Technology push or market pull (demand)? Did John Browning design new sporting arms because he could or because there was a marker demand or need? He probably did it for both reasons. Unfortunately this isn't always possible. I have known some brilliant engineers who would love to conduct development unrestricted but unfortunately they need to feed their families. They must employ their skills to reach the development objectives set by their employers. Along with predefined development objectives, those gifted engineers must navigate the never ending sea of bureaucracy and Power Point briefings to keep those development program funded!
As was stated, technical advancements in sporting arms were fueled by the demand for advanced weapons of war. Humpty mentioned night vision technologies that were a couple decades ago restricted by either law or market cost to the militaries of larger countries. Now, a few hundred dollars U.S. will buy an entry level night vision sight.
Most technology development is funded by some entity desiring to gain a competitive advantage in the market or on the battlefield. If we consider that although a modern autoloading shotgun softens felt recoil and offers at least one more shot than does a side by side, it is my guess that few on this board covet them as we do a Purdy, Atkin, or Parker. Technology of today could offer a fully automatic shotgun which could be affordable, lightweight, and low recoil. If legal, what advantage would it provide to us? A miss is still a miss.
Small arms development may have reached its useful apex a hundred years ago with the exception of the M-1 Grand and so-called modern assault rifles. Today a Benelli autoloader with camo plastic stocks rests in the back corner of my gun safe. It is a marvel of modern technology and has in my hands taken a lot of waterfowl. It however rarely sees daylight. I keep it just in case I ever want to shoot up a couple cases of Hevi Shot which I own. That combination is however superseded every fall by more than one vintage 10 gauge Damascus barreled SxS. Add to those a 12 gauge Super Fox and Canada Geese beware! An ounce and 3/8 of Nice Shot at 1200 FPS will bring down those big fowl at as long a range as I can cleanly hit them!
If I wanted to hunt an elk I could use a modern .50 sniper rifle. With a cheap laser rangefinder, a little wind estimation, and a lot of practice on the target range, a skilled marksman could cleanly kill an elk at thousand yards! But that would not be much of a hunt, would it?
I also see people who enjoy hunting with an AR-15 style rifle. I have nothing against that but I never, at least since I was about 14, needed more shots that one to drop an animal. Oh, a second shot is always desired to swiftly kill a dying animal. Modern manufacturing technologies allow for the relative inexpensive manufacture of these autoloading rifles for those who like them. The market demand keeps them in production.
Then if we allow ourselves a daydream... If we were a king or dictator, we could hunt from big game from a helicopter or even use a jet fighter to strafe or bomb a herd of big game. Oh, do not forget about cruise missiles! But is any of that necessary to achieve the satisfaction which our sport provides to us?
Technology is still advancing for the military needs. This is largely if not all funded by governments desires for an edge on the future battlefield. Recently that development has provided to consumers low cost range finders, GPS, night vision, and other technologies just as the space race provided us long ago with affordable calculators!
Perhaps for most sporting purposes, at least in wing shooting, the state of the market needs is satisfied by most of existing technologies. That stated, I think one of those barrel cameras would be neat to play with for a few rounds of clays!
Just some early morning ramblings...
Last edited by Mark Ouellette; 07/04/13 10:17 AM.
