I have no experience with Hi-points but read some good reviews. My out of the box G42 jammed so hard on the first shot that I couldn't clear it. I had to have Karl Rehn do it as he knew the magic touch. Then, it fired out of battery with smoke and flame coming out of the ejection port and scaring the crap out of me.
My PT-22 could not get through a mag. It would jam, actually eject entire live rounds and the most fun, slam close on a live round, bending it half - again scaring the crap out of me.
So guns a-jamming - what else is new?
Anyway, who can find a new gun around here anyway? All the LGS are bare except for some 10 mm Glocks and a few BP guns at Cabelas.
What is "innovation" in the context of handguns?
To my mind the most recent innovations on the market come from accessories, not the guns themselves. Polymer frames and interchangeable backstraps/panels are basically the "innovations" of the last 40 years.
Some might argue pistol mounted optics, but the rise of factory available mounting systems is merely a response to consumer demand, not an innovation. Similarly the inclusion of 1913 rails on guns is a response to consumer demand, not innovation.
And I guess my thought is, if "innovation" where the name of the game there wouldn't be as many 1911s, Berettas, and Glocks sold. Because let's look around, no one is still, willingly, using an Intel 386 from 1988, but Blues is still rolling with his Glock from that year. A Glock that isn't fundamentally different from one produced in 2018 and is unlikely to be different fundamentally from one produced in 2028 either.
So to my mind innovation doesn't mean a lot with regards to handgun design. In fact, I think "innovation" is not ideal. Iterative refinement of a well designed system is generally better overall. When you start from nothing, yea innovation is great. But when you've got an extremely mature technology (which reciprocating-action, self-contained cartridge firing, handguns are); innovation doesn't mean a lot.
Just my thoughts.
I agree with this. Often what appears as innovation is actually marketing-driven. E.g. the constant release of "new" models from Sig or S&W. Or a sequence of short-lived models from a number of companies. That approach is not what I am looking for in a gun. I don't want "new". I want it to work like life safety equipment should.
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver
For me reliability and durability is key. They are all pretty accurate although sometimes they don't shoot to sights initially.
Here are the guns I have bought that needed to return to factory at least once:
Keltec P3AT: three times.
Ruger LCP: Three times different guns plus broken extractors.
Ruger 10/22: broken Extractor fixed by myself.
Beretta M9A3: Had to go back due to sights like two feet off. Fixed no drama.
Beretta PX4: Had to go back due to not working that great. Never fixed.
Springfield Range Officer Compact: Back to factory for 18" off sights and feeding issues. Fixed one trip.
Boberg: Returned due to functional issues.
Kahy P380: Returned due to functional issues.
Sig P320: "updated" due to shooting the shooter issues. Otherwise pretty great gun.
Smith and Wesson: I have had a pistol and rifle go back to factory. Both due to out of battery discharges (.22). Both dealt with one trip no problem.
FN: SCAR 16s, FS 2000, 5-7 and a couple FNS pistols, no problems at all.
Walther: four examples zero issues.
HK: nine examples, nothing, no issues. Although I did abuse a VP9 to the point of a grip cracking.
Glock: Nothing. Had the G42 "updated" by local armorer that was it. This is out of at least 20-30 examples
So I would guess that makes FN, Glock, HK and Walther my Tier 1. And out of those, only Glocks remain in my possession.
I am trying to talk myself into getting rid of all the remaining Beretta 92s, but they are just so cool, and I remain emotionally invested in them.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
In a lot of things, you have a standard tech curve- period of increasing innovation, then you get into diminishing returns.
In handguns, pretty much everyone is using some variation of a pre-WWII locking mechanism, with the Browning style cam tilted barrel lock being predominate. It's simple, cheap, robust, and reliable.
And pretty much everyone us using some sort of pre-WWI striker to get the gun to go bang, just with added internal safety stuff. Glock, of course, popularized the idea of "safe action", yadda yadda.
And in the past 40 years, almost everyone has moved into polymer. It's cheap, but light and durable.
We've even cracked the size barrier, and can have a service caliber auto that will fit in the pocket with ease.
So, we really can't expect to see much useful innovation at this point in the basic handguns themselves. Most of what we're getting is, as RR pointed out, in the accessories like lights, RDS, and so on.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Phasers?
I think we can point to innovation in the industry for sure, but I think most of it isn't in gun design, but rather manufacturing, material selection and development, etc.
And if I'm honest the reason for that is primarily is the ammunition. As long as we use a controlled "explosion" to propel a projectile, we're basically just building bomb containment devices. Since our ammunition is extremely efficient overall I'm not sure there is a real need to change.
So at this point innovation should be coming from where we are seeing it, sights, accessories, etc.