doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com XIX century - high-tech or low-tech?

Thank you for your comments!

I don't think it's right to identify 'hi-tech' with 'latest available technology', as Gnomon suggests. A flint axe was cutting-edge technology in 30,000 B.C.; yet any [censored] Sapience who hadn't seen an axe before, could figure out how to make one for oneself just by looking at it for fifteen minutes. If you look at a Benelli Vinci now, you couldn't either figure out what the plastic used for the stock is

The question is not whether the gunmakers used the latest technology available to them, because they did. Teasdale-Buckell's chapter on Gibbs of Bristol in Experts on Guns and Shooting contains an interesting discussion on how patterns and interchangeable parts technology was introduced to British gunmaking, for example. This disproves my point that gunmaking almost didn't change across 1814 - 1913 time span.

The question is, why does it appear so that the more technology was available, the less progress was made? Is it an illusion? Is it because, as apachecadillac suggests, the military importance of infantry arms was decreasing, and consequently less attention was given to R&D in this area? Is it because, as some argue today, the reliance on research technology actually hinders progress, because it limits the access to research and limits possible research outcomes to what the technology can do?

Or, it has just struck me, is it a representation of 'predator-prey' mutual adaptability principle? Us as predators evolved to such a high degree that our prey can't evolve fast enough to adapt to that. And so we have to slow down, even slide back to more primitive ways of getting game, to avoid the prey's (and consequently ours) extinction?

Humpty, I'll disagree (as will other historians of technology) with your statement:

" A flint axe was cutting-edge technology in 30,000 B.C.; yet any [censored] Sapience who hadn't seen an axe before, could figure out how to make one for oneself just by looking at it for fifteen minutes."

Neither you nor I could duplicate that axe after 15 minutes' examination. Knapping stone edges is simple in principle but very difficult to do well. (I know people who can do it very well and it took years of effort) Further, if you've ever handled stone tools you would be amazed at how ergonomic they are. Same thing with finely-made African war clubs. These artifacts have superb balance - they handle like "bests!" Stone artifacts (axes, scrapers, tips, knives) were not the products of individual hunters or end-users but rather were generally made in "factories" by specialists. There was very good knowledge of stone quality, mining technology, knapping and a large trade network. There still exist (they have been restored) fairly deep Neolithic-period flint mines where the miners dug for the really good flint. High-quality stone was exported and often traveled many thousands of miles to distant end-users. It's quite a remarkable story, indeed. It is amazing to think of a trading network where people carried rocks by hand for thousands of miles!

So even stone axe-heads represent a sophisticated technology and required a social and "business" infrastructure.

Your post suggests interesting points regarding "progress" but I think that really speaks to technological succession and how rapidly a newer technology can replace an older.

There is also the well-documented issue of "transparency" in manufactured items. Even the stone axe had opacity. We can all discern that it was man-made and that the edges were formed but simple observation will not reveal how the flakes were removed from the edge in a controlled manner (hint - they were not chipped). This is a bit like not knowing the plastic used in Humpty's Benelli example.

Take a look at Newcomen's atmospheric steam engine in the Science Museum in London - we can all "understand" how this was made but even tho it looks like a shade-tree blacksmith's creation (and to some extent it is) it represents the best technology of the period - the roundness of the cylinder is at the limit of that era's technical ability.

I do wonder, however, when the term "high-tech" was first used. Anybody know?

All those beautiful muzzleloaders that were unfairly treated during testing and systematically replace by all of those stinkin, lousy, low down, snake-in-the-grass breechloaders.

Humpty, perhaps a factor in this discussion is the voluntary stop put by the hunting community on any further advance. The breech loader is advanced enough to be convenient yet not so advanced as to diminish the essence of the hunt by making it too easy. Obviously there is a minority who would not hesitate to use all means available, but for most what has been achieved is enough.

I'll respond on a couple of fronts--one concerning the nature of technological progress and the other concerning the social context of innovation.

It seems to me that in considering issues of technological progress you need to distinguish between design changes and process developments. A 'design change' simply means a change in the form of the device being made--whether the transition is from a bow to a cross-bow, or from an A&D boxlock to a trigger plate action. Clearly, and except for some tweaking around the edges, the 'form factor' for most small arms in use today jelled sometime in the first half of the 20th century. This is certainly true for side by side shotguns.

A process development, whether a process patent or protected as a trade secret or knowhow, does not result in a change in the outward appearance or performance of the device being produced. Two examples are the introduction of CNC technology to shotgun manufacturing (the H&H website brags about that firm's role in introducing it to the British gun trade) and the general improvements in metallurgy that have defused throughout the world over the last century (and been applied, incidentally, to the manufacture of firearms, just as they've been deployed in the manufacture of aircraft engine parts, household appliances, and children's playground equipment). I'd argue that there has been a fair amount of these kinds of developments in firearms manufacturing over the past century, simply because unless an industry goes out of its way to be retrograde, the changes are compelled by influences from outside it and the expectations of customers schooled by experiences with other tools they use, tools that reflect those advances.

So, perhaps the answer depends on which part of the elephant you're touching.

The second issue I'd respond to is Shotgunlover's observation. It's a very interesting point. Concepts of fair chase and fair play started to develop with the rise of the conservation movement about a century ago. Without wading into the morass of current gun control arguments over limits on magazine capacity, etc., it's worth remembering that organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the ethos of British field sports promoted plugs to limit auto/pumps to three shots and the idea that a gun that fired more shots than a double with reloading were in some way 'unsporting.'

An analogy to all that is the way the wonderful world of golf has dealt with the dynamic between golf course design and innovations in equipment. Should the belly putter be legal? How large should the head of conforming driver be? What about square grooves on a set of irons? Another analogy is to the misgivings of the U.S. Air Force about the deployment of drones today, or, a century ago, how professional military officers of that day struggled over the role of the cavalry in a world on the cusp of trench warfare. Those two examples are at the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of seriousness, but they illustrate the pervasive conundrum.

But the 'right' answer here, as is so often the case, may well depend on what's at stake, rather than being determined by a deductive process. Oh well. Enough. Take care, guys.

Maybe humans as predators didn't evolve a whole bunch, and looking at sporting game logs and market hunting stats might show a less effective predator. I think others have shown that man has known what he(she) wants in a firearm for quite some time, so it could be an illusion that less progress was being made. Doesn't history have a ton of documented failed firearms designs, all arguably progress in the eyes of their beholder.

Great post on flint age technologies!

As for the conversational side of the matter, we can pinpoint the appearance of wildlife management, at least in the UK, within a couple of decades. And that would be early Victorian times.

The last shooting writer to ignore conversational issues was Peter Hawker, whose "Instructions for Young Sportsmen" were published from 1818 to 1844, not counting postmortem editions. For him 'game preservation' was about protection from poachers and nothing else. His diaries present, for modern eyes, a pretty depressing picture of a blatant game exterminator of a hunter, who goes out of his way to shoot as much as he possibly can (chasing, for example, what he knows to be the last pheasant in the county persistently for days before triumphally killing it), complaining that with each season game was becoming scarcer and scarcer - and yet not doing anything for conservation, and not even giving a thought that this decrease in game numbers might have anything to do with his own deeds.

And yet Stonehedge, whose books were coming out in 1850s, only a few years later, gives a great discussion of game management, including the need to know the numbers of birds on the preserve, the dangers of overshooting, etc. By the end of XIX century, concerns over parts of Africa being 'shot out' were repeatedly voiced, and in India conservation measures were taken to protect both game and forests. Teasedale-Buckell in his 1907 "Complete Shot" gives views on conversation not far behind modern ideas - he argues, for example, that predators are necessary for healthy ecosystem (without using the word 'ecosystem', of course).

Incidentally, the time difference between Hawker and Stonehedge coincides with the transition from muzzleloaders to pinfires.

On the other hand, I can identify another area of hunting weapons where progress is happening now, fueled by military technologies as well. I'm talking about night sights. I believe they are illegal for hunting in both EU and US, but in the former USSR they are legal, and there is a growing interest of hunting boar and bear by stalking on crop feeds at night. The supporters of this hunting claim that it is sport, not slaughter; it's not that easy, the stalk has to be very close, especially when the crops are high, and the risk, in dealing with a big boar and especially bear, is there. The advantages of every new generation of this technologies are quite comparable with the advantages that, for example, transition from pinfire to central fire gave - at least, as far as can be gathered from the reports of night hunters. Progress allows them, they claim, to take better shots, and make cleaner kills. And yet the game preserves these hunters frequent are some of the best managed and rich in game areas in the country.

What I mean to say is, apparently, advances in game-getting technologies and conservationalism do not seem to be directly related in one way or another.

More later.

P.S. It might seem that I'm contradicting myself, first stating an idea and then posting arguments against it, but I'm not. Actually, I'm sort of brainstoiming the issue of high-tech in hinting weapons. And thanks to all who join the ride!

Technology push or market pull (demand)? Did John Browning design new sporting arms because he could or because there was a marker demand or need? He probably did it for both reasons. Unfortunately this isn't always possible. I have known some brilliant engineers who would love to conduct development unrestricted but unfortunately they need to feed their families. They must employ their skills to reach the development objectives set by their employers. Along with predefined development objectives, those gifted engineers must navigate the never ending sea of bureaucracy and Power Point briefings to keep those development program funded!

As was stated, technical advancements in sporting arms were fueled by the demand for advanced weapons of war. Humpty mentioned night vision technologies that were a couple decades ago restricted by either law or market cost to the militaries of larger countries. Now, a few hundred dollars U.S. will buy an entry level night vision sight.

Most technology development is funded by some entity desiring to gain a competitive advantage in the market or on the battlefield. If we consider that although a modern autoloading shotgun softens felt recoil and offers at least one more shot than does a side by side, it is my guess that few on this board covet them as we do a Purdy, Atkin, or Parker. Technology of today could offer a fully automatic shotgun which could be affordable, lightweight, and low recoil. If legal, what advantage would it provide to us? A miss is still a miss.

Small arms development may have reached its useful apex a hundred years ago with the exception of the M-1 Grand and so-called modern assault rifles. Today a Benelli autoloader with camo plastic stocks rests in the back corner of my gun safe. It is a marvel of modern technology and has in my hands taken a lot of waterfowl. It however rarely sees daylight. I keep it just in case I ever want to shoot up a couple cases of Hevi Shot which I own. That combination is however superseded every fall by more than one vintage 10 gauge Damascus barreled SxS. Add to those a 12 gauge Super Fox and Canada Geese beware! An ounce and 3/8 of Nice Shot at 1200 FPS will bring down those big fowl at as long a range as I can cleanly hit them!

If I wanted to hunt an elk I could use a modern .50 sniper rifle. With a cheap laser rangefinder, a little wind estimation, and a lot of practice on the target range, a skilled marksman could cleanly kill an elk at thousand yards! But that would not be much of a hunt, would it?

I also see people who enjoy hunting with an AR-15 style rifle. I have nothing against that but I never, at least since I was about 14, needed more shots that one to drop an animal. Oh, a second shot is always desired to swiftly kill a dying animal. Modern manufacturing technologies allow for the relative inexpensive manufacture of these autoloading rifles for those who like them. The market demand keeps them in production.

Then if we allow ourselves a daydream... If we were a king or dictator, we could hunt from big game from a helicopter or even use a jet fighter to strafe or bomb a herd of big game. Oh, do not forget about cruise missiles! But is any of that necessary to achieve the satisfaction which our sport provides to us?

Technology is still advancing for the military needs. This is largely if not all funded by government�s desires for an edge on the future battlefield. Recently that development has provided to consumers low cost range finders, GPS, night vision, and other technologies just as the space race provided us long ago with affordable calculators!

Perhaps for most sporting purposes, at least in wing shooting, the state of the market needs is satisfied by most of existing technologies. That stated, I think one of those barrel cameras would be neat to play with for a few rounds of clays!

Just some early morning ramblings...

Great post and many outstanding replies!! But we may be just overlooking one very simple thing. Having grown up in the heart of "PA Dutch Country", there was always one underlying theme regarding change. That is "We've always done it this way and that's how it is." For some people and industries, change is not always looked at as progress. At one time, in the early to mid 1800's, the U.S. Patent Office said "Everything that can be invented has been invented"!! Just sayin'.