There have been some historic gun designs that always puzzled me. Maybe they puzzle you or you have some explanation. None of these have anything to do with technology improvements mind you. The tech was available, just not properly implemented. (So this isn't a rifling advances, or rate of fire advacement or similar tech argument).

Let's start with the atrocious ergonomics of early revolvers. As we can probably almost universally agree, the ergonomics of the grip portion of a modern pistol (CZ, Sig, Beretta, etc.) are fantastic. For me however, the grip angle and design of most revolvers leaves a lot to be desired.



And speaking of revolvers, why did so many law enforcement agencies keep their revolvers over "better" technology such as the 1911 or Browning Hi Power. Seems LEOs clung to revolvers as primary sidearms until the 1990s when more firepower necessity became very apparent (after the LA bank shootout and the Miami shootout). But looking at it from hindsight, why would you pick a 6 shot revolver over a 8 shot 1911 or a 13 show Hi-power? The technology was there and developed. Was it a concern over reliability? Or just no "need" for more capacity at the time? There surely were shootouts with heavily armed bad guys, necessitating more firepower (and the adoption of long guns for law enforcement).

Then let's look at the trigger well. In my opinion, a large trigger well is ideal for a gloved hand. I'd think that folk wore gloves decades ago. Would they remove their glove if they had to engage in a gunfight? Seems that they would want a larger trigger well - unless this was to prevent a negligent discharged... The old revolvers and even guns from the early-mid 1900s have very small trigger wells.
HK seems to be one of few companies that got it right with a generously sized trigger well for gloved hands. Nothing new about the technology, just designing a larger trigger well.





Shotgun and handgun magazine capacities are interesting. With the advent of box and tube magazines, you'd naturally and obviously want "more capacity." There was surely room in the available space or one could simply make a longer magazine... yet didn't??

Magazine capacity wars didn't seem to really get into full drive until the "wonder nines." Until the Hi-Power, and decades later other designs, seems capacity was an afterthought. Even the Sig P6 from the 1970s takes a step backwards and has atrocious capacity of only 8 rounds, decades after the Hi-Power design offering 13 rounds, in a similar sized gun (magwell). By the advent of the Sig or other designs, the double stack high capacity handgun in the same size frame had been out for decades. By comparison, in the same frame size as a P6, several companies (like CZ 75 compactdesigned about the same time (mid-1970s) ) squeeze 14 in the same space.






And shotguns. Why were war fighting and riot shotguns plagued with anemic magazine tube capacity?? Surely more rounds capacity would have been ideal. Yet we see these war/riot guns with short mag tubes holding maybe 4 or 5 shells. They could have easily been extended, as we see in modern guns, to hold 7 or 8. Then vs. now. No different technology, just an obvious design improvement to extend the tube.


This notion of mag size makes me wonder if springs were the issue, and spring technology not as advanced or reliable as today. That's my only explanation, other than just lazy oversights by designers. Clearly a pistol with 14 is better than 8, all things equal...and a combat shotgun with 7 is better than 4 in the tube...

Oh so many reasons.

Design is a key component. I am guessing you never really shot a revolver. A high power revolver is simply a handful. The design is there for the recoil. It’s different than a semi design.

Other factors as to why some lasted longer...
Reliability.

Reliability... 1911 back in the 60’s 70’s 80’s and Shoot even the 90’s were a bit haphazard. Reliable function was not typically associated 100% with semi autos.

Why some other than others... political. Some countries adopted their own designs from their homegrown designers.

Also from teaching a farm boy to use a box mag shotgun or hand them a pump action. No teaching needed and another moving part to deal with in a box mag. Granted these days people are more educated to some degree than in the 1940’s etc.

Also to note taking something off the commercial shelf and using it for combat with a few tweaking a is advantageous for supply and demand of supplying an army in short order. Completely designing and tooling a factory to make something new is a bit of an uphill and costly to a nation wanting to get Tripp’s on the ground and shooting.

Also modern firearms can’t be compared to old per se designs since CNC machining and modern metal production and consistent metal quality can and was an issue.

And lastly... hindsight is always 20/20.

The designs are continuing to change and be updated. The market drives innovation. If people want it and are willing to pay for it. The industry will make it and sell it.

Hmmm...

Actually, I own and have frequently shot a Ruger blackhawk .45lc, and modern .357s made by Ruger, Smith, and Taurus, and a Smith 629 .44 mag. The banana shaped grips provide a very high bore axis compared to grip. Maybe that's on purpose for recoil purposes...

Seems you missed the point. I'm not comparing metalurgy or CNC from today vs. yesteryear.

Let me put it another way.
You're an engineer standing in the board room of the prototype trench guns going to war, or the riot guns going to the police. There's a GLARING deficiency. Magazine capacity. Seems someone would say, "hey, can't we just make that mag tube 5" longer for a few more shells?" That requires no new technology, just make the tube and spring longer.

Same thing with a Sig P6, for instance. Standing in the board room looking at the design, seems some engineer might say, "Hey, I have shot a Browning Hi-Power from three decades ago and it can hold 13... and over at CZ, they're making a compact 9mm that holds 14, so let's try to redesign the mag well and magazine to hold more than 8 on ours..."

And how about the M16. Faced with an enemy that had been using comblock 30 round capacity AK47s, then wtf would you design a main battle rifle with an anemic 20 round magazine?

Old SA revolvers were designed with the round butts intentionally. They were meant to roll back in your hand where you could easily cock the hammer again.

Ah, makes sense!

And coincidentally were easier to do the old fancy spin before reholstering bit, as well.

As a cop in the late 70s, we were very much in favor of the revolver.

Reliability being the major reason. Stories abounded of the cops who had gone to the semi-autos, and had been killed because of malfunctions. All the old guys still held reign, and anyone who even thought of using a semi would be wrangled and brow beat like you wouldn't believe.

Personally, I carried an S&W 357 magnum. I was laughed at by the younger guys, because of the hand cannon. Until it came time for raids and I was always issued the engine killer bullets, and told to stay by the driveway. LOL (Then, of course had to hand them back in, afterwards, because it was illegal for even us to carry them personally. Only allowed in certain situations.)

Which reminds me. We always carried what we called wad-cutters. Flat faced cumbersome slugs. Looked like they had been cast and loaded by a half blind troll in a dungeon somewhere. Everyone was afraid more of the bullet making it through a perp and hitting someone else, than they were about stopping the perp. Strangely the most emphasis on that was when you pulled duty in the jail. Maybe because the person in the background might be a cop? Nowadays they have the special hollow points for that. But there is a LOT less emphasis on bystander safety, and more on getting the perp before he hurts a cop...

I've always heard that early Colt revolver grips were designed to resemble plow handles, as most men back then were familiar with the feel.

Never actually been schooled on proper weak hand grip with a revolver. I suspect this is true of many folks who have taken "handgun" classes......that guess what? Only semiautos. The the tendency is to try some kind of modified dual hand grip. Meh, doesn't work well.