doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com XIX century - high-tech or low-tech?

I'll respond on a couple of fronts--one concerning the nature of technological progress and the other concerning the social context of innovation.

It seems to me that in considering issues of technological progress you need to distinguish between design changes and process developments. A 'design change' simply means a change in the form of the device being made--whether the transition is from a bow to a cross-bow, or from an A&D boxlock to a trigger plate action. Clearly, and except for some tweaking around the edges, the 'form factor' for most small arms in use today jelled sometime in the first half of the 20th century. This is certainly true for side by side shotguns.

A process development, whether a process patent or protected as a trade secret or knowhow, does not result in a change in the outward appearance or performance of the device being produced. Two examples are the introduction of CNC technology to shotgun manufacturing (the H&H website brags about that firm's role in introducing it to the British gun trade) and the general improvements in metallurgy that have defused throughout the world over the last century (and been applied, incidentally, to the manufacture of firearms, just as they've been deployed in the manufacture of aircraft engine parts, household appliances, and children's playground equipment). I'd argue that there has been a fair amount of these kinds of developments in firearms manufacturing over the past century, simply because unless an industry goes out of its way to be retrograde, the changes are compelled by influences from outside it and the expectations of customers schooled by experiences with other tools they use, tools that reflect those advances.

So, perhaps the answer depends on which part of the elephant you're touching.

The second issue I'd respond to is Shotgunlover's observation. It's a very interesting point. Concepts of fair chase and fair play started to develop with the rise of the conservation movement about a century ago. Without wading into the morass of current gun control arguments over limits on magazine capacity, etc., it's worth remembering that organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the ethos of British field sports promoted plugs to limit auto/pumps to three shots and the idea that a gun that fired more shots than a double with reloading were in some way 'unsporting.'

An analogy to all that is the way the wonderful world of golf has dealt with the dynamic between golf course design and innovations in equipment. Should the belly putter be legal? How large should the head of conforming driver be? What about square grooves on a set of irons? Another analogy is to the misgivings of the U.S. Air Force about the deployment of drones today, or, a century ago, how professional military officers of that day struggled over the role of the cavalry in a world on the cusp of trench warfare. Those two examples are at the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of seriousness, but they illustrate the pervasive conundrum.

But the 'right' answer here, as is so often the case, may well depend on what's at stake, rather than being determined by a deductive process. Oh well. Enough. Take care, guys.