this is near the top of the list of guns I wont buy

[Hardwood83]

I would shoot it.  Wouldn't buy it, but I'd shoot it.

Anyone else get the feeling that we're reaching the pinnacle of firearms development, and manufacturers are running out of ideas?  That would explain stuff like this.  And pretty much anything designed by Taurus.

Certainly appears that way to me. Much the same could be said of cars, really. Internal combustion engine with 4 wheels. All the other stuff is just incremental refinement.

Sad/disgusting thing about the state of firearms is the NFA & GCA regs hand-cuff so much development and availability for the general public.

 

[JTH]

Every single poly gun on the market uses a firing system developed in the late 1890's..................so other than the materials, what exactly is the technological advancement??

I don't consider different materials to do the same job as any real advancement, besides, poly was first used in, the what 30"s??   ( I believe Bakalite is a type of polymer, I could be wrong about that however... )

So, if you are saying that you see no difference between polymers created in the 1930s and the vast range of polymers available now (with widely varying properties), and that you see no difference in the firearms made then out of certain materials, compared to the firearms made now (with vastly different capabilities, weights, accuracy levels, tolerance levels, and reliability) then yeah, we don't really have anything to discuss.

I'll note:  I personally rather think that there is a technological difference between a mechanical calculator as first created and a present-day calculator.  Your viewpoint seems to see no difference as they both use the same mathematical process to achieve the same end.

I disagree.

If, on the other hand, you mean "completely different way of creating a weapon that fires projectiles over a distance" then okay, yeah, we haven't seen that in----oh, ever.  After all, we've been using gas pressure to drive projectiles pretty much from the beginning of "firearms" and it wouldn't really be a firearm unless we are using combustion gases to drive projectiles.

If you don't mean that, but instead mean the action parts, then yes, there have been changes in those unless, of course, you are saying that Glocks and 1911s have similar actions? ---and if you are saying they do, then again, there really isn't anything to discuss.

I'm curious as to what you would consider a "significant difference" in firearms technology?  How much difference does there have to be?  You say that materials don't make the difference, action parts don't make the difference...so what exactly would?

Short of actually getting caseless ammo--(is that different enough?  The gun's materials aren't different and the actions wouldn't have to be different...) ....seriously, I'm not sure what you would consider a sufficient "technological advancement."

[SemperFiGuy]

Well, could be the reason for no innovative breakthroughs in firearms development is that firearms purchasers are so commitedly conservative, they just won't buy the New Stuff.

How would you like to be inventor David Dardick and go to all the trouble to develop this Little Gem of a pistol and then have it sit rusting on the shelves of Cabelas and Guns Unlimited?

http://www.guns.com/2012/09/12/most-unusual-handguns/

It didn't shoot cartridges.....   It shot trounds.    Zounds!!!

We need USPSA and IDPA classifications for this Little Beauty.   Who's gonna invent something that you bring to a match, RO looks at it, calls over the Range Master, both look at it again, look at each other, look at you, shake their heads, and then stick you in OPEN classification with no appeal?

Just Sayin'..............

sfg
[BTW:   Anybody got a Chiappa Rhino??]

[newfalguy101]

Glocks and 1911's both use the same short recoil system patented in the 1890's.

There will not be a significant advancement until there is something to replace smokeless gunpowder, which was invented in the 1870's(??), which was the driving force behind the LAST great leap forward in firearms technology.

There certainly have been advancements in manufacturing technology, with new materials, such as polymer, and the use of Scandium, and Titanium, along with computer aided developments, again to manufacturing technology.

When you boil it all down to its very basic core, a "modern" firearm is no more than a pressure vessel  open on one end, using a firing pin to strike a primer which explodes causing smokeless powder to burn quickly enough to create enough pressure to push a bullet out the end of the barrel.  And its has been that was since the invention of smokeless powder.

There have been advancements in directed energy weapons, there has been testing of using electricity to drive the projectile, and there is always the ongoing work with lasers.  As much work as has been done in those fields, in my opinion, they are still a long ways away from anything that will replace the firearm as we know it.