The “Everything New Is Bad” Mindset

New product releases most often seem to be met with grumbling these days as opposed to optimism or applause. Not that this is unique to the gun community in the slightest, but it is certainly noticeable to us certified internet gun experts. So why do why do this, and should we?

Please subscribe!!! Click here.

Please subscribe!!! Click here.

Thanks to our sponsor Ventura Munitions. Without them TFBTV Would not be possible.


Transcript …

– [Voiceover] The gun community.

While I certainly can’t speak for everybody, we certainly can be a bit strange at times.

Yours truly most definitely included.

We constantly complain about the lack of options available to us, but when a manufacturer does dare to design, tool up, and bring something new to market, then we go to great lengths to find reason to complain about it.

I think as a whole, we’re a bit slow to embrace anything new, and really this is pretty apparent in a lot of places.

When a new manufacturer shows off something it’s shot that looks great, the cheer-to-jeer ratio almost always leans to the latter.

We pick things and new products apart before we even see one in person, and comments like “a solution in search of a problem” are far too common.

People have done this throughout history with firearms.

A lot, actually.

People thought double-action revolvers were a gimmick.

And they did the same with semi-automatic pistols, calling them needlessly complex and thinking of them as just a fad.

Many countries did not think self-loading rifles were needed and the old bull guns were just fine, hell, the nations of the west even thought the assault-rifle concept was silly because who needs an intermediate cartridge when you already had rifles and sub-guns in the field? Ingenuity isn’t always mercurial, that is to say, you don’t need to be confronted with a problem to evade one.

A truly great example of this is the M16, a gun we tend to forget is a design from the 1950s.

People relentlessly complained about its bizarre appearance at the time, its use of polymer aluminum, and really, the most amazing thing about that gun is that we actually adopted it.

Really, look at the rifles that came before it.

The M14 looks like your grandpa’s hunting rifle.

And the difference in appearance between the M16 and it are colossal.

Hell, I’m trying to think of a rifle today we could switch to that would be as radical a shift as the M14 to the M16.

But I can’t, besides, maybe the G11.

And that’s a maybe.

But that was an example of when new won, and it was good.

It was a step towards reducing the number of guns we needed to have out there.

Guns like the M14, Thompson, grease gun, BAR, M1 carbine, and so on were now replaced by this one gun.

This weird, plastic-ridden rifle that so many people hated at the time.

Oh, if only the internet existed back then so I could dig up “solution in search of a problem” posts.

So our hesitance to try anything new is odd.

Don’t get me wrong, I know that it isn’t unique to marksmanship, as you see it a lot with car guys, for example.

Remember that there was a time when electronic fuel injection was seen as an unnecessary complexity, alongside power steering.

But the issue I see here is that, for whatever reason, we’re so dismissive of any new design or product.

And as someone whose job it is to test and evaluate a lot of this stuff, it can be a tough hurdle to overcome.

It doesn’t matter if the gun has merit, is affordable and reliable, and just great all around, people are hesitant to sometimes even acknowledge that.

As a great example, look at Barrett Firearms.

Surely people told him that “We don’t need a semi-automatic.50 BMG, that’s pointless.” Now the company does 80 million dollars in revenue per year.

People might have thought Reed Knight was silly for taking that inane rail attachment system, putting it on all sides of a four-end, but now he employs 200 people.

But for a smaller, more relatable example, I have a friend who engraves a lot of firearms with trust or corporate info for NFA registration.

He said that 95% of the stuff he used to do would be ARs.

All day long, a big stack of AR loaders would just stare at him.

Until recently.

I was talking to him the other day, and he said, and this was hard to believe, that about 45% of what he’s doing now are pistol-caliber carbines like the Scorpion EVO or Sig MPX.

If sales were reflective of initial reactions, there wouldn’t be as many out there.

But both of these guns are flying off the shelves.

Honestly, that surprised me a lot, too, because I thought the pistol-caliber carbine market had a pretty narrow appeal.

So damn if I wasn’t wrong on that one.

Really, I have to catch myself.

I will sometimes see a new product release and think how silly it is, often until I try one.

I don’t know why this is.

What underlying instinct leads us to dismiss new products? I honestly don’t know.

So the takeaway here should be that innovation shouldn’t be immediately dismissed.

The inherent problem, however, is that innovation, by nature, doesn’t always address a clear and present issue, so it can take a visionary or forward-thinking person to recognize the value of something.

So don’t fear what’s new.

Within reason, give new products or ideas a chance before you dismiss them in a cynical rant.

Or, hell, wait for a review.

We live in a time when your only source for firearm info isn’t a rag that suspiciously never has anything negative to say about anything, ever.

But you could check out reviews from consumers all around the web.

Thanks for watching, and a special thank you to Ventura Munitions for helping us out with our ammunition needs, and a special thank you to you for watching.

Alex C.

Alex is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Director of TFBTV.


  • LG

    One either evolves or eventually, at best, becomes another museum exhibit.

  • Spencerhut

    Fom the guy still carrying a P7M8 🙂

  • Rachel

    Steel guns are real guns!

  • Wolfgar

    This is so true but how many new ideas died on the vine because basically they were stupid. I bet there were more cynics created during the disco era than any other time period. Sometimes it is good certain fads die.

  • Gary Kirk

    New post, bad.. $#/!, this is a new comment, bad comment…

  • Vitsaus

    While I agree in theory, many examples given, particularly in the case of PCCs are simply old ideas re-packaged with modern materials. Another problem that stifles innovation is that people just don’t want to pay top dollar for novelty. A lot of it can be seen as a point of diminishing returns from the consumer’s standpoint, for example: Paying $2-3K for an FN SCAR or ACR when plenty of AR15’s will fill that purpose for half the cost (or less). Few companies are willing to accept this reality and price new items aggressively, while bigger established companies can get away with charging what they want because they have a multitude of other products that drive their sales.

    • Porty1119

      I’ve been feeling that point of diminishing returns pretty hard lately. I’m on a tight budget, but honestly think I get just as much use and enjoyment out of a few $200-300 shotguns and deer rifles as I would out of a $2500 SCAR-H.

  • Captain obvious

    It’s not that new is bad, it’s just that there is nothing really new in firearms. Everything “new” is just hype or marketing.

  • Riot

    Oh I can think of a few people with this attitude.

  • Alex D.

    Because at least 9 out of every 10 “innovations” made these days are gimmicks made to separate you from your money. Similarly, 9 time out of 10 they are the exact same thing looking just a little different. And everyone falls for it hook, line and sinker so as long as the money keeps rolling in, manufacturers will never have to innovate for real.

    • derpmaster

      Additionally, particularly in semi auto rifles: 9 times out of 10, they cost 2-3x what a quality AR or AK would.

      • Bob

        And yet, they may have a niche (like a bullpup inside vehicles) or have features some people like more than a plain old AK/AR.

      • AC97

        Like in the case of the SCAR or HK416; what, you want to touch the bolt for whatever reason after you fired over 100 rounds or whatever (Screw you Future Weapons)? Simple, buy an oven mitt or two, don’t spend over $2,400 for “piston superiority” when you can buy/build multiple rifles for the same amount of money (or build a really awesome AR).

      • Tritro29

        … Who would have thought that military grade weapons with extensive R&D wouldn’t be immediately available at affordable prices. I mean…stop the presses. The fact is that SCAR/416 etc weren’t at ALL meant for civilian use initially, that has become a post-Cold War norm, ironically initiated by … the Fins. Who would sell their AK’s because the first batches were redundant. From the 150 000 RK62 and Rk 62 modernized and about the 120 thousand RK62 folding only 250 thousand were inducted in the FDF, so SAKO started selling their production and the FDF allowed Valmet to sell theirs.

        In the US the AR-15 didn’t caught as fast but it went beyond the some few unissued guns like in Finland. In the US, the civilian market became the primary market .

        However those rifles you are naming, are still part of a military contract, with various stages of R&D and the price tag is farily normal. With volumes, that price will go down. So basically is a vicious circle that could get only broken by an influx of surplus rifles. Unicorn stuff.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      “never have to innovate for real.”

      I guess you personally are judge jury and executioner of who is innovating “for real”

    • Kivaari

      Would that include piston driven ARs?

  • Martin M

    For some perspective, let’s get into the wayback machine. Once upon a time there were literally hundreds of gun manufacturers. Almost all of their wares were similar. A handful at a time they went out of business until we’re left with a few large companies who had the manufacturing, distribution, and advertising power to remain king of the hill. Return to the present and we see a new era of manufacturing, distribution, and advertising facilitate a revival of new small arms businesses. We now are inundated with a tsunami of new products.
    Here is the real problem, it’s not so much that we bash everything that is new, it’s more like we’re frustrated with all this stuff that isn’t really new or even moves the bar. Our chemical operated projector tubes have followed the same basic form and function for over a thousand years. Fast forward to our modern era dominated by AR/AKs. So few parts, yet so effective. What’s to improve on? Most new guns and accessories are niche and won’t likely find mass acceptance. If it doesn’t fit our niche, we generally don’t give it a warm welcome.

    • Tim Pearce

      My $0.02: Much of what can be improved upon will require a larger than usual jump, which means a larger than usual amount of risk, should the shooting public not want to follow that leap. And, chances are, the shooting public won’t want to follow that leap.

      For example: Ultra-high-pressure ammunition (I’m thinking 80,000 to 100,000psi). What’s the benefit? How about a .300 AAC equivalent cartridge producing .300 Win Mag (or beyond) ballistics. The difficulties would be numerous: we’d need to replace brass as the case material, we’d need a very different propellant, we’d have to develop a new priming/ignition method (not just because our current primers would rupture, but also so someone doesn’t put a 100,000psi cartridge into a chamber rated for 63,000psi), we’d probably have to make the chamber and barrel out of something better than steel, the gas system for a semi-automatic would likely be a new challenge, etc. So, let’s say some company spends tens of millions of dollars solving all of these challenges, *and* designs a new recoil reduction system that makes this thing kick like a kitten. What’s the shooting public going to say? “What’s it do that a .300 Win Mag doesn’t?”
      *That* is why every new handgun is a Glock with an aesthetic redesign. *That* is why every “new” hunting rifle is really just the same old thing they’ve been making since 1891. Because we *have* bought it before, we likely *will* buy it again.

      This is also why Hollywood is just remaking old movies.

      • Gary Kirk

        True to a point, and that point is very valid. But what you left out is that the “real” shooting public is welcome to new and innovative things. We are willing to try something new, even if we keep falling back to our trusty 1911s or glocks. It’s the new ground market, the people that are only buying a firearm because.. They have no intention of ever using it at all, but hear us gun nuts at the counter talking our smack about this or that. And do a quick Google on the subject. Then pick what they think is pretty..

      • Martin M

        Exactly. It’s going to take a huge leap forward with propellants, metallurgy, or something to top this plateau in small arms. Lasers anyone?

        Trackingpoint could be a game changer in time.

  • Bob

    Watch every time a new product is reviewed or mentioned on TFB. We love to poopoo anything and everything as too expensive, too much of a niche product, impractical, worthless, and/or just plain stupid. I like to think that a lot of products have a niche they fit in, but your mileage may vary…

    • Don’t forget looks cheap when the price is good—

      • roguetechie

        I love that one Phil!

        It seems that the absolute worst thing you can do to your company in the gun industry is make and sell an affordable product…

        Or you’d think that by the comments on most gun websites…

        Yet go to basically any public firing range in the land and you’re going to see a sea of people firing AK’S with tapco compliance parts, $200 mini red dots and magpul tapco and UTG furniture.

        Personally I love the bargain bins and mid grade aftermarket products. They allow me to pursue my hobby and try new things without breaking the bank.

        Usually once I find a general configuration or style of part etc o like I will look for the higher end bullet proof version and try it.

        When I finish my bipod project and am ready to market it, I can almost guarantee it won’t be cheap.That said though I am going to do everything in my power to pack in enough functionality, features, and versatility into it that it will, however be very affordable for what it does and how well it does it!

        This is what I expect from myself, and damn sure what I expect from the companies I buy stuff from!

        Also I really want to say please keep up the good work in showing us the new products coming out, and the older ones we might have missed!

        Because for every poster who insists an item is a solution in search for a problem there’s at least 3 people who have the problem that fits the solution.

    • Porty1119

      With the recent mainstreaming of gun culture and the desire to cater to the Call of Duty crowd, the release of moronic “tactical” products and accessories is pretty much a given, as is a general increase in the overall numbers of products released. Even if the fraction of crap new products remains the same, an increase in total new products *does* mean that more crap will show up.

  • tony

    New = unproven

    • But also extensively tested in most cases.

      • Nashvone

        Like Alex’s review of the Gen 2 R51? Or the Walther CCP that sits in the back of my gun safe because I won’t carry it and my conscience won’t let me sell it?

  • My favorite is the person who hates a gun with a passion but has never fired one or maybe even seen one but bubba on such and such forum said they were bad even though the person doesn’t know bubba from Adam.

    • retfed

      You see that a lot with proponents of a certain Taft-era JMB design who have never fired a certain Austrian pistol but still hate it with a passion. Many of them will come right out and admit never having fired one, but will still tell you why it’s a piece of dreck. It reminds me of people who hate cars they’ve never driven, movies they’ve never seen, or food they’ve never eaten. I try to keep an open mind (I even enjoy shooting the Taft-era technology I regularly dump on). If I don’t like something, I’ve at least tried it. Except for haggis.

      • KestrelBike

        I can say the twilight movie is garbage, and I’ve never seen it.

        I also hate Ladas because i know I’d die in one if someone rear ended me at 5mph.

    • KestrelBike

      What if there is plenty of YouTube videos offering evidence of said weapon’s crapiness. Like a Taurus.

  • Paul Patriot

    I have compared the new (freedom group) Marlins to many older CT made Model 60 and 1894 cowboy, and ther is no comparison, they just feel cheaper….in my experience, I can say the same with the new (freedom group) Bushmasters and the (CZ) Dan Wesson revolvers.

    • Porty1119

      Freedom Group is an embarrassment to the industry. I just lucked onto a 1979 (pre-crossbolt safety!!!) Marlin 336; the quality is leaps and bounds ahead of the Remlins I’ve handled.

    • Kivaari

      I don’t know why people are saying bad things about the Bushmasters. I’ve used lowers, complete rifles (older) and seen a bunch of new Patrol Rifles on the rack lately and they look just fine. The fit and finish is as good as most and better than some. Over that last 2 years I built 6 Bushmaster based rifles, and they are all fine. With the exception of two I used lower quality DSA uppers on. They work just fine but the DSA uppers are poorly finished and don’t fit like BCM or Colt parts.

  • VF 1777

    It’s a good observation, Alex. I think it’s a combination of factors. Many of us have been burned by some ‘latest and greatest’ thing that turned out to be a flop, so are rightfully a little hesitant. I also think the big factor is the speed and nature of the internet. Many feel they have to form an opinion right away, and it’s one way or the other. Bland, middle of the road, “I’ll wait and see” comments and reviews get no attention. I also think initial reviews make too many assumptions that can only be gathered over time, with lots of data. I also think some people naturally are ‘judging’ something based on their specific needs/budget… ie, why would I / ME want to spend 1700 on a new Galil Ace when I / ME can get a DDI for 800? So rather than a comment on the actual weapon and it’s place/quality/merits, it’s more about the specific person, their desire/budget and own justification/rationalization process for spending their money. Anyway, I chalk it all up to human nature mostly. The real mitigating factor is time. If something is really worthy, it will prove itself so over time.

  • Cordite

    It’s funny. The AR15 is 1950s tech, has been in use since the 60s or late 50s, and evolved into THE modern rifle to beat. Militaries, police, gun owners, hunters, and competition/target shooters have made the AR15 the overall #1 rifle across the world.

    Despite all of that, to this day you can go into any discussion post, forum, thread, or comment section and you will STILL see people ragging on the design, bringing up problems from Vietnam, and calling it an unreliable POS poodle shooter plastic toy that is unfit for war or self defense. It’s 2016 and it seems like a large chunk of the population is stuck on complaints and myths from 50+ years ago. They still say we should be using the m14 or even the garand to this day. I can’t think of any other product in any other industry that is as proven and widespread as the AR15 that also still has decades old myths and a large number of detractors surrounding it. It’d be like a large holdout of people to this day saying fuel injection is crap and we skills have never moved on. Or jets/jet turbines are a crazy new unreliable tech and we never should move on from prop engines. It’s a strange phenomena.

    • Porty1119

      Sounds about right. I honestly have a bit of hatred for the AR platform, but recognize that it has its uses and is definitely a proven system. My issues with the AR mostly relate to ergonomics, not functionality. .223 on the other hand…better options exist.

      • CommonSense23

        What issue with ergonomics does it have?

        • Guygasm

          Charging handle

          • CommonSense23

            It’s one of the ARs biggest strengths. It’s out of the way, ambi, and non reciprocating.

          • Tritro29

            It requires you to break sight alignement and can’t be done while aiming through an optic. From a military viewpoint, it’s not optimal. Also reciprocating handles seem to be an American issue.

          • CommonSense23

            Why would I be needing to keep my line of sight to a target when running a charging handle on a AR. The only reason to work it is either loading it from a closed bolt and empty chamber. Or if it has a malfunction. Neither of which I’m looking down the sights for.

          • Tritro29

            Because of this thing called Situational awareness. And when in a trench or fortified position your gun resting you don’t lose contact with your target. You have rifles like the G3 (or 36) that you can reload while maintaining the gun pointed at the right direction. The Ak fails at this as well, since you have to do a pivot to reach the charging handle or to use your weak hand (if right handed). A charging handle placed in front or in the middle of the receiver is a more friendly feature in such circumstances. The G3 fails however to fully capitalise on that aspect as its charging handle is placed far in front rendering that task a bit of a liability.

          • CommonSense23

            Have you reloaded a AR. Cause you don’t need a charging handle to do it when it runs dry. You use bolt release.

          • Tritro29

            I have and it was asked from me to pivot/rotate the gun in order to reach the charging handle without punching myself in the the face. Also clearing a stoppage requires handle play.

          • CommonSense23

            So with the bolt locked back you use the charging handle to send the bolt forward instead of just slapping the bolt release while slamming the mag in?

          • Tritro29

            … You understand that you are going to hit the receiver out of line…plus still need handle work for clearing stoppages.

          • CommonSense23

            The receiver out the line? And stoppages are extremely rare if you maintain your rifle. And I’m taking cover and assessing what caused it. Or switching you pistol if it’s close enough.

          • Tritro29

            Oh there we go again. If you are going to reload under stress, you are going to slam the push button on your left side of the receiver. Yes or no? If there is a stoppage you’ll need to actuate the handle. Yes or no? I’m left handed so the AK fits me well, but for the majority of people out there it doesn’t. Because of right side controls. However the AR handle, is on my face disregarding the fact I’m left handed or right handed.

          • Kivaari

            I never found any rifle needing a magazine change to stay on target. The gun moves and the eyes stay on the target. It is much easier to do semi-auto handguns while keeping the thing on target. The key is keeping those eyes on target.

          • Tritro29

            OK…it’s like your opinion man. But there’s where the reciprocating handle comes into factor. Because the AR doesn’t have a reciprocating handle. To identify a malfunction from a dry mag you will have to rotate slightly to look your chamber. With a reciprocating lever, you will see most malfunctions without needing to guess if its indeed a malfunction or simply a dry mag.

          • Kivaari

            I wouldn’t disagree. I like the AK patern rifles like the Valmets and Galils. Base AKs are OK if you have modern optics on them. I owned about 25 AK variants and only gave up on them when my vision failed with iron sights. That was before there were good mounts and optics that make the old guns into something they were not 20 years ago. I’ve been tempted to buy another one now that so many good optics solutions are available. My favorite rifles remain the AR15 which I’ve owned fewer of than AK variants. I owned pretty much every modern sporting rifle that could be had in the period from 1965 to 1990. Then I dropped out and went to mostly issue firearms and a couple ARs. Now it’s mostly ARs as I am nearing my end and just don’t need all those very nice $2000-4000 rifles.

          • CommonSense23

            If you can’t tell the difference between a stoppage or malfunction with a AR by feel you really don’t shoot it much

          • Tritro29

            So there we go again. I offered you the example of some ergonomic choices that were questionable and explained you why from a military stand point the rifle isn’t exactly optimal, as a matter of fact all NEWER rifles do not have the charging handle at that position. I will not get into a sterile debate about this, because clearly you are going to defend the AR against all odds. But just so you know that from a military standpoint the rifle has questionable choices, which have been brushed aside by its civilian success.

        • Porty1119

          Charging handle, pistol grip, awful slab-sided receiver that screws up the rifle’s balance, difficulty in getting a good cheek weld, floppy collapsible stock. They just don’t work for me.

        • John Yossarian

          It’s not ambidextrous – Particularly with the bolt catch/release.

          • CommonSense23

            As a lefty its extremely ambi. You just don’t run it as righty.

          • John Yossarian

            Well I’m a righty and want to have a bolt catch/release on the right side. Why? Because I shoot with my left arm bound to a rifle via hasty sling, doing all magazine changes and bolt releases with the right hand.

            Yes, I know I’m a unique case – But the RFB’s controls suit my style, so why not the AR-15? While the left-hand bolt release might work for you, I know other lefties that can’t reach the release with their hand on the pistol grip and would prefer not to let go.

            My point is this – Everyone runs their rifles differently. Any modern rifle should be ambidextrous – Either fully ambi or have swappable controls. Poor engineering is the only reason why some would have that while others just lack.

          • CommonSense23

            What type of shooting are you doing where you keep your arm extended in a sling during reload?
            Tell your friends to use their right hand to send the bolt forward. Its one smooth motion with inserting the mag.

        • iksnilol

          Charging handle, mag release and of course the buffer tube sticking out which means I can’t fold it.

        • Chris laliberte

          1. Charging handle? Maybe: SCAR, ACR, XCR and other post-AR efforts went with a forward charging handle to address this problem, and it does improve ergonomics if placed correctly–one handed lock-back of the bolt, clearing w/o breaking cheek weld if you’re so bold (but you better be sure you don’t have a double feed). SCAR screwed up placement (too high, your thumb will hit most optic mounts when you charge). Non-reciprocating is much better for firing from urban prone, saving your left hand thumb in unconventional positions, etc. However, it’s not ambi.

          2. No folding stock? Maybe: the above rifles also all ditched the buffer tube to get a folding stock. Seems mostly useful for professionals who do a lot of getting in and out of vehicles, but you sure don’t want to be wasting time unfolding the stock if you’re suddenly in the sh*t.

          3. Mag changes? Maybe: AR is by far the most ergonomic of what I’ve tried–fastest, easiest way to drop the mag. ACR and XCR implemented trigger finger mechanism to drop the bolt (also BAD lever and other add-ons do this, some custom uppers, POF, etc) which is small improvement that I love so that’s the maybe.

          So there might be some ergonomic shortcomings–however, what other platform (other than the AR evolutions mentioned) can even come close to having ergonomics as good? AR is best ergonomically by a mile for what I prioritize, AND has room for improvements.

    • AC97

      And speaking of the M14, that thing shouldn’t have even existed, let alone get adopted. Literally the only reason that rifle is thought of positively in any way is because of nostalgia and the fact that the M16 had problems caused by cutting corners in vital areas, which have long since been solved.

      • Kivaari

        People forget that it was withdrawn from production because the companies building them couldn’t keep them shooting. It was an unreliable and inaccurate rifle much of the time. Only today, 60 years later, has it been made into a shooting machine, it never was during the Vietnam era.

        • Gary Kirk

          You talking about the 16 or 14 brother? Because the same can be said about both..

          • Kivaari

            The M14 was stopped and replaced by the M16 (then M16A1). Winchester, TRW and H&R had difficualty keeping the stocks from warping and stopping the proper function and accuracy issues. McNamara pulled the M14s plug. The M16 issues are well known and mostly came down to high level Army officers not knowing a damn thing about the new rifle.

          • Tom Currie

            You might want to recall that the M16 came to the military initially in response to an Air Force solicitation for something to replace the M1 carbines being issued to Air Police units. Then before the Air Force could finalize a selection, politicians made a decision that all the US military forces would adopt a single rifle which would absolutely meet all of everyone’s needs AND be lighter AND use lighter weight ammunition.

            Those who criticize the M14 are right, it was an old-fashioned design, pretty much just an M1 Garand with a externally replaceable magazine. So, of course it was a terrible rifle, even though it went bang every time you pulled the trigger and would consistently hit what you were aiming at well past 300m (assuming you did your part). How dare the military give our troops a rifle that didn’t have a pistol grip and lots of black plastic?!?

          • Kivaari

            I recommend you read Ezell’s “The Great Rfile Controversy”, as it explains in greater detail why the army was searching to replace the M14 shortly after it was adopted. The rifle had a very spotty record. It didn’t go bang every time the trigger was pulled, the accuracy AND reliability were serious issues thanks to stock warping. The very negetive field experiences had the army brass wanting a new rifle. They had rejected the AR10 and FAL initially, than when faced with a disaster, especially in Vietnam, the AF going for the new AR15 gave them army a ready solution. Had they not screwed up with the wrong powder, the failure to chrome line the bore and chamber and improper cleaning directions lead to the early problems. BUT, those issues were corrected in the M16A1.
            The M14 was not this wonderful, reliable and accurate rifle it is made out to be, by for the most part never having used the thing. At least there is adequate research history showing it was not a great rifle.

          • n0truscotsman

            What was particularly concerning was that our adversaries had already began mass fielding an excellent select-fire assault rifle, the kalshnikov, while we were still fumbling around with M14s that manufacturers couldn’t make fast enough to fit our armed forces with, forcing a 1930s internal magazine fed design to remain in service until the 1960s (m1 garand).

          • kingghidorah

            Men were smaller back then, just look at surplus uniforms. Just having to carry an M14 would have been a deal breaker. No wonder soldiers loved the weak M1 Carbine.

          • john huscio

            Army should’ve stuck with 30.06

          • Kivaari

            The ’06 wasted materials. Just the savings in brass was a huge amount of money. One thing that drove the search for a new round was the 1/2 inch air space in the case. Newer (wartime) IMR powders allowed for the same performance in a shell 1/2 inch shorter. The performance in the field between a .30-06 and the 7.62mm is in reality nothing. When the change was made the research already showed that an intermediate cartridge should likely have been adopted, at least in rifles.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Seriously the old man “plastic gun” complaint cliche?

          • AC97

            There’s a difference in that the M14 was a bad idea to begin with. Just look at all of those exposed locking surfaces. The FAL and AR 10 were (and are) more than capable of being better in every meaningful way.

          • Kivaari

            AND the top army brass screwed up by insisting on both the M14 rifle and the rifle using 7.62x51mm.

      • Tom Currie

        AC97 is 100% right. ALL the problems of the M16 have been solved! It no longer shoots a lightweight high velocity round that deflects off any blade of tall grass or light brush between the shooter and the target. It no longer has a mechanically weak joint between the receiver and the buttstock. It no longer blows up if you carry it loaded and happen to get water in the barrel. It no longer requires complete disassembly and detailed cleaning every few hundred rounds. Yep. All those ancient problems that plagued the plastic toy rifle in Vietnam have been solved today.

        • CommonSense23

          Let’s see. 5.56 never had a deflection issue in Vietnam. That was people missing and blaming it on the round. It definitely doesn’t require common cleanings. Unless you call cleaning a gun every 5000 rounds or so common. And water in the barrel is a issue for pretty much all rifles.

          • Tom Currie

            Nice to see that you are reading up on stuff that happened before you were born and therefore know better than the people who actually were there. But you need to check your keyboard, apparently your 0 key sticks, because you ended up with three zeros when the correct number would have had either one or two.

          • CommonSense23

            The Army tested the deflection issue in Vietnam. They found for the bullet to deflect enough to miss a target in brush that a 7.62 would still hit. The 5.56 had to travel almost 6 times the distance a target could be visibly seen. Guys were just missing.
            And yeah the AR can easily go thousands of rounds without cleaning.

          • Kivaari

            I’ve found that shooting through light brush deflects any rifle bullet. Blades of grass I have never tried, but thin alder I have. I was amazed at how many pieces a .30 caliber bullet will break into. There are no “brush bucking” rounds to be had. Even things like the .45-70 are easily deflected on brush.

          • ostiariusalpha


          • john huscio


          • Kivaari

            Everything will be deflected. Put a stack of 1/4 inch dowells in front of a 50 bmg and you will see the bullet is deflected. Any bullet passing through brush will get deflected, it is just a matter of degree and how far the target is beyond the impact point. Put any conventional rifle or pistol round out through brush and if the target is any distance beyond the target chances are the target will be missed.

          • Kivaari

            Have you seen the people that have been running their ARs for a year without cleaning, hitting thousands of rounds. Now I wouldn’t try to go that for and clean after every use. But the rifle is amazing in how much gunk it can take without stoppages. The carbon issue is a hold over from the Vietnam era when things were getting stuffed with the wrong powders and no cleaning gear.

          • AC97

            And speaking of “deflection problems”, who can forget how the .30 Carbine supposedly “bounced off of heavy winter coats” in the Korean War?

            Such idiocy…

    • Malthrak

      By what measure are you calling the AR15 the #1 overall rifle across the world?

      I don’t think it’s a terrible gun by any means, I own AR’s and enjoy them very much, but I think calling it the #1 overall rifle across the world is just as hyperbolic as those who call it garbage. It’s adoption has been slower and less widespread than other designs, and many of those adopting AR pattern rifles are doing so with heavily re-engineered models sporting highly modified actions (e.g. HK416).

      Within the US it’s certainly #1, but outside of that it’s a multi-polar kind of rifle world.

      • Scott P


        Politics and logistics come in to play as well. The U.S. provides the most logistical support when it comes to “overseas adventures” so many of these countries want us to be able to supply them if they are unable to or WW3 happens.

    • kingghidorah

      I thought that way a few years back, until a trip to Israel opened my eyes. No Galils, no AK’s, all M16’s in almost every soldiers hands.

      • Ondřej Tůma

        Well, that’s because Israel got most of them for free thanks to the FMF, which, however, requires the Uncle Sam’s weapon grants to be spent exclusively on US. made arms.

    • gunsandrockets

      The only thing more annoying than AR-15 critics are AR-15 fanboys.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      I don’t know how large the hold out is exactly but there’s certainly groups of certains kinds of old men in certain corners of the internet going on about how fuel injection is crap and live in some imaginary world where old 70s muscle cars somehow had the most horse powers of all time ever. with guns the myths probably persist more because young people assume the old timers have a clue and want to sound knowledgable on guns because it sounds impressive to people who aren’t and just repeat the same crap

    • Scott P

      “I can’t think of any other product in any other industry that is as proven and widespread as the AR15 that also still has decades old myths and a large number of detractors surrounding it.”

      Umm the AK…..

  • retfed

    Around 1988 I was in my local gun emporium and I saw a strange-looking pistol. I asked the clerk, “What’s that?” He said, “A Glock. They make them in Austria.” I said, “It’s the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen. There’s no hammer! How can you tell when it’s cocked?” He said, “Look at the trigger.” I said, “Naaah. Show me that nice Model 15. They’ll be around forever.”
    (I’m leaving out the part where I picked it up and found out it was made of damn PLASTIC! He corrected me there, too. He said, “It’s space-age polymer.”)
    True story. Fortunately, I eventually learned to embrace progress.

    • Ha, interesting. I imagine that happened to lots of folks.

  • Tim Pearce

    If’n it ain’t made by our lawrd’n’savior, John Moses Browning, it ain’t but a hunk’a tin! [sound of spitting into a spittoon] 😉

    Thank you, Alex. I’ve been saying this (“new isn’t automatically bad”) for years. 🙂

  • Trey

    An idiom I am fond of sums up the problems of new products.

    All Improvement requires change not all change produces Improvement.

  • Kivaari

    It may stem from having bought so many new guns that hit the market only to find out they are junk.

  • Heartbreaker

    Focusing on just semiauto sporting rifles, I think the main reason is that the AR15 really killed the competition. You have this gun that can be reconfigured in practically unlimited ways to suit nearly any use and for a good price. New MSR designs nearly always use proprietary parts and have WAY less customizability for a much higher price, so why would consumers bother with it? The companies don’t want to make “just another AR15”, but in the end it’s nearly impossible to make a superior rifle. It really speaks to the sheer genius behind the AR15 platform.

    • Kivaari

      AND, they sell for 3 to 5 times as much as a comparable AR15.

      • AC97

        In addition to weighing more a significant amount of the time, with negligible benefits.

    • Tritro29

      It’s nothing to do with “superiority”, everything to do with economies of scale. You’re going with a known quantity when it comes to the AR/AK, everything else is going to be utterly grandiose to warrant the premium in price. It is possible to make a superior rifle, it’s just not possible to make it cheap. Logistics play a part as well.

      • De Facto

        Exactly. If another rifle design was in as high demand as the AR, it would have a similar price tag to an AR.

        The problem is that the AR already has the market. Alternatives will be more expensive and so will likely not get much market share and will therefore stay expensive, and Thanks to the BATFE and Congress we can’t import modern Milsurp rifles without doing a lot of work and adding a lot of cost.

  • Oldtrader3

    Building off of what others have said, there is not a lot of really new innovation around these days. I was an Automation Engineer for much of my career and it seems that there were many more new innovation patents being issued than then there are now. Of course, much of the innovation now is in the area of software and no mechanics. Maybe that is the difference?

    • Tritro29

      Economies of scale beat your innovation to the pulp. You can try and innovate but in the US it seems that the AR-15 crowd has snuffed every one else.

      • Gary Kirk

        And in the other.. It’s still the AK.. It’s all of us brother..

        • Tritro29

          That too, guilty as charged.

          • Gary Kirk

            I understand.. We just love “OUR” rifles..

          • Tritro29

            I wouldn’t say “love”, but you get my point. Also one has to appreciate the different simplicity of the DI AR. It’s just not kosher to say it out loud. 😉

          • Gary Kirk

            Yep, but you just put it on the internet.. Whoops.. LOL

            HEY, on that note where’s whatshisface.. Fig’d he’d be here by now irritating people.. Must be one Hell of a call of duty game going on..

          • Tritro29

            I don’t know, I heard he was banned, but not my ‘team’ and probably not Russian. Most guys that I know and are serious about guns, would bash the AR on a different way, but would bash the AK even worse.

            Some of his ramblings didn’t make much sense. But I guess those guys are everywhere the same.

          • Gary Kirk

            Yes, yes they are.. And I’m with you on him not being Russian/Ukrainian whichever he chose on said day.. I’m thinking he was just some teenage Airsoft punk..

          • AC97

            My personal favorite nonsensical rambling of his (I’m that one “Anon” guy, in case that wasn’t obvious enough by now, which it probably is) was the time that he said ARs are “cheap pieces of aluminum crap” because some idiot put .300 BLK into an AR chambered for 5.56 and the gun blew up, and apparently AKs are immune to catastrophic failures “because it’s heat-treated steel, kid”.

            Good riddance to that moron, and sorry about calling you a troll earlier.

          • Tritro29

            The moment one starts bashing one of the current infantry systems (except for the LA85) while not looking at its context, then there’s not much use debating with the person.

            Case in point the Famas discussion some people felt the urge to bash on basing themselves on Wikipedia.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Извини, приятель, ты меня разозлил, я высказался плохо. Но ты не прав. Нельзя за спиной писать херню. Некрасиво. И еще ты не прав, в этом комментарии, так как я высказывался не в контексте армии а наоборот.

          • Tritro29

            Ну, ладно. Пока.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Пендосятник – всемирная параша, Тритро, а ты, балабол безмозглый, не только баран но и гавно, там тебе и место, сплетник ты паршивый. И перестань, Тритро, называть себя Russian. Ты же еврей.

          • iksnilol

            Legitimately, what sort of bashing is there on the AK from Russia?

          • Tritro29

            Three big issues. Quality Control (by far the biggest issue). Controls of the rifle on the right, which is OK for right handed guy and from the standpoint that you need to take the hand off the trigger to actuate lever and handle. And ironically the fact that it doesn’t go away. Like with 7.62R the AK has become so big with such a big lobby that good designs with a modicum of complexity (like AEK or TKB 454/517) have been dumped or are just an esteem success.

          • iksnilol

            Blin, comrade, what of comrade Lenin are you saying!?

            Don’t say that again if we no want gulag all of us. American design is crappy explodium to kill rice farmers and people killing the aforementioned rice farmers.

            I’m getting some majonez to calm nerves. I’m too pretty for gulag.

    • gunsandrockets

      Seems to me the real area of advancement and innovation these days is with electric sights. We may be at the edge of a new era of innovation when the potential of those sights is fully exploited.

  • c4v3man

    I would argue that the P90/PS90 would represent a similar “generational leap” in appearances. That being said, while the 5.7×28 makes a decent police caliber, it couldn’t really replace the M4/M16 in many of the roles it fills, especially in our current range-biased desert locales.

    • Gary Kirk


    • iksnilol

      Blin, get hacksaw and PKM. Problems solved.

    • gunsandrockets

      In all fairness the G-11 did come first, even though it failed to reach production. Who knows, if the Cold War had ended five years later than it did maybe the Germans would have ended up with the G-11 instead of the G-36.

    • Tim Pearce

      Not just in appearances. I’d still call myself a “new adopter,” and all, but I am old school enough to *still* have trouble believing the validity of the 5.7×28 cartridge as anything but a varmint hunting round. (Yes, I’ve seen the ballistic gel testing, but I’ve not gotten a solid answer to what its actual capabilities are *after* penetrating armor.)

  • Gary Kirk

    One of my biggest pet peeves is the guy at the range swearing we need something “new” to replace the aging M16/M4 platform.. Then praising his AK.. Really

  • Tom Currie

    Most likely it is a reaction to the “everything that says it’s new must be great” mindset of the people who write stupid internet blogs about products.

    As others have pointed out, the vast majority of “new” products 1) are not really new; or 2) a a “solution in search of a problem”; or both.

    Despite this, at least once a week we see a blog post (here and elsewhere) that is 99% quoted directly from the company press release extolling some great “new” product, and all too often the product exists only in the form of computer graphics and perhaps a frivolous patent application.

    How many “new” bullet designs have we seen right here already this year? How many totally worthless accessories?

    BUT how often have we ever seen a blog post that says “I tested this new product by using it and I found….”?

  • Hoplopfheil

    In the case of those ridiculous AR parts Strike Industries makes that were featured on the site a while back… it fits. Those were ridiculous, expensive solutions looking for a nonexistent problem.

    I’ve used their basic LPK and charging handle though, and they’re great. So for some reason the company is just trying to diversify too much, and cranking out anything the CNC can make.

  • kingghidorah

    My Dad still says semi’s are useless as we can’t (legally) hunt deer with them.

    • Kivaari

      Where’s that? There are a few states that outlaw rifles of any type. A few or less that prohibit semi-autos.

      • kingghidorah


  • jmf552

    Alex: You are obviously a “new adopter” as we say in marketing. You like new things and that’s fine. But for a lot of us “old and reliable” are not bad words. You extol all the new ideas that people panned that made it. You forget about the ones that didn’t: The Dardick Pistol, The Gyrojet, the Whitney Wolverine, the Remington Etronix and the S&W Model 53. Also, there are some guns that enjoy moderate commercial success that I still think make no sense: The Coonan, the Taurus Judge/S&W Governor and any kind of “smart gun.” A lot of people who seem to complain about new things are just using a version of the Socratic Method to present their first impressions and start a dialog. If everyone took a true “wait and see” approach, there would be a lot less discussion and therefore a lot less interest.

  • 22winmag

    The everything new is bad sentiment is alive and well. You need look no further than the kneejerks who dismiss Liberty Ammunition without giving it a fair shake. I for one appreciate the rifle-like ballistics it bestows upon otherwise mediocre handguns and pistol caliber carbines.

  • John

    I will give you one word to explain the problem….PROFIT!

    I’m sorry, but let me say it twice…PROFIT!

    Now you say, “what the hell do you mean PROFIT?”

    Ah, OK, here you go:

    So many companies today are owned by or run by a large group of people called “shareholders”. So what do these “shareholders” want? They want PROFIT! They don’t care if you have to fire people, produce a crappy product, lie, cheat, steal, JUST MAKE A PROFIT!! Gun manufacturers are NO different. They only answer to the people in suits screaming “HOW MUCH CAN YOU US SAVE BY MAKING IT CHEAPER”.

    And THAT, ladies and gentleman, is why the future doesn’t look good for high quality and fair priced firearms.

    …do I have personal experience? Yes, I have purchased two guns from a VERY reputable manufacturer in the last two years at well over $1000 EACH and BOTH went back to the factory in the first week for defects. So you tell me, should I be confident in the future of the firearms industry or disappointed?

    • Kivaari

      What were they?

      • Tim Pearce

        As soon as John says, there’ll be a bunch of people saying, “Psh! You call those people *reputable?*” 😉

        • Kivaari

          Well I’ve had issues with S&W, Colt, Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Charter Arms, Savage, AMT, Navy Arms (no chamber), Weatherby (no chamber) and others. The Navy Arms and Weatherby were hilarious as both had proofing marks and paperwork. The Weatherby even had a test target.

          • Tim Pearce

            Heh. I sold guns for nine years. I’ve seen a few surprises myself. My favorite was a brand new Taurus Judge where the cylinder had been forced into the frame at an angle with enough force to crack the frame. The box was pristine. Somehow, they allegedly test fired it! 🙂

          • Kivaari

            I had an Italian SAA army come in that was obviously used. Probably sent in for repair than sold off as new.

        • Kivaari

          I don’t know where it went bt I had commented on other guns that had issues. S&W, Colt, Ruger, Charter Arms, H&R (no rifling and broken parts), Weatherby (no chamber), Navy Arms (no chamber), AMT and many more. Some are not reputable, but they still get sold in defective condition.

      • John

        Still waiting for one to come back so I can’t really say until I decide if they did me right.

        • Kivaari

          Athough this will be the third time I’ve commented on this I’ve had problems with S&W, Colt, Ruger, H&R (no rifling), AMT, Charter Arms, Remington, Winchester, Weahterby (no chamber), Navy Arms (no chamber), and a whole bunch more. It seems everyone screws up. What is great is when the guns having proof papers and test targets when there was no way to fire the guns.

  • st4

    Me still waits for pulse action, 95 rounds of 10mm explosive-tipped caseless per mag with integrated pump-action grenade launcher. Face mating extraterrestrials that bleed acid strictly optional.

  • Badwolf

    To be fair, the grumbling isn’t exclusive to new products. There’s a lot of hate on the Internet. Even Time magazine did an issue on it.

    • John Yossarian

      Maybe “Time” to change their name to “Whine”?

  • tiger

    The worst offender of this mind set is the “cult of the 1911a1 & the .45acp.” They worship like a religion this design that dates back to the Titanic & Model T. Great gun? Sure. Have better designs come since? Hell, yes. Guns that are simpler in action, fewer parts, better capacity, ergonomics and wieght. Yet, they curse the biggest sin ever as the M9 pistol selection.

    • A bearded being from beyond ti

      You know, i’ve seen more people jacking off to the glock than i’ve ever seen people do to the 1911. I’ve even seen people who like 1911 saying that glocks are better. Where are these 1911 fanboys? I rarely see them.

      • tiger

        Oh, the glockiphiles… They are the same as Dallas Cowboy fans. Numerous, boasting past glory, kinda bandwagon jumpers. Fear not, the 1911 cult lives on and more firms are feeding them. There are more versions today than 30 years ago. They just must be less chatty?

        • A bearded being from beyond ti

          Maybe they shoot their guns more than talking about them. IDK

          • retfed

            The problem the 1911-ophiles either fail to see or ignore is the quality issue. If you buy a Glock, you’re buying something that was made by Glock, and Glock will stand behind it. If you’re buying a 1911, you’re buying a pattern, not a proprietary product, and, depending on the manufacturer (How many 1911 makers are there?), you may be getting a well-made pistol, or you may be getting a “parts gun” whose components come from different continents. The people who venerate the 1911 are remembering them as they were made in the days of precision parts assembled by skilled craftsmen. That may or may not be the case with the 1911 you buy today.

          • A bearded being from beyond ti

            But is that the fault of the 1911 as a platform? Or shoddy manufacturers ?

          • retfed

            The 1911 platform is obsolescent, as is the six-shot revolver. That doesn’t mean it’s useless, or that anyone who likes or carries it is an idiot. It just means it’s been superseded by newer technology. A high-quality 1911 is a useful tool. A low-quality one isn’t.
            But no tool, new or old, should have a cult built around it.* That stifles innovation.

            *Except for the tools I like. They’re obviously the best, and they deserve to be worshiped.

          • A bearded being from beyond ti


  • Anonymoose


  • BrandonAKsALot

    I’m always way too excited about new stuff and then I get let down by it not living up to my expectations or becoming vaporware. I’m still heartbroken about the ACR and really hope the MSBS comes to fruition, so I can have something in the vein of the rifle I lusted over for years. I’m usually the eager, early adopter. I like new ideas. Thus the reason I made the terrible mistake of owning a Kriss at one point.

    I still think the Ace is an unappealing concept though.

  • Tim Pearce

    I disagree. I don’t think the AR vs AK or 1911 vs Anything Else arguments contain anywhere near as much venom and hate as the comments we spit at those on the other side of the gun rights vs gun control argument.
    In so doing, we’re making damn sure that everyone who isn’t a gun owner thinks we’re all rabid psychopaths. *That,* in my opinion, is what will lose us our gun rights, in time. Instead of showing how normal we are, we’re proving, to those people, how normal we aren’t.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      It also might help if gun industry/culture even pretended to acknowledge anyone who isn’t a white straight cargo short wearing conservative male as existing

    • Scott P

      “In so doing, we’re making damn sure that everyone who isn’t a gun owner thinks we’re all rabid psychopaths.”

      Trust me it isn’t just guns. Look at any hobby or fandom outside of guns and the vitriol is just as bad if not worse. It is human nature to defend what we like and bash things we don’t.

  • Diver6106

    My biggest objection is the use of polymers and cheaper alloys instead of steel for so many parts. This to save weight and cost of real machining. These polymers and some alloys will not last thru time and environmental conditions – they break. That is why I have mostly older firearms. But even alloys and shaving steel weakens guns, as noted in early Beretta 92 9mm’s or even Walther P-1’s. Then there is the issue of making a simple locking powerful gun vs. an intricate finely tuned machine. This is like the AK vs. AR debate. Anyone in the third world can maintain and use an AK, but I challenge the average U.S. soldier to get the locking chamber and gas tube on the standard AR clean after a day on the range. But I don’t object to any new firearms, especially in our free society with Constitutional rights. But I just don’t buy them. I look at gun shows for tried and true guns that have been used and can examine how they have stood the test of time.

    • Tim Pearce

      Depends on the polymer. From the perspective of selling guns, I’ve seen two extreme ends of the polymer concept.
      A.) A good customer of a shop bought one of those cheap Chiappa .22 LR pistols that resembled a 1911. The magazines warped in the sun during a single outdoor shooting session. Chiappa was good enough to replace them for free.

      B.) Sold thousands of Glock magazines, and hundreds of Glock pistols. With the exception of the early Gen 4 mainsprings, I never heard of a polymer part of those guns or their magazines failing.
      Also depends on where the polymer is. If it’s in a low-stress area, it doesn’t really matter what the material is.

      • Diver6106

        If you like these guns, fine – your choice. I’ll take plastic grips. But I WANT steel slides, frames & barrels. Especially firing 9mm, 45 ACP & up. Someday, they will make complete polymer/ ceramic and composite guns from a 3D printer. But these are not for me. In addition, the INOX-steel weight helps manage recoil of larger rounds – polymer’s do not. Also note the Rhino that blew up on TFB, steel & alloy. But if you are a Rhino fan, more power to you.

        • Tim Pearce

          Well, some parts I really don’t think will ever be plastic or ceramic, such as the barrel, and slides and such tend to need weight or the springs designed to slow and stop them will also make charging the firearm much harder.
          And, you’re definitely preaching to the choir on mass as a means of recoil reduction.
          I’m a huge fan of the *concept* of the Rhino. They’re ugly and more expensive than I can justify spending for less recoil. I would *adore* it if Smith & Wesson would make their own variation. Especially with .460 S&W and .500 S&W.
          On the note of the Rhino that blew up, firing another round after a squib load is going to do some awful things to any gun, no matter how well constructed.

          • Diver6106

            Yah, an overpowered load can be an issue in any gun. During Vietnam, they would spike ammo caches with an RDX loaded round to make the VC leery of their ammo. I know where a Maximum revolver blew from a factory squib round. These are extreme examples. But I’d take a steel 1911 over a Glock any day in either 9mm or 45 ACP. I also don’t like the concept of ‘striker fire’ guns, but I do collect WWII Lugers. I just don’t use them except at ranges where I load and fire them. I do like the S&W improvements on the 1911 with a double action 45 in the 4516 in SS. I certainly wouldn’t carry a locked & loaded 1911, as I would a S&W, due to the risk. That spring in these type of guns is just straining to fire, but have seen them carried this way by Texas Rangers and Highway Patrols.

  • DIR911911 .

    no one wants to be the one that gets suckered into something dumb , so pessimism is the go to emotion. no one wants to be the only guy that didn’t see some huge flaw in a new weapon or product that everyone else caught straight off the bat. between that and a seemingly neverending justification on where and why someone has already spent their money new products are always viewed with initial skepticism. some times it’s hard to understand that someone else may have found a way to do the job that we haven’t thought of .

  • Disarmed in CA

    I’m in California. Everything new is ILLEGAL so I can’t really make a judgement on good/bad

  • RetroG

    Something that would be as radical…how about a careless ammo firing bullpup with a carbon fiber wrapped barrel and a “dial a load” propellent system, using a digital controlled aiming system and electronic trigger?

    • DIR911911 .

      you should never use careless ammo . . . it just doesn’t care

      • RetroG

        Stupid autocorrect.

  • DanGoodShot

    Yes yes yes! I have to be honest. A LOT(not all) of people in the gun community are uptight as h.e. double hocky sticks. God for bid you don’t know the proper terminology. You’ll get ur head ripped off or be maid to feel like an idiot instead of someone just nicely explaining it. We need to be more inclusive instead of so damn exclusive if we are going to survive much less thrive. And that goes with being excepting of new products as well. Pistol caliber carbines for instance. From what I’ve seen, the growth of them is due to new shooters who are intimidated by a rifle round but want something like it. I’ve seen it first hand so many times the past couple years. I personally know 6 new gun owners that bought pistol cal cars because of this. Only 1 still shoots. The other 5 were turned off by the crap attitudes of the people at the shops and ranges. I don’t blame them. It has to stop.