View Full Version : How could modern autoloaders be further simplified?
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-19-10, 20:53
Hey guys,
This thread will probably generate little interest. However, I was reading a book called "Irrationality" and it was talking about how, under stress, the simplest possible controls are probably best. We all know this, but it bears repeating. Further, it was talking about how complex systems, even ones that are made of the best possible materials/designs, are usually much more likely to fail than simple systems. Blah blah.
Anyway, I was wondering what could be done to further simplify the modern autoloading handgun. I think it is safe to say that most of them are essentially the same (i.e. Glock derivatives). And I have to say that Glock has done well with their highly simplified design.
If you were an engineer tasked with further simplifying the Glock 19, what would you do?
Wow thats a tall order, I cant think of anything to simplify a G19, off topic I know but how bout an AR lower with Glock style fire control?
TheSmiter1
05-19-10, 21:17
Interesting question. Tag for interest.
Perhaps how to make a weapon more durable and reliable is a better question. Glocks are pretty simple. If they could add a steel reinforcement or chassis like the M&P, detachable frame rails to easily remedy breakages, and a stronger locking block, then you're talking. Or, you could just get an M&P or a more recent HK design.
But yea........ I have no idea.
Interesting question. Tag for interest.
Go to thread tools and click subscribe to thread, friendly FYI
simplify the mechanics of the gun? or simplify the operation?
i think glock has done well with both.
somethign like an HK p7 is very easy to operate, but quite complicated internally.
assuming all goes well with a glock style handgun all you have to do is point and pull the trigger. doesn't get easier than that. "What could be done to make it easier to reload or clear malfunctions?" would be my next thought.
Heavy Metal
05-19-10, 21:30
Wow thats a tall order, I cant think of anything to simplify a G19, off topic I know but how bout an AR lower with Glock style fire control?
You mean no external safety?
That would be as wrong as two boys fuc%ing to quote a popular instructor around here.
The Glock gets away with it because it is a handgun that goes into a holster. The holster is the safety.
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-19-10, 22:07
See, as big a fan of the HK and, to a lesser degree, the S&W as I am, I don't really see them as a serious improvement on the Glock. More like tinkering. The steel frame thing seems to be a waste of time. The Glocks are reliable enough without introducing a subchassis (which I think was done first on the Steyr). And the HKs seem to have a lot of extra parts (why is their a rubber doo-dad in the slide?).
I am wondering how the guns could be simplified (without compromise). I suspect the Glock's trigger trigger (I refuse to call it a safety) could be deleted.
But I think you guys are right, there just isn't much that can be done to simplify the Glock. Damn.
I am wondering how the guns could be simplified (without compromise). I suspect the Glock's trigger trigger (I refuse to call it a safety) could be deleted.
But I think you guys are right, there just isn't much that can be done to simplify the Glock. Damn.
The "trigger trigger" is the one thing I think could maybe go away without really impacting much. Beyond that...most anything would also change the way you manipulate the gun or compromise functionality.
I suppose the slide-lock takedown lever could be replaced with some sort of pin to be pushed out to take the gun down, which would eliminate a movable part and a spring.
Hands-down the most thought provoking question today :p
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-19-10, 22:22
Hands-down the most thought provoking question today
SMITE HIM O LORD!
Heavy Metal
05-19-10, 22:23
I think the trigger-trigger is kind of a drop safety.
If you had asked this question about my current vehicle, I could have written a dissertation on the headlight/bulb assembly alone.
However, I think the Glock 19 is about as simple as you're going to get with a striker-fired autoloader. Perhaps more parts could be integrated into a single unit, however I think this would be counterproductive. It's simpler to replace small parts, than an entire assembly, in many cases; especially, with wear items.
And there's also the issue of preference. Some like different connectors and spring combinations than others, different sights, etc.
the firing pin safety could probably be deleted. i find it unlikely that the striker could free itself from the mechanism by accident. that said, i like having the firing pin safety for peace of mind. you'd need something to hold the extractor in anyway... so maybe that would gain you nothing in reducing complication.
the glock pistol really is an incredible piece of design work.
Perhaps how to make a weapon more durable and reliable is a better question. Glocks are pretty simple. If they could add a steel reinforcement or chassis like the M&P, detachable frame rails to easily remedy breakages, and a stronger locking block, then you're talking. Or, you could just get an M&P or a more recent HK design.
There is no credible evidence an M&P or USP is more durable than a G19/G17. More people have probably put more rounds through them than USP's and M&P's combined. How many 9mm Glocks have been shot to the point they're not repairable? I'd probably put my money on the Glock.
I honestly can't think of any ways they can make a Glock simpler (except maybe discontinue the Gen4's for the G17. The Gen4 G22 dual recoil spring though was a necessary improvment). In fact some people in all their so called "wisdom" think Glocks are too simple and too plain and want them to be more complex or "interesting" in their eyes. Hence some of the excitement over the Gen4's and designs like the M&P.
TheSmiter1
05-20-10, 01:42
There is no credible evidence an M&P or USP is more durable than a G19/G17. More people have probably put more rounds through them than USP's and M&P's combined. How many 9mm Glocks have been shot to the point they're not repairable? I'd probably put my money on the Glock.
I honestly can't think of any ways they can make a Glock simpler (except maybe discontinue the Gen4's for the G17. The Gen4 G22 dual recoil spring though was a necessary improvment). In fact some people in all their so called "wisdom" think Glocks are too simple and too plain and want them to be more complex or "interesting" in their eyes. Hence some of the excitement over the Gen4's and designs like the M&P.
I was mostly referring to the higher caliber Glocks. There is nothing wrong with 9mm Glocks.
There is no credible evidence an M&P or USP is more durable than a G19/G17. More people have probably put more rounds through them than USP's and M&P's combined. How many 9mm Glocks have been shot to the point they're not repairable? I'd probably put my money on the Glock.
I honestly can't think of any ways they can make a Glock simpler (except maybe discontinue the Gen4's for the G17. The Gen4 G22 dual recoil spring though was a necessary improvment). In fact some people in all their so called "wisdom" think Glocks are too simple and too plain and want them to be more complex or "interesting" in their eyes. Hence some of the excitement over the Gen4's and designs like the M&P.
The M&P certainly has better lines. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, however I don't think it's noticeably more complex mechanically than the Glock design if at all.
There won't be further simplification of small arms until there's greater development in alternative forms of ammunition. Caseless cartridges, electronic ignition, etc, will be the next big impetus in small arms design changes.
Of course, each will bring it's own inherent complexities in need of simplification, but we are where we'll be until then.
Afterthought: I'm no engineer, but what criteria would be use to define and quantify "complexity"? Is it the total number of parts? Moving parts? Tolerances overall? Tolerances between moving parts? Mass of material? Manufacturing method?
I suppose it's a little bit of everything...
Afterthought: I'm no engineer, but what criteria would be use to define and quantify "complexity"? Is it the total number of parts? Moving parts? Tolerances overall? Tolerances between moving parts? Mass of material? Manufacturing method?
I suppose it's a little bit of everything...
I think most everybody would immediately think of parts count and number of moving parts.
Afterthought: I'm no engineer, but what criteria would be use to define and quantify "complexity"? Is it the total number of parts? Moving parts? Tolerances overall? Tolerances between moving parts? Mass of material? Manufacturing method?
I suppose it's a little bit of everything...
I would look at the "guts" and see what could be replaced. It is most likely that you cannot make it much better, but taking 48 parts and getting the job done with 35 wouldnt hurt. Currently, every part in the Glock serves a purpose. Define that parts function and identify ways other parts could take on its function. This may or may not work. The next step would be to identify which parts are most modified by the end user, ie what do people polish and how are those parts made. What can be done to those parts to negate the need (desire really) to do any of that. Then identify any known early replace items and extend the life of those, if possible.
Honestly, it has been a few years since I had a Glock tore down completely in front of me, but I dont recall too many things that could have been reduced. The M&P is a little different, I would produce a few parts differently myself, but that is for another thread.
4th generation perfection is hard to argue with, even if you cant stand to shoot them you must recognize that they got something right.
You mean no external safety?
That would be as wrong as two boys fuc%ing to quote a popular instructor around here.
The Glock gets away with it because it is a handgun that goes into a holster. The holster is the safety.
I have to disagree, the trigger finger is the main safety
I have to disagree, the trigger finger is the main safety
I believe what he meant is that the Glock is fine without an external safety because if it isn't in your hand, it should be in a holster. There are plenty of objects that could get caught inside a trigger guard and cause an AD/ND. An AR doesn't go into a holster, so it NEEDS the external safety for use while you are not firing.
Anywho, back on topic. Simplifying something like a Glock would be a tough thing to do, it's already about as simple as I can think of. This is definitely going to cause me a lot of thinking tonight:D
I believe what he meant is that the Glock is fine without an external safety because if it isn't in your hand, it should be in a holster. There are plenty of objects that could get caught inside a trigger guard and cause an AD/ND. An AR doesn't go into a holster, so it NEEDS the external safety for use while you are not firing.
Anywho, back on topic. Simplifying something like a Glock would be a tough thing to do, it's already about as simple as I can think of. This is definitely going to cause me a lot of thinking tonight:D
Na, disagree again only needs one to prevent ND if dropped.
TheSmiter1
05-20-10, 19:11
Na, disagree again only needs one to prevent ND if dropped.
We do some crazy shit with our rifles. They're good for holding up barbed wire, but-stroking someone in the face, and of course shooting mother ****ers.
They go everywhere you go. If you hit the deck hard, so do they. If you low crawl through mud and grit and grime, they go right along with you.
I would hate to think of the consequences of having a condition 1 rifle with a 4lb trigger and no safety. It would be a huge hazard for military operations in any form or terrain.
But this is not on topic.
We do some crazy shit with our rifles. They're good for holding up barbed wire, but-stroking someone in the face, and of course shooting mother ****ers.
They go everywhere you go. If you hit the deck hard, so do they. If you low crawl through mud and grit and grime, they go right along with you.
I would hate to think of the consequences of having a condition 1 rifle with a 4lb trigger and no safety. It would be a huge hazard for military operations in any form or terrain.
But this is not on topic.
Agreed and Im wrong and hard headed and in a bad mood sorry guys was talking out my arse. Back on topic somebody
While I don't think this is to "simplify" the gun, I think offering the Glock with a factory grip reduction would be the only thing I could think of. That and not having the hole in the backstrap and therefore eliminating the need/want of a butt plug.
The gen 4s have the interchangeable back straps, but that's just an extra part to break. Have a factory grip reduction without the need for a back strap (like the 21 vs the 21sf) would be simpler.
Heavy Metal
05-20-10, 20:49
We do some crazy shit with our rifles. They're good for holding up barbed wire, but-stroking someone in the face, and of course shooting mother ****ers.
They go everywhere you go. If you hit the deck hard, so do they. If you low crawl through mud and grit and grime, they go right along with you.
I would hate to think of the consequences of having a condition 1 rifle with a 4lb trigger and no safety. It would be a huge hazard for military operations in any form or terrain.
But this is not on topic.
Tampa M4 nailed it above and you cinched it.
When you are busting brush, twigs will get in the trigger guard from time to time and you will get a loud noise if you don't have your safety on.
No manual safety on an AR under heavy field use would be a 100% guarenteed eventual ND, it would be insane.
You know how you low crawl with a rifle under barbed wire? With the rifle on your chest and you on your back.
Would you like to snag a piece of barbed wire with the muzzle pointed at your chin?
Tampa M4 nailed it above and you chinched it.
When you are busting brush, twigs will get in the trigger guard from time to time and you will get a loud noise.
Non manual safety on an AR under heavy field use would be a 100% guarenteed eventual ND.
Yep I opened my mouth and stuck my foot right in
Cagemonkey
05-20-10, 21:21
You mean no external safety?
That would be as wrong as two boys fuc%ing to quote a popular instructor around here.
The Glock gets away with it because it is a handgun that goes into a holster. The holster is the safety.Since the Glock, like the SIG and Beretta, has an internal firing pin safety, the manual safety is a redundant feature to prevent a ND from mishandling. Keeping your finger outside the trigger guard is all you need to do. No one ever seems to complain about a lack of a manual safety on a revolver. The more you try to make an inherently dangerous tool Dummy Proof, the more you identify the user. I agree that a good holster does aid in safe handling of the Glock as you have mentioned.
One thing that I believe would be a plus is perhaps some experimenting with alloy's to find those with a natural Lubricity.
This could help reduce friction, stress and fatigue for parts with heavy metal to metal contact. IE Slide to Frame Rails...etc.
One thing that I believe would be a plus is perhaps some experimenting with alloy's to find those with a natural Lubricity.
This could help reduce friction, stress and fatigue for parts with heavy metal to metal contact. IE Slide to Frame Rails...etc.
Surface finish will dictate more, as a super alloy with a low coefficient of friction and a poor surface will still hang up. Surface finish will most likely be cheaper to control than a super alloy.
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-20-10, 22:17
No one ever seems to complain about a lack of a manual safety on a revolver.
True. But most revolvers have much heavier triggers.
Heavy Metal
05-20-10, 22:24
Since the Glock, like the SIG and Beretta, has an internal firing pin safety, the manual safety is a redundant feature to prevent a ND from mishandling. Keeping your finger outside the trigger guard is all you need to do. No one ever seems to complain about a lack of a manual safety on a revolver. The more you try to make an inherently dangerous tool Dummy Proof, the more you identify the user. I agree that a good holster does aid in safe handling of the Glock as you have mentioned.
Understand what the Internal Safety is, it is a drop safety.
When you are actively engaging a target or preparing to do this with a Glock is one thing but the holster gives me piece of mind when I am doing other things.
I but brush, A LOT OF BRUSH. I backpack(ruck-up) about 4 days a week in the spring/summer/early fall weather permitting. I crawled thru a newly-fallen tree over the trail this evening with my G-19 on my hip condition one.
Knowing my piece was secure and the trigger guard was totally blocked was worth its weight in gold.
Again, not to further beat up Ryan (who now gets it), but as an example; doing likewise covered in gear carrying an M-16 or M-4 without a manual safety, this would have been a golden example of an opportunity for Harry Branch to meet Sally Trigger.
Again with the Glock, remember, under the right circumstances, anything vaguely finger-like inside the trigger guard of a Glock can easily pull the trigger. Just because your finger is out of the guard does not mean something else cannot pull it. Never let this allow you to become complacent.
Army Chief
05-21-10, 07:55
In considering the basic question, the HK P7 came immediately to mind. This pistol offered extreme simplicity (and speed) from the operator standpoint, though it was surely a study in contrasts from a technical standpoint.
Anyone who has ever removed the grip panels from a P7 was probably floored by the complexity of the cocking mechanism, and yet, the gas piston configuration is simple in the extreme.
You're probably correct to use the Glock as your "baseline" example of a simple (yet reliable) pistol, though I'm not sure how much further it could be streamlined without turning it into something like the Hi-Point -- which is a bit too rudimentary to merit serious consideration here.
AC
Surface finish will dictate more, as a super alloy with a low coefficient of friction and a poor surface will still hang up. Surface finish will most likely be cheaper to control than a super alloy.
The Alloy's I speak of would of course not replace the need for surface finishes...But be used in conjunction with them.
The Alloy's I speak of would of course not replace the need for surface finishes...But be used in conjunction with them.
Do you have a relative cost comparison for what is used now?
Do you have a relative cost comparison for what is used now?
No, I haven't delved that deeply into this idea as I am no Metalurgist. I was just brainstormin ideas for improvements that might increase reliability, wear resistence etc...
Ahh, OK. From what I understand of only a small sampling of like materials, it would be cheaper to work the existing parts over on a wheel prior to assembly than to invest into super metals.
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-21-10, 10:44
Army Chief,
I agree with you on the P7. If you really look at it, the serious parts of the gun are extrememly simple. And the cocking mechanism is more unusual than actually complex. A lot of the Rube Goldberg stuff on the Glock and other modern autoloaders is hidden away in the gun were people don't see.
Understand what the Internal Safety is, it is a drop safety.
When you are actively engaging a target or preparing to do this with a Glock is one thing but the holster gives me piece of mind when I am doing other things.
I but brush, A LOT OF BRUSH. I backpack(ruck-up) about 4 days a week in the spring/summer/early fall weather permitting. I crawled thru a newly-fallen tree over the trail this evening with my G-19 on my hip condition one.
Knowing my piece was secure and the trigger guard was totally blocked was worth its weight in gold.
Again, not to further beat up Ryan (who now gets it), but as an example; doing likewise covered in gear carrying an M-16 or M-4 without a manual safety, this would have been a golden example of an opportunity for Harry Branch to meet Sally Trigger.
Again with the Glock, remember, under the right circumstances, anything vaguely finger-like inside the trigger guard of a Glock can easily pull the trigger. Just because your finger is out of the guard does not mean something else cannot pull it. Never let this allow you to become complacent.
Thank you, revolvers also have external hammers so do leverguns thus no need for an external safety (Marlin you listening?)
For this reason, series 80 1911'ss are much maligned, and I agree that that's a case where they should be; there's only a couple such systems that are really up to the task, and both companies still make S70 units that can be had for less money.
I think that an 'elite' version of the M&P (all forged/EDM parts, at least minimal MIM) might do well, if only as a way to draw more 1911 supporters to the platform.
QuickStrike
05-21-10, 17:22
My ideal design would have a 1911's trigger (or very close) in a P30. With thumbsafety as an option.
Possible to simplify a 1911's trigger?
Army Chief,
I agree with you on the P7. If you really look at it, the serious parts of the gun are extrememly simple. And the cocking mechanism is more unusual than actually complex. A lot of the Rube Goldberg stuff on the Glock and other modern autoloaders is hidden away in the gun were people don't see.
i dunno if anything is quite "rube goldberg" on the glock...
a gas delayed safe action pistol might be a fascinating creature... if you kept the poly frame and trigger (maybe with a ceramic heat resistant insert) you'd have a p7 you could shoot all day.
What does the slide do?
Specifically the part over the barrel?
Just brainstorming here. But an exposed barrel and the slide assembly from the breach face back (woodsman, like) seem "simpler".
No?
Chris
If we are talking about simplifying the actual users operation of the firearm, taking less steps for the handgun to do what you want it to do seems to be what you'd want.
How bad would it be to have the slide go home every time you insert a new magazine? When would you want to insert a fresh mag and not have the slide go into battery?
Automatic mag release when mag is empty?
but for the functioning of the handgun, I have no clue:p
What does the slide do?
Specifically the part over the barrel?
Just brainstorming here. But an exposed barrel and the slide assembly from the breach face back (woodsman, like) seem "simpler".
No?
Chris
Fixed barrel? Like a P38?
Would simplify the mechanism... be ugly as sin, but, you'd still have a slide to the rear.
Is there any inherent value to a fixed barrel as opposed to a browning action barrel other than suppressed usage, from a reliability/durability... or in this case, simplified perspective?
I would think it would be more reliable, but... arguably glocks, m&p's, 1911's, most H&K's, etc, do just fine with browning actions.
I'm trying to picture what a striker fired fixed barreled Pistol would look like. I wonder how it would recoil with more mass to the front of the gun...
It's intriguing. I happen to think that if you took off the slide stop, you'd take away from the functionality of the gun.
It's a great indicator that the gun is empty, and a lot of people recharge a weapon using the slide stop, so I'd say it has enough functionality to stay.
I feel that if Glock would use the HK style mag release they would truly be perfection. I am a big HK fan as well but I have gone to all 1911 for 45acp and all Glock for 9mm now. The HK mag release is till the best I have ever seen on any pistol.
What does the slide do?
Specifically the part over the barrel?
Just brainstorming here. But an exposed barrel and the slide assembly from the breach face back (woodsman, like) seem "simpler".
No?
Chris
the front of the slide acts as a contact point for the locking mechanism on short recoil operated (browning style) pistols... also adds mass. you could probably do it a different way. it may not be simpler though.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-22-10, 01:40
In considering the basic question, the HK P7 came immediately to mind. This pistol offered extreme simplicity (and speed) from the operator standpoint, though it was surely a study in contrasts from a technical standpoint.
Anyone who has ever removed the grip panels from a P7 was probably floored by the complexity of the cocking mechanism, and yet, the gas piston configuration is simple in the extreme.
You're probably correct to use the Glock as your "baseline" example of a simple (yet reliable) pistol, though I'm not sure how much further it could be streamlined without turning it into something like the Hi-Point -- which is a bit too rudimentary to merit serious consideration here.
AC
Army Chief,
I agree with you on the P7. If you really look at it, the serious parts of the gun are extrememly simple. And the cocking mechanism is more unusual than actually complex. A lot of the Rube Goldberg stuff on the Glock and other modern autoloaders is hidden away in the gun were people don't see.
i dunno if anything is quite "rube goldberg" on the glock...
a gas delayed safe action pistol might be a fascinating creature... if you kept the poly frame and trigger (maybe with a ceramic heat resistant insert) you'd have a p7 you could shoot all day.
If we are talking about simplifying the actual users operation of the firearm, taking less steps for the handgun to do what you want it to do seems to be what you'd want.
How bad would it be to have the slide go home every time you insert a new magazine? When would you want to insert a fresh mag and not have the slide go into battery?
Automatic mag release when mag is empty?
but for the functioning of the handgun, I have no clue:p
Just wanted to credit some people with what I was thinking too. My P7 is my everyday carry. Not light, but thin and I would have no fear using it loaded as a hammer to pound nails as long as the cocker was not depressed.
The ultimate to me would be a P7 with the heat shielding, polymer frame and a 5 inch barrel. Just stripped mine down. I wonder if anyone has ever stripped a p7 frame down and lightened it up and filled back with polymer. The thing is so short, why not a slightly longer barrel, plus it would help with more area for heat dissipation and mounting a light.
I think HK missed out with the cocking. If the slide is locked back and you release and recock the empty mag should drop. When the new mag is inserted it already.
If that Caracal pistol turns out to be everything its claims to be, then the answer to the question is there. :)
And if you break apart assemblies that Glock lists as singular parts, I think the Sig P250 has a better case as the "simpler" gun. Right?
To simplify the mechanics? I don't have a clue.
But IDEALLY the manual of arms with any fighting firearm ought to be identical for right and left hand manipulations.
Since we are talking about the Glock primarily - the mag release should work from both sides - as should the slide lock. (The S&W M&P has one of those - the slide lock - and the HK P30 has both.)
Other than that - we are pretty dang close to mechanical simplicity with handguns - with some designs nailing it in the ergonomic department too.
Now if only our fighting rifles were that close to being "right".
cheers
tire iron
If that Caracal pistol turns out to be everything its claims to be, then the answer to the question is there. :)
And if you break apart assemblies that Glock lists as singular parts, I think the Sig P250 has a better case as the "simpler" gun. Right?
how's build quality of arabian made weapons? all i can really base my opinion on are those AK's hacked together by little kids in the streets. doesn't seem fair to the caracal :o
Army Chief
05-22-10, 21:09
I agree with you on the P7 ... the cocking mechanism is more unusual than actually complex.
An excellent point. The inner workings certainly look complex, but I would concur that in, reality, the arrangement of the cocking lever components does follow a pretty straightforward logic -- unusual is probably the better word here.
AC
how's build quality of arabian made weapons? all i can really base my opinion on are those AK's hacked together by little kids in the streets. doesn't seem fair to the caracal :o
United Arab Emirates: ;)
http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dubai-skyline.jpg
Can't say I could buy their guns with a clear conscience but I wouldn't be surprised if the Caracal turns out to be quite phenomenal. The guy who designed the Steyr M pistols designed the Caracal.
halfcocked
06-04-10, 10:38
Well, what sort of simplicity do you want? Simplicity of manufacture or simplicity of user interface? Depends on the stress I guess...
Under the physical and psychological stress of a lethal force encounter, what matters is the interface, not the manufactured simplicity. Everyone seems to be talking about removing parts, but all that matters is that you only need to do one action to fire the gun. Really, any gun without a manual safety fills that role. It doesn't matter how many parts are in between that pulling of the trigger and making the gun fire. Even the invention of caseless ammunition and electronic ignition won't change that. Until we can fire the gun with our mind, you'll have to press a button to do it. You cannot reduce that to less than one operation (pulling the trigger).
Now, if you're talking about the environmental stress put on a gun by extreme environments or just heavy use, then simplicity of manufacture will be important because more parts can lead to more breakage. However, this concept could be in direct contradiction to the simplicity of the interface. For example, having a slide release on both sides of the pistol is a simpler interface because it's the same technique for either hand without any special left-handed adaptations, but it's making the more gun more mechanically complex.
In other words, sometimes you might make something more complex mechanically to make it simpler to operate.
For example, I cannot really see the Glock getting much simpler unless you make it more ambidextrous. There are really only a few operations--mags go in the bottom, button releases the mag, trigger makes the gun go bang, etc. The question is, how do you make it ambidextrous? You could add a slide lock/release on the opposite side, but that would increase mechanical complexity. You could remove the slide lock so that the slide never locks back (like an AK), and the gun is mechanically simpler and ambidextrous, but now you've lost the ability to instantly diagnose when the gun is empty. Of course, you'd gain the ability to instantly tell when the gun had a failure because if the slide was back then you would know something was wrong.
Honestly, I don't see the interface of pistols getting much simpler (sans the "mind firing"), because there are just certain functions you need. Interesting question though.
Replace Glock front sight with dovetail sight--1 part reduction. That's the only improvement I could come up with. Unless, of course, that weakens the front of the slide.
Ambi slide releases are not necessary for ambi slide release--just grab the top of the slide and pull back, from either side.
The gen 4 Glocks only increase the parts count if you use an additional backstrap. That's the one cool thing about the design--for the majority of shooters the change does not increase the gun's complexity.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.