Why hasn't firearms development kept up with other tech like electronics...

Why hasn't firearms development kept up with other tech like electronics? Why aren't there a bunch of new designs that achieve the same or greater results more efficiently? It's all about shooting what is effectively century old bullet designs. Is it because of a rigged market?
>Pic related comes to mind as an exception

Attached: 1280-800-245145.jpg (1000x625, 131K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=oGcAqXMRios
youtube.com/watch?v=BkkIYwyK47c
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It works well for now and any multi billion dollar effort will only yield a fraction of a percentage difference in effectiveness.

Electronics haven’t plateaued yet. We will be using m4s and m2 Brownings when we colonize Mars.

If you're a major manufacturer why would a little R&D cost multi billion dollars?

Attached: M2s in spaaace.png (741x290, 46K)

>little
How much asspullery you want man? Put a price tag on whataboutism.

> why would a little R&D

Salaries for 10 engineers which might handle a single component of a massive project will cost you 1.5 Million alone.

I'm not setting a value I'm saying it doesn't cost multiple billions of dollars to design a new firearm/cartridge, especially if the company already has systems for that in place

How do you know it won't cost that much to design a revolutionary new firearm that defies all others before it?

Advancing technology isn't about defying everything before it.

There are newer and more effective designs very often. New powders are made every few years that have less flash, more power, and are easier to clean. New hollopoints and firearms are released yearly. Bullet designs have changed. Solid copper has become a viable option and controlled expansion was a mere idea of a or 2 decade ago. Saying firearms haven't changed is like saying cell phones haven't changed because they still have a speaker and a microphone.

Why don't you invent something Edison? If it is so obviously an obsolete technology it should be easy.

The fact is that punching holes in people is a very reliable way to kill them. Not as reliable as crushing them, but that requires too much mass to carry around. And not as reliable as shooting a thousand amps through them, but that also requires too much mass in the form of batteries to carry around. So hole punching is still the best practical way to kill people with a portable weapon. Chemically propelled projectiles are still the best way to punch holes at a distance. And given those constraints, past generations of geniuses pretty much optimized the fundamental design.

Electronics have advanced almost exclusively because of the transistor chip allowing a much faster and more accurate way to read in information, process it, and spit it back out. The transistor was a revolutionary discovery, and a relatively recent one.

Guns are mechanical devices reliant on newtonian physics. Other than improvements in materials science, the technology and physics underlying them is very well understood. Design for well characterized problems involves optimizing the tradeoffs inherent. Newtonian physics makes it impossible to make a gun lighter, more accurate, with a larger projectile moving faster and with less recoil all at the same time.

Attached: images (8).jpg (864x355, 17K)

I dont know why you fags keep posting this abortion. It doesnt even look good for MUH SPACE GUN

Attached: images (9).jpg (300x224, 9K)

That's the sign of chronic homosexuality user. Consult your physician.

the F2000 unironically looks 1000x better of a spacegun you faggot.

You like belgian cocks up your ass too I take it. Get a script for a set of glasses next time you're in town hillbilly.

Maximum kino

The iPhone 12 will include a gun. In five years, handguns will be as rare as camcorders and calculators.

Attached: Phones before iPhone.jpg (480x360, 11K)

it's amusing how technofetishists have this unbreakable belief that improvements are always possible, and it's never the case that something is as good as it's going to get.

Improvements are always possible but there's always the question of whether they justify their cost.

no, changes are always possible and it's a question of whether or not they are an improvement. see: bullpups, chiappa rhino revolver, etc.

Laws that cripple innovation. Governments and their military would be further behind the curve than they always are if they didn't kill competition.

- 50,000+ hour illuminated optics
- Steiner ICS and Swarovski DS that auto range find and adjust reticle for range and inclination/declination.
- Night Vision/Thermal binoculars that can outline thermal changes as a way to highlight possible threats due to movement.

youtube.com/watch?v=oGcAqXMRios

youtube.com/watch?v=BkkIYwyK47c

Lets not even get into manufacturing and design techniques. Firearms are as refined as a lot of other things.

Now you want to talk behind-the-times stuff? Lets talk about the built environment. Specifically single family residential. We've been doing stick frame with insulation wrap and an exterior facade for 5 decades with zero change.

Forgot pic related.

Attached: PSQ-36.jpg (1024x572, 69K)

Yes. Rigged market. Prohibitive legal environment in literally every country.

This is the most technologically advanced we're ever going to see the civilian market achieve.

Because most of the low hanging fruit has been picked and eaten already, and the high hanging fruit isn’t even really that better. It’s like asking why we’re still using internal combustion engines. Why? Because you fucking faggot, what else are we supposed to use??? Can’t re-invent the wheel every 50 years, ect. We’ve already hit technological stagnation, enjoy your Glock clones for the next 150 years.

>Why aren't there a bunch of new designs that achieve the same or greater results more efficiently?

There's new designs all the time, but tards like 95% of dudes on here shit all over it because they're a bunch of milsurp larping faggots

Hey, just because you liked keymod doesn't mean anyone else did.