Needs vs wants

[Kleanbore]

In the case of the 10mm for service use, the problem started with the mission needs analysis, was carried though in the reqirements definition process, and was embodied into the specifcation.

It is much more than what an "average" user can handle will. The issue of rapidity of contolled fire was not adresssed, and the shorcomong in that measure is a matter of Newtonian physics.

The gun may have been "right" with repect to ballistics, but not in terms of what was needed.

 

[tarosean]

we (civilians and military) are unwilling to buy a radical departure from what we like now.

I think we are. The issue is people are just not willing to pay for it.

How many times do we see something radically different disappear because of a price point? So we are basically left with same ol same ol wrapped in a different package.

 

[ms6852]

It seems in gun development we continuously build the right gun that the operators can't handle. The three examples off the top of my head are 40/10mm, 38/357 and 223/277 furry. We set down to generate a cartridge to accomplish a task or meet curtain goals that the meat stick on the back end can't seem to operate. How do we keep screwing this up time and again.

I don't think things keep getting screwed up. Majority of the time I don't believe recoil is the real reason inasmuch as a lack of practice due to finances. For example, one of my brothers is a cheapskate, he will buy a gun or rifle and not shoot it because ammo is to expensive and he does not have the drive or enthusiasm to learn to reload, which I have offered. Other times people are just not able to truly practice enough to maintain proficiency .

Shooting is a skill that diminishes quickly and if you don't have the finances to practice because you have to eat, the size of the caliber...to a certain point, is not the issue, practice is. Now you move up to the heavy boys like 454 casull, .460 and 500 calibers then your problems just doubled because finances is an issue on top of recoil. Just my 2¢.

 

[AJC1]

In the case of the 10mm for service use, the problem started with the mission needs analysis, was carried though in the reqirements definition process, and was embodied into the specifcation.

It is much more than what an "average" user can handle will. The issue of rapidity of contolled fire was not adresssed, and the shorcomong in that measure is a matter of Newtonian physics.

The gun may have been "right" with repect to ballistics, but not in terms of what was needed.

So the definition process needs improvement and experienced oversight....

 

[wayneinFL]

I don't think things keep getting screwed up. Majority of the time I don't believe recoil is the real reason inasmuch as a lack of practice due to finances. For example, one of my brothers is a cheapskate, he will buy a gun or rifle and not shoot it because ammo is to expensive and he does not have the drive or enthusiasm to learn to reload, which I have offered. Other times people are just not able to truly practice enough to maintain proficiency .

Shooting is a skill that diminishes quickly and if you don't have the finances to practice because you have to eat, the size of the caliber...to a certain point, is not the issue, practice is. Now you move up to the heavy boys like 454 casull, .460 and 500 calibers then your problems just doubled because finances is an issue on top of recoil. Just my 2¢.

Practice is good, but shooting is a very small part of their job.

It makes more sense to consider training in selecting a caliber, instead of selecting a difficult caliber to transition to, then paying everyone to shoot enough rounds to get used to it.

 

[AJC1]

Practice is good, but shooting is a very small part of their job.

It makes more sense to consider training in selecting a caliber, instead of selecting a difficult caliber to transition to, then paying everyone to shoot enough rounds to get used to it.

With the amount of mag dumps and no hits on current videos say there needs to be more range time even if the caliber and power is moderate... I enjoy doughnut operator narration while watching mag clearing....

 

[hso]

40/10mm, 38/357

I've never had any problem with .357 or 10mm so I get the idea of what you're saying, but I don't understand the examples.

 

[Jim Watson]

I suspect we didn't have recoil calculators when the .357MAG & .44MAG were developed.

Sure we did. They just weren't on the internet that algore had not yet invented. I have seen old publications that correlated "gun headache" with recoil velocity, determined with a ballistic pendulum, not a digital device.

The real drive to the early .38 S&W Spl +P was to get the older cup & core JHP's and SJP's,

Except that the .38-44 High Velocity predating the +P designation was loaded with lead bullets. Also with jacketed or metal nosed getaway car penetrating bullets.

 

[Kleanbore]

With the amount of mag dumps and no hits on current videos....

Many videos of LEO shootings show rapid fire. Do not assume "no hits". We see shootings in which perps are struck several times, sometimes by shots from more than ome officer, before showing effects tat are obvious to the law observer.

That is not due to the effectiveness of the round used. It is yhe nature of wounding mechanics.

 

[hso]

We being the taxpayer

I'm pretty sure the taxpayer isn't involved in the design of calibers or a factor in their design. They may be a factor in government sales, but I'll point out that the public buys much if not most of these +P calibers and the designers are chasing specific ballistics that are either a commercial success (e.g. .357) or a failure (.30 super carry).

 

[AJC1]

I've never had any problem with .357 or 10mm so I get the idea of what you're saying, but I don't understand the examples.

The examples are what we're introduced and then reduced. In the case of the revolver it worked out much better because the exact same gun was used. In the semiautomatic designs the entire gun is redesigned. I love 357 and shoot it weekly, so profiency for me was no big deal.... in the military I did exactly the same thing. Their once every 18 months is just silly.

 

[ms6852]

It seems in gun development we continuously build the right gun that the operators can't handle. The three examples off the top of my head are 40/10mm, 38/357 and 223/277 furry. We set down to generate a cartridge to accomplish a task or meet curtain goals that the meat stick on the back end can't seem to operate. How do we keep screwing this up time and again.

Practice is good, but shooting is a very small part of their job.

It makes more sense to consider training in selecting a caliber, instead of selecting a difficult caliber to transition to, then paying everyone to shoot enough rounds to get used to it.

I agree with you that the shooter should select a caliber that is not difficult to transition too, and I mentioned it in my statement that to a certain point it is not the size of the caliber that is an issue. Meaning, regardless of what caliber you choose to fire even if it is a 22lr if one does not practice one can not obtain a level of competence required to defend himself or herself should the need ever arises, and if the caliber one chooses is a very large caliber you handicap yourself choosing such a large caliber by not practicing because recoil is painful. Even if recoil was not painful, hitting your target is made more difficult because of recoil along with a follow up shot vs a lesser more milder caliber. Thus the issue to me, still remains that one does not practice enough.

The op stated and I quote "How de we keep screwing this up time and again". I'm assuming he meant the manufacturers and they are not at fault, only the consumer that makes that choice to buy a caliber they have a difficult time shooting with.

 

[tmd16556]

A lot comes from the difference in needs of the end user. The average police officer isn’t a gunfighter first. They are observing people, deterring crime by being visible, investigating minor property crimes, breaking up arguments, wrangling drunks, and in general trying to keep people from doing stupid things to hurt others. Gunfights are a thing most try to prevent. A 38 special or 9mm is fine for carried often, used rarely.

The need for more performance comes at the margins. In some actions in Afghanistan, the 5.56 fell short. I don’t see complaints about 5.45x39 or 5.56 in Ukrainian service though.

Sometimes the problem is passing the solution down to those who won’t likely see the problem it solves.

 

[fastbolt]

Sure we did. They just weren't on the internet that algore had not yet invented. I have seen old publications that correlated "gun headache" with recoil velocity, determined with a ballistic pendulum, not a digital device.



Except that the .38-44 High Velocity predating the +P designation was loaded with lead bullets. Also with jacketed or metal nosed getaway car penetrating bullets.

A method to measure that used a mechanical device or contrivance, instead of a calculator, sure.

The .38-44 HV made a potent package in the Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman, but it probably wasn't created for the 'average person'.

 

[CDW4ME]

This is 9 years ago, but reflective of me on a good day.
Some people are content to place shots inside a silhouette; I want my splits to hit a 6'' circle.
Same size pistols, Glock 19/23/32. The time is the average for all the pairs (double taps) for each circle.
Unlike some who might use weak 115 gr. FMJ 9mm I used carry ammo for the comparison.


With equivalent accuracy (the point of 6'' circles), my splits were .04 (four hundredths) slower with 40 versus 9mm.
Whether one thinks .04 significant is subjective; but, to say 40 S&W or 357 Sig are calibers "operators can't handle" Nah.
If I want the quickest splits, the Glock 19C (compensated) is going to win every time.

 

[Chief TC]

I find it interesting the differences we all experience in firing various firearms. I think body size and shape have alot to do with how each person experiences recoil. And I think there can sometimes be improvement of felt recoil by adjusting and modifying hands and body position.

 

[AJC1]

I find it interesting the differences we all experience in firing various firearms. I think body size and shape have alot to do with how each person experiences recoil. And I think there can sometimes be improvement of felt recoil by adjusting and modifying hands and body position.

I think an adjustable lop for rifles was one of the best technologies pushed forward lately. I'm a big guy and my kids are obviously not. A flip of a lever and a 3-4" lop change makes a night and day difference. For a standard issue rifle in any unit, I think it's a profoundly good piece of kit.

 

[Buzznrose]

Actually...

​

WOW! How refreshing to listen to a young kid who doesn’t say “like” every third word, is genuinely excited about shooting, and demonstrated safe and effective firearm skills.

She must have dang good adults in her life!

 

[CapnMac]

We set down to generate a cartridge to accomplish a task or meet curtain goals that the meat stick on the back end can't seem to operate. How do we keep screwing this up time and again.

Well, in the case of the 6.8x51/277furry, that's the "fault" of the Army/DoD habit of putting out RFP (Request For Proposals) to see if Commercial Off The Shelf has, or can, come up with Something Better. Which is complicated in that "the better" needs to be "enough" better to justify the (typically steep) price tag.

So, the SOC (Special Operations Capable) community really wanted a 7.62nato M-240B in the size of a M-249 SAW package (and retaining 308 performance, too).
Now, being SOC, they only really needed around 2500-3000 of the item. This significantly complicates purchasing for not getting 'economy of scale' through high unit numbers to offset the R&D costs.

So, other uses get invented to try and increase the "buy" (to lower the per unit costs). 'Suddenly' the whole project winds up being barely 5% "better" at around 25-40% more in cost, and with a gigantic logistical headache attached, too. The Popular Press gets hold of any number of GeeWhizBang stories about how the BrandNewThing is better than sliced bread and first bicycles. Which never pans out. Then The Next New Thing eclipses the last New Hawtness. Rinse and Repeat.

Army/DoD does this about every 6-8 years, and nothing yet has come of it.

 

[MutinousDoug]

They should play that at the fbi training camp, because it's obviously shows they need more training and experience. I didn't make that call they did.

The little girl is cute and obviously a better shot than the "average gunowner" who is still waiting for someone/anyone to invite them to their back 40 to show them how to shoot their new Gat. Others of us have been shooting .44's, .45's, .357's. 9mm's for decades but wish to limit our civilian carry piece to 2# or less therefore opting for something slightly less effective but more carry friendly. Sorta like our military did between the Korean and Vietnam war. Different strokes.

 

[Hookeye]

Looking at maybe a
DW Razorback or Colt Delta 10mm.

Shot my buds Colt w hot loads and though it was no big deal.
Like 1911s, want to hunt deer..........so 10mm it is.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The real problem is assuming that any given caliber/firearm design can meet all the needs and/or capabilities of any given person in the first place. Or any given circumstance.

That's not a logical conclusion for any number of reasons.

The fact is they cannot and there is no such thing as an ideal gun that will suit every person under every circumstance.

 

[kmw1954]

Just from the title.
Want vs. Need

Want vs. Need are totally irrelevant to one another.
I find I Want a lot of thing but in reality I find I truly Need none of them.

I am 69 years of age and Want to live another 69 years but I doubt I will achieve that.
I Want to finish in First place in our local rifle league but again I doubt I will achieve that.

I know I Need to take my daily medications or I won't live to see 70!
I know the 223 Savage I shoot in the league is under classed and Needs to be upgraded to be competitive but it is all I have.

 

[Mosin77]

I don’t understand the premise here. A .357 is significantly more powerful than .38spl, and was developed for those who needed such extra power. At the time, that was LEO use, penetrating the heavy gauge sheet steel of car bodies during Prohibition. For many, the .38 spl was fine, hence why both rounds enjoy great popularity today.

The 10 was depowered to .40, but this happened relatively quickly and there was no real blindness on the part of manufacturers. The firearms world is better for having both, for different use-cases.

Same with .223/.277 Fury. Totally different rounds, developed in different eras, for different design purposes. (When .223 was developed the army didn’t have to worry about enemy soldiers wearing the kind of bullet resistant “armor” we have today.) And nobody ever said that .223 was “too much gun,” hence needed to be weakened.

Why did the Germans come up with that weird 8mm Mauser caliber in 1888? Couldn’t they see that the future was in mag-fed semi-autos in hybrid cases in the .277 range? So inefficient. Somebody should have taught John Browning, Paul Mauser, Ferdinand von Mannlicher, John Garand, and other designers a thing or two……

 

[Jim Watson]

Why did the Germans come up with that weird 8mm Mauser caliber in 1888?

Because the French already gone to 8mm in 1886.
By the mid 90s, there were 6.5 and 7mm rifles all over the place and Mauser said they would make any caliber you wanted down to 5mm.