Thoughts on technology and guns

[smolck]

I was pondering weaponry on my way home from the range today. I just shot my M&P9c for the first time. And I got to thinking about the 1911 I just ditched in favor of the smaller, lighter, more reliable M&P. In every sport technology has made things better. Especially so with things like golf, inline skating, and archery. And as much as I am a fan of the 1911, I am of the opinion that modern guns are superior in many ways. Oh, I know you may want to shoot me for saying that, but please understand I LOVE the 1911's, the Hi-Powers and so on. But it would seem to me that newer firearms are better. Heck, the M1 garand was a GREAT rifle, but a modern AR-15 is probably a better choice for today's battlefield.

I dunno, you can flame me if you want. I am not saying the 1911 or other "old" guns are bad. I am not saying you shouldn't carry them. But I am saying modern technology sure has given us some amazing pistols to choose from. Reliable, light, strong, versatile, accurate, and cost effective that is what 21st century technology has given us. And I for one am happy to have made the switch. Oh sure, I'll get another 1911 someday, but chances of me carrying it are slim to none at this point.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bbqgrill]

The 1911A1 design is brilliant as is the Garand both are exellent firearms; either is useful as a club if you run out of ammo.

[TonyDTrigger]

I agree. I am not the nostalgic type. I don't care about historic value. I buy things that work.

I like the looks of the 1911 though, but maybe the good ones are in the $3000 to $5000 range or more.

[smolck]

Keep in mind this wasn't just about 1911's vs M&P's.

[DefConGun]

What you say about guns can most likely be said about alot of other things in different arenas as well. I believe your commentary about guns can just as easily be applied to cars. The old classic cars are nice and they have a style of their own and even a cult following but they cannot compare to their modern counterparts or equivalents. Like guns, price is not always an indication as to what you are getting in the performance arena. A classic muscle car costing $50,000 or more will find itself at a loss when placed upon a track and asked to run with its modern day counterpart. As much as I like C2 Vettes, for example, I know that the car will not run anywhere near its C6 counterpart on a track. This isn't the reason, however, why someone would buy a C2. Many modern cars will have better brakes and handling and might even match its performance for much less money than what a nice C2 would command on the auction block. Someone in the market for the C2, however, will buy it and appreciate it for what it is; a functioning piece of history that provides iconic allure to the owner that he/she can simply not get anywhere else.

This is not to say, however, that technology that survives inevitable changes that come with progress loose their ability to serve the function to which they were originally designed for accordingly. A classic muscle car can still take you to the grocery store even if it doesn't do so with modern conveniences that a newer car brings to the table. A classic muscle car, in other words, can still get you from point A to point B irrespective of it lacking smog/pollution equipment and a computer regulated engine that can go 100,000 miles before its first tune-up.

The same principle can be applied to firearms. An antiquated 1911 can still incapacitate or kill an aggressive attacker the same as a newer polymer frame M&P can, etc. One thing that we don't know yet is if the newer tech guns that we have today will be able to live up to the track record of the guns that they better now. I don't know about you but I think its incredibly impressive that a gun design that originated in 1911 is still around and being used today. If anything, I think its more to the gun's credit than it is to its dishonor. How many other devices do we have today that has underwent few changes and continue to survive as well as be implemented 100 years after its introduction?

As long as a device continues to do what it was intended to do, how will it being a piece of antiquated tech prevent it from serving its role if it works when you need it? If I use a 1911, for example, to stave off an attacker - do you really think the thug will care that I shot him with a 1911 as opposed to a newer Polymer design? Not likely.

It'll be interesting to see what tomorrow holds. Will we be old gents carrying polymers and insisting to do so while the newer generation of carriers are making fun of us for not carrying the new ceramic models?

We'll see.

DCG

[msgt/ret]

Call me old school but the modern plastic guns just do not feel right to me, give me a 1911 or a nice revolver.

[IAm_Not_Lost]

To be honest I'm surprised that more improvements in firearms have not been made. For about 120 years now we've had the same general concept at work, one cartridge with primer, powder, and projectile all inclusive. We still shoot a hunk of metal, it still doesn't go faster than the speed of light, and it STILL only makes a hole in the BG instead of completely vaporizing them like we all imagine. Maybe I am being premature, but it just seems odd for some reason to me that we have all this absolutely amazing technology out there, i.e. computers, spaceships, nuclear fusion, and a massive particle collider for heavens sake, yet still the best way we have to kill each other in close quarters is with technology that was originally started hundreds of years ago. I guess you could say that about many things though, forgive my random digression.

[21bubba]

Personally I don't care for the direction pistol technology is going.

Lighter is better- Maybe to a point. You can't fool the laws of physics.
Thin is in- One gun is fat because it's a 0.10" thicker than another? Come on, two dimes are 0.104"
Caliber is not important- Simply, yes it is. 380 was and still is a anemic caliber no matter who loads it.
Appearance- It's a tool,nothing more nothing less. Whens the last time somebody said "That's a good looking pipe wrench"?

I'm quite prepared to get flamed for speaking my mind but that's ok I think I can handle it.

[smolck]

Call me old school but the modern plastic guns just do not feel right to me, give me a 1911 or a nice revolver.

I see your point. But for an EDC that can comfortably be carried all day every day, that 1911 I had got old real quick. If I was carrying it openly and on a duty belt, I might have felt differently.

do you really think the thug will care that I shot him with a 1911 as opposed to a newer Polymer design? Not likely.

As a car nut myself I think you speak a lot of good points. With the one above though, the attacker will notice if the gun doesn't fire and jams up.

[DefConGun]

To be honest I'm surprised that more improvements in firearms have not been made. For about 120 years now we've had the same general concept at work, one cartridge with primer, powder, and projectile all inclusive. We still shoot a hunk of metal, it still doesn't go faster than the speed of light, and it STILL only makes a hole in the BG instead of completely vaporizing them like we all imagine. Maybe I am being premature, but it just seems odd for some reason to me that we have all this absolutely amazing technology out there, i.e. computers, spaceships, nuclear fusion, and a massive particle collider for heavens sake, yet still the best way we have to kill each other in close quarters is with technology that was originally started hundreds of years ago. I guess you could say that about many things though, forgive my random digression.

I agree. I feel the same way. Its amazing when you think about it. Perhaps that there hasn't be a great deal of advancement to the degree to which I feel you are implying simply because its an idea that works.

On the other hand, however, although I believe we can say weapon tech hasn't changed by tremendous amounts, I also believe that our ammo is improving and is superior to the ammo we had 100 years ago. Perhaps the next big advancements we will see in gun technology will be contained in the cartridge/powder, etc.

[RevolvingMag]

What you say about guns can most likely be said about alot of other things in different arenas as well. I believe your commentary about guns can just as easily be applied to cars. The old classic cars are nice and they have a style of their own and even a cult following but they cannot compare to their modern counterparts or equivalents. Like guns, price is not always an indication as to what you are getting in the performance arena. A classic muscle car costing $50,000 or more will find itself at a loss when placed upon a track and asked to run with its modern day counterpart. As much as I like C2 Vettes, for example, I know that the car will not run anywhere near its C6 counterpart on a track. This isn't the reason, however, why someone would buy a C2. Many modern cars will have better brakes and handling and might even match its performance for much less money than what a nice C2 would command on the auction block. Someone in the market for the C2, however, will buy it and appreciate it for what it is; a functioning piece of history that provides iconic allure to the owner that he/she can simply not get anywhere else.

This is not to say, however, that technology that survives inevitable changes that come with progress loose their ability to serve the function to which they were originally designed for accordingly. A classic muscle car can still take you to the grocery store even if it doesn't do so with modern conveniences that a newer car brings to the table. A classic muscle car, in other words, can still get you from point A to point B irrespective of it lacking smog/pollution equipment and a computer regulated engine that can go 100,000 miles before its first tune-up.

The same principle can be applied to firearms. An antiquated 1911 can still incapacitate or kill an aggressive attacker the same as a newer polymer frame M&P can, etc. One thing that we don't know yet is if the newer tech guns that we have today will be able to live up to the track record of the guns that they better now. I don't know about you but I think its incredibly impressive that a gun design that originated in 1911 is still around and being used today. If anything, I think its more to the gun's credit than it is to its dishonor. How many other devices do we have today that has underwent few changes and continue to survive as well as be implemented 100 years after its introduction?

As long as a device continues to do what it was intended to do, how will it being a piece of antiquated tech prevent it from serving its role if it works when you need it? If I use a 1911, for example, to stave off an attacker - do you really think the thug will care that I shot him with a 1911 as opposed to a newer Polymer design? Not likely.

It'll be interesting to see what tomorrow holds. Will we be old gents carrying polymers and insisting to do so while the newer generation of carriers are making fun of us for not carrying the new ceramic models?

We'll see.

DCG

Cars? Some similarities. But, my 1982 Accord hatchback gets only about 2MPG less than my stepfather's 1996 Civic. Which is fuel injected, and a smaller displacement. Both are 5 speed manuals.

Personally I don't care for the direction pistol technology is going.

Lighter is better- Maybe to a point. You can't fool the laws of physics.
Thin is in- One gun is fat because it's a 0.10" thicker than another? Come on, two dimes are 0.104"
Caliber is not important- Simply, yes it is. 380 was and still is a anemic caliber no matter who loads it.
Appearance- It's a tool,nothing more nothing less. Whens the last time somebody said "That's a good looking pipe wrench"?

I'm quite prepared to get flamed for speaking my mind but that's ok I think I can handle it.

I think I said something like that a month or so ago- a friend at work pulled out his grandfather's 'knuckle-buster' that was ancient when he got it in the 70s. Beautiful piece of working history. STILL works better than my almost brand new Craftsman pipe wrench.

[ace587]

new models are improved (rate of fire etc). Older pistols def has their place. all comes down to what you gonna use it for. i hope to pick up an old Walther P1 for nostalgia

[DefConGun]

[QUOTE=RevolvingMag;2026000]Cars? Some similarities. But, my 1982 Accord hatchback gets only about 2MPG less than my stepfather's 1996 Civic. Which is fuel injected, and a smaller displacement. Both are 5 speed manuals.

I would imagine that if you study the two, you would probably find that the newer car got fat and the fuel economy went down the pipe as the car got heavier throughout the years. This is only a suspicion on my part since I am by no means a Honda expert. Its a general trend, however, in the car world. Newer models tend to get fat and gain weight which adversely affects things like fuel economy and performance.

To test my theory to see if it holds true, I looked it up. According to the sources I'll list below, the 82' Accord weighs 2,116 pounds & the '96 weighs 2855 lbs; a considerable difference in the car world. My suspicion is that if you strapped weight on the 82' accord so that it would weigh the same as a '96, fuel economy would plummit and it would be at a great deficit and not at the current surplus that it holds today. Conversely, if you stripped the '96 of weight so that it would equal to that of the '82, it would have much greater fuel economy.

The newer tech supports greater fuel economy but somewhere along the line, marketing demands (I'm assuming) prompted Honda to produce a car laden with more accessories and hence, weight.

Just a thought.
Sources;
1982 Honda Accord LX Specifications | eHow.com
1996 Honda Accord DX Sedan 2.2L 4-cyl. 5-speed Manual Features and Specs

[Dadsnugun]

While I too am "old school" at heart, I appreciate advances in technology that improve a firearms accuracy, function, performance and the like. I disapprove of legislated "technology" designed to complicate, interfere with, or otherwise "make safe" perfectly good handguns, rifles and etc.

[Ducmonster]

Smolck, This is your second post in 2 days extolling the virtues of your M&P over your 1911. You sound like a salesman. Maybe you should have bought a better 1911.
Granted the M&P seems to be a decent gun and if it suits you better than a 1911 great. All I know is my Kimber has been 100% reliable. Yes it probably cost me more than a Glock or an M&P but it wasn't that much more and I have the platform and ergonomics that fit me best. I will be carrying it for many years. At least until my phaser comes in.