Old vs. New, pt. 2

Home-made fireworks. I make a good-looking round, don't I?


I went shooting the other day. I shot .45 ACP and .38 Special, 100 rounds of each. In terms of caliber, the .45 ACP has been around since 1905, the .38 Special since 1902. There have been no significant changes in their designs in a century, yet they work fine. I was certainly able to hit the target with both.




(I actually shot four guns, two of each caliber. It took three hours to clean them. Ugh. I gotta stop shooting so many guns at once.)


Anyway, I don't totally want to bust on new things. For example, my 1911-type .45 is a classic design, yet has more parts than my .45 Ruger. This is because the 1911 hasn't been changed significantly since the 30's, while the Ruger is a more modern design.



Ruger P-97, stripped. Ain't much to it, is there?






Para 1911-type, stripped. Ain't a whole lot more, but I count two more parts to it than the Ruger has. Also, it's harder to strip as you pretty much need a tool to get it to this point.


So, not all modern things are crap. Still though, the improvement(s) of the Ruger over the 1911 are pretty slight; some people might even prefer the 1911. Also, the Ruger is based on the 1911 (almost all pistols today are).

So, one could say that the Ruger is an old design. Though that's debatable, there's one thing that's not: barring natural disaster, both guns will be working long after both my t.v.'s have crapped out.