I have to slightly disagree. Within the last 30 years or so, the "gun games" have impacted weapons design more than hunting.
And within the last 15 years or so, "combat shooting gun games" have dominated US military weapons designs dramatically.
That is why the so-called "Advanced European designs" suffered so awfully to more modular, ergo and frankly fightable US designs like the M4, imo.
The modern weapon sight is a game changer, for instance. For awhile, it appeared as if the US military would eschew sights, when some of the now awful optical sights were coming standard on Euro pieces.
I can easily summarize Euro military small arms for the last 15 years by two statements:
1. Euro military small arms design has been fetishing the mere presence of a gun over its utility. In other words, most of their design effort has been dedicated to convenience of carry of an arm in a vehicle, regardless of how unusable it renders said arm in actual combat.
2. Euro military small arms design has also been fixated on penetrating body armor, to the extent of ignoring what the bullet might actually do to living flesh. Despite there being no credible threat out there to the western world that makes use of said body armor, obtw.
In comparison to the above two points, American small arms development has been top-notch. And that includes Colt's role in said development.
Bookmarks