Previous Post
Next Post

Ehhhh, the internet’s gonna internet.

 

Previous Post
Next Post

37 COMMENTS

    • 99% of the time what innovation naysayers and nitpickers are saying without saying is…”I cannot afford it.”

      Full steam ahead I love innovation…Just don’t try to sell me a Pet Rock.

  1. only works if they’d have added, “Government mandates huge penalties on anyone who does not adopt hypothetical innovation” in between frame 2 and frame 3.

    • Please Mr. Industry, unless it’s a quantum leap in form and/or function, please no more “new and exciting” polymers, ARs, red dots, knives, belts, flashlights, holsters, etc.

      The best thing to happen to lights was the Cree bulb. Then the magnetic recharge function.

      Other than that, I have my EDCs, plus all those numerous belts, holsters, lights, knives, and such I purchased and tried on my way to landing on my favorites. They’re all sitting in a gear bag, waiting to be given away as birthday gifts.

      Innovate away! (and I genuinely mean that) But please make it actual innovation, and not just your own company’s take on an existing design, with your logo stamped on it so you can say it’s “new”.

      • Okay, so now the site is automatically applying links to words in our comments again? Now it’s “gear”, which hyperlinks you to Palmetto State Armory. Basically modifying our comments without notification.

      • Innovation should improve what has been done previously.

        A decade a go, we had someone turn up for a 300m telescopic match with a German bullpup repeating rifle. You cycled the actual by using the handgrip as a pump action. He was boasting how he was going to beat us in the match with his new technology.

        I looked at the gun and magazine. I asked how many rounds did it hold? He said 5. I said our courses are 10 rounds, do you have another magazine? No, it is on order and hasn’t arrived yet. Can you reload the magazine during the match or load single rounds? No. I said I don’t see any improvement over my 1896 Mauser. At least I can top up during the match.

        He fired the five he could in the first stage, packed up, and left the range. He didn’t bother trying the second stage of the match.

        • “Innovation should improve what has been done previously.”

          Actually, I’d rather see something completely new, not just “improved”.

        • I HAVE THAT GUN!!! Still waiting for my spare magazine, scope mount and bipod mount. It’s only been a decade or so, should I call them?

  2. Tell that to George Kellgren.

    No one should follow the lead of anonymous internet/social media posters. Companies, governments, colleges, organizations all went off the rails because very few of them (us) have the balls to stand up and be true. We’re all the miller with his donkey. It’s weak, lacking in all integrity, and incompatible with a vigorous society. Plus in the end, the donkey drowns.

  3. There’s probably actually several boxes missing from that including asking the Internet what they want, building it, having them not buy it, having the ATF say its legal, having the ATF say it’s not legal and so on.

    It also ignores the idea that for something to be innovative it has to be better than the status quo. A lot of stuff is just price point versions of the status quo or isn’t even as good as the status quo.

  4. I’d say half the time it’s internet hate and the other half is the ATF deciding that a new product somehow violates an obscure regulation.

  5. Gunms are going to be hard to make any real innovations with. They’ve been around so long just about everything has been tried already.
    Same with knives.
    The real innovation would be a quality product at a substantially lower price then the competition.
    A plastic trigger gaurd painted pink selling for $200 is not innovation.

  6. JMHO, but I think part of the issue with a lot of innovative offerings in the gun world right now is that they either work better as a proof of concept than an actual product, or they don’t offer anything significantly better than a more conventional option.

    For example, I respect what Franklin Armory was trying to do with the Reformation, but I can’t imagine ever buying over a traditional AR.

  7. This is not the spirit of innovation.

    This is submission to intimidation.

    It is obvious that when a company produces through innovation people notice. When something is produced with quality and sold at a reasonable price people WILL buy; often at high levels of quantity. This is what happened with the AR15. There are many cheaply made low quality parts but there are also many high quality manufacturers. Putting an excessively long barrel on a Heritage revolver is NOT innovation. Designing ARs to use solid threaded pins instead of roll pins is a company trying to think out of the box.

    When a company feels so intimidated by a few criticisms on the internet that is forces them ‘back in the box’, it becomes one that stops innovating and ends up on the trash heap.

  8. Innovate aka make a Glock, make a product to fix a non existent problem, make a lower power scope more expensive, make a sling that adjusts with one hand again, make another rubber band
    Uh huh
    Innovate doesn’t mean look at the other guy and try and improve. If they were innovative we wouldn’t even be using gun powder right now after all these years

    • I can recharge my phone simply by setting down on a small round pad. Surely gun mounted battery operated electronics would not require so much sophistication and could be handled with much less cost? Red dots, scopes, lasers, and flashlights should be rechargeable by resting a firearm within a cradle for wireless charging with just as much efficiency at the same or better levels of quality. Long guns are already leaning on precut slots inside safes.

      One of the things that is so striking to me is the use of the “dram” measurement for shotgun shells. No one outside of the medical profession even understands what a dram is. Often not even them.

      Glock was VERY innovative when it first came out. Not so much these days. Their latest claim to fame is a rechambering in .22lr.

      I agree that too many companies in this industry and others are essentially ‘rebranding’ and not really innovating. What exactly is so different about zombie ammo from Hornady? Am I supposed to take that ammo seriously to the point of actually spending MY money on it?

    • ^This, except all government. The BATFE has or is trying to classify innovations as machine guns (bump stocks, forced reset triggers, etc) or SBR/SBS (pistol braces). An impediment to electric triggers has long been BATFE’s attitude that they’re too easy to convert to machine guns. Companies make changes to comply with “assault weapons” bans by removing offending features or inventing “bullet button,” and CA redefines it’s laws and MA says a “copy” of an “assault weapon” is an “assault weapon.”

  9. Nobody makes a new rifle any more because all you Americans want is more AR’s.
    It’s all more of the same. Look at the new sig sauer guns. Its an AR, they don’t even try any more.
    As a european i don’t get the changing handle on AR’s. If im not mistaken the original design was in the carrie handle? So a clear desing fault in my opinion.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here