and we still have to pretend they have the ability to legislate.
We don't HAVE to do anything. Most gun owners are just still too stupid to figure that out. Collectively, we have more firepower than the feds do, but the majority are terrified of using it, and it pisses me off to no end.

>>64175730
>What trade off?
Quad-stack magazines have been experimented on since the 1930s. To this day they are still not as reliable as double-stack magazines; add to that their excess weight, and you can see why this "major improvement" was shelved.
>So identify the cost/shortcoming and try to engineer a way around it
So why don't you become an engineer rather than complain in shitty threads you made?
>If everyone in the world was a dumbass like you, we would’ve never moved past the Chinese hand cannon.
Says the guy whining so that someone else innovates for them. If everyone were as dumb as you, we'd still be stuck in the Stone Age.

>>64177381
>add to that their excess weight
wrong. Carrying 50 bullets in one mag is lighter than carrying it in two as you save the material of part of the second one. Desert Tech explains it well. They weighed it and found that the quad stack is almost 10% lighter.

>>64177477
Sure, man. Currently infantry soldiers carry 210 rounds as the standard loadout. I'm sure carrying 240 rounds in a quad stack would be lighter. Plus, having a 60-rounder attached to your firearm is definitely lighter than having a 30-rounder attached to it (sarcasm, in case it went over your head).

>>64177477
This is true. The Surefire 60 round mag weighs 6.5oz, compared to 5oz for the 30rd pmag. Quad stacks are lighter per round carried than any other ammunition feeding system. If the surefires were desert tech style, they’d be even lighter for their capacity.

A 2nd and more important point is that not all mass on a gun is the same, and mass in different places is not the same either. Adding a pound to your magwell when it means you gain 30 rounds is nothing. A) the cartridge is the weapon here, the gun is just a pez dispenser for it. And You’re gonna carry this weight on your person anyways. B) the weight is added to the magwell, pulling the guns center of mass closer to that ideal point. May even positively affect the balancing of the gun. You may not even notice the extra weight. Quite different from adding a pound to the front of the gun like with a giant LAM or silencer.

The weight penalty of quad stacks is a minor, trivial demerit.

>>64177578
4x6.5oz quad stacks=26oz
240rds m855 = 102oz
TOTAL: 128oz

7x5oz pmags = 35oz
210rds m855 = 89oz
TOTAL: 124oz

Oh wow a whole quarter pound heavier (for 30 rounds). Yeah, it’s over, Quad stacks are a non-starter.

You’re the same type of moron who would complain to John browning that his autoloading pistol design is just too complicated, or too much longer than snub nose revolvers, and so autoloading pistol actions are a bad idea and he should not pursue them. I think the point you’re making is that everything has a cost, no matter how small, somewhere, but you’re dumb enough to think that all costs have the same magnitude, and so you think this is some profundity.

>>64174494 (OP)
Optics have improved

>>64174511
>>64174637
>He doesn't know
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102016109653A1/en?assignee=Carl+walther&oq=Carl+walther&sort=new&page=1

>>64177728
>The Surefire 60 round mag weighs 6.5oz
When empty. No one carries them empty.

>>64177752
>Oh wow a whole quarter pound heavier (for 30 rounds).
Have you just never run and gunned? Is your rifle a collection piece? Go shoot a 2-gun or 3-gun match using full 60-round mags and see if 52 oz (per mag if your 60-rounder is fully loaded) on the gun is the same as 18 oz (per mag if your 30-rounder is fully loaded). Let's see how quickly you can go.

BTW, you're stupid enough to derail your own thread. You were asked what innovations could we work on, and you decided to fixate on tech we've experimented with from the 1930s to the 2020s and yet have never adopted. Wow, pre-WW2 concepts that have been abandoned multiple times—that is so innovative, get all the engineers on this now.

>>64174494 (OP)
Go start your super innovative gun company since you're so smart, bro.
>mfw you spend a couple of weeks writing down "innovative" ideas only to find out they've already been done and failed, are patented and unused, or are just things that you didn't know about but are common

>>64177928
>comparing an actual military gunfight to high-speed speed low-drag 3-gun matches
>calling other people dumb
The only dumb nigger here is you, faggot

>>64175730
>You don’t know that, and the likelihood that we have already reached peak metallurgy is zero.

It's not about peak metallurgy, it's about the fact that the likelihood that using exotic ultra-expensive high strength materials for something like a casing will never have a benefit worth the cost. Sure, you could make your barrel and bolt or breech out of an exotic high strength alloy to stand up to the extra pressure, and use exotic ultra-hard low friction coatings so it doesn't wear out the barrel prematurely firing Nu-TECH (tm) 4,000fps rounds out of it, but what do you gain in doing that? Oh wow you have a better gun that only useful for extremely niche military or hobbyist applications because it's heinously expensive, ungodly loud without a massive silencer, and either overly complicated to mitigate recoil or just highly unpleasant to use.

Basically the only materials innovations that will be worth using in firearms in the next century will be improved coatings for wear and friction reduction. Firearms are already powerful enough, light enough, and reliable enough, longevity in high performance applications is the only thing that practically could benefit from improvement. Go read some sci-fi books or something you dumb nerd.

>>64175432
Its incredible how cheap it is to get gear these days. Good quality gear too. A red dot for a rifle is less than a days wages.

>>64175442
They weren't accessible or cheap. But they existed. If you mean mass manufacturing for the consumer market you are right. That wasn't really a thing 25 years ago.

>>64175867
This is true. I remember the red dots were very slow to take off because of sheer cost. Even the slightly above trash Tasco red dot was 100 dollars when I put it on my 10/22 and that was 2011. Good quality optics were just not standard for ARs for a few years after that until costs came down significantly. My buddies red dot was an ACOG and that was nearly half the cost of his rifle which was a BCM (400-500 for the optic). Its insane that prices have come down so much.

>>64177827
This is the core. Optics are significantly better and getting better every day. Big change.

If glock REALLY wanted to innovate they get rid of that God awful grip angle.

>>64178283
>comparing an actual military gunfight to...
(Ctrl+F) 1 result for military gunfight, the post I'm replying to. Sure, man. I'm making a comparison (not); it's definitely not you posting a red herring fallacy (after derailing your own thread) because you can't defend your point at all (more sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).

BTW, competition matches are always short; real gunfights have a small chance of being longer; therefore, my point on it being heavier and more unwieldy and its user having to move around with it is even more relevant for the military than it is for competitions. I was merely wondering if you ever used your guns, and I got my answer. LOL

>>64178502
>red dot
>acog
>400-500 dollars
>price has come down from there
I'd imagine that you had the nogunz and kids believing your bullshit about what things were like 25 years ago, but you played your hand a bit too hard on this one. Nice bait up until now though.
>t. still using a 25 year old m68

>>64179169
Bro my smith 6946 was made like around my birth and I still use it.

>>64179169
early adopter fag adopted early

I bet you also are going to say that pre-AWB expiration that every single person you met had an AR15 and they were all Colts.

>>64177928
First of all, I’m not OP, idk why you think I am.

>>64177928
>No one carries them empty.
Nigger do you not understand how ADDITION works?

>52 oz loaded 60rd mag
You don’t know how anything works. Where tf did you get 52oz from? It’s 32oz loaded. 0.425oz per round (186gr/rd) for a 60rd weight of 25.5oz + 6.5oz magazine. 32oz is completely reasonable. Not even close to being too heavy.

>>64174494 (OP)
retarded CEO "we gotta change something, things are getting boring!" mentality

>>64174494 (OP)

Companies have tried to innovate, with some success, but it's either been worse, or prohibitively expensive.

Example 1: The P320; Modular design is a neat feature that solves a problem nobody has, "how can I repeatedly convert my handguns frame?". Neat idea, the biggest benefit has been superior aftermarket grip modules, not the ability to change size. If you wanted to change the size, that solution already existed, it was called a Glock 19 with a larger mag base.

Example 2: Laugo Alien; This gun is really fucking neat, it's also not a good gun except for range/competition use. It's the McLaren of pistols, and I mean that in the best and worst ways simultaneously. Needlessly complex and precise maintenance, not all that durable, but my God, when you've done that, they're awesome shooters (though notably, they have rather high felt recoil actually)

Example 3: All "stack and a half" carry pistols; This is, the biggest or second biggest carry gun improvement in nearly 40 years and I mean that in all sincerity. Depending on how you dress, a g19 or similar may not be feasible, and for AIWB, guns like the 26 may conceal even worse. The G48/43x (with aftermarket mags because Glock is stubborn), Shield Plus, Shield X, 365, and 365 XL allow you to carry a gun with capacities that nearly match duty pistols with far more comfort. Pocket guns, the bodyguard 2.0 is indisputably the king now, 380 is still anemic, but when you have double the capacity, well, I'd feel comfortable with it.

We've seen a LOT of innovation in the handgun market, but with the exception of stack and a half mags, it's almost all been accessories. Better lights, better optics, reasonable optic mounting, holsters that are leaps and bounds better, unique carry methods like the enigma, etc. handguns have barely innovated for the same reason the AR is still the gold standard, we don't have technology to do anything better yet cost effectively, and they do the job adequately already.

>>64177041
>Glock hasn’t made any innovations since they released that first pistol.
Neither has anyone else.

>>64180325
>All "stack and a half" carry pistols; This is, the biggest or second biggest carry gun improvement in nearly 40 years and I mean that in all sincerity.
The Kel Tec P11 invented this segment 30 years ago, just as a point of reference. Other manufacturers suddenly deciding to try it in 2015 isn't innovation.

>>64174494 (OP)
Its just like any product. We got to a point where the basic design is pretty much a done deal. Now instead of innovating, manufacturers spend their time adding pointless shit, making new renditions of the same thing, and cutting corners to save manufacturing costs.

>>64179915
I only knew one guy with a pre-ban, which was indeed a Colt. Most folks I knew (myself included) weren't willing to pay a premium for a used gun with a bayonet lug and a flash hider. My first AR was a post-ban Bushmaster.
>still have that lower

As for red dots, they sold the fucking things at Walmart. I remember Kalinka was dumping Kobras back then like they were going out of style. The market in general was flooded with cheap post-Soviet optics. I think I still have a few kicking around. I know for a fact that I still have an old Valdada from that period. Believe it or not, that was a budget option back then.

If you want to make the claim that red dots have improved in the last 25 years...well, yeah, they have. So has just about everything, except society in general anyway.

>>64174494 (OP)
To do something truly new you need to change both the cartridge and the firearm; but shooters and companies can only do one at a time because of high capital costs.

>>64174494 (OP)
Because we already have GLOCK PERFECTION™

>>64180726
The only reason it got popular is because almost all subcompacts from the 90s through 2017 were made with both 9mm and .40 in mind. The modern doublestack micro compacts, like the P11, are just designed entirely around 9mm since .40 is no longer in demand.