I don't blame Glock for not "innovating" in the sense it is used today. I'm not a fan boy, and don't even own one. I will concede that they work. They're just not for me.
If you're producing an effective and durable product designed to accomplish a specific task and it does it, why change it? From a manufacturing standpoint that's expensive all the way around.
I think we're at a stagnation point with firearms development. Everything we see now as improvements are now add-ons to existing platforms (red dots), capacity tweaks, or trigger snobbery. Small bits of improvement to keep sales up. Some people just have to have the newest thing.
I'm not about to replace any small single stacks I have with their double stack equivalent just because someone told me it's better. If I felt adequately armed with them two years ago, they're fine now.
If you're producing an effective and durable product designed to accomplish a specific task and it does it, why change it? From a manufacturing standpoint that's expensive all the way around.
I think we're at a stagnation point with firearms development. Everything we see now as improvements are now add-ons to existing platforms (red dots), capacity tweaks, or trigger snobbery. Small bits of improvement to keep sales up. Some people just have to have the newest thing.
I'm not about to replace any small single stacks I have with their double stack equivalent just because someone told me it's better. If I felt adequately armed with them two years ago, they're fine now.