User blog comment:Leolab/Retroactive Unfair Battle Enforcement: Pt. 2/@comment-1683193-20140208080629/@comment-4661256-20140219011951

I have to disagree regarding the fact that firearms technology will stagnate in a few decades based off of the premise that not much has changed. A lot has changed. Historically, battle-changing weapons implements concerning firearms tend to pop up every hundred or so years (gunpowder introduced, 1400s; matchlock appears, 1500s; flintlock introduced, 1600s; various improvements in reliability, rate of fire, and accuracy boost flintlocks - i.e. percussion cap, rifled bullets, 1700s; repeating firearms become popular, 1800s; automatic firearms become common in the 1900s and especially with the introduction of the assault rifle the combat soldier has evolved to become a truly active fighting unit all by himself). The fact of the matter is, technology will always advance, even if we cannot imagine it doing so now. Could a black powder cannoneer possibly imagine actually pulling the trigger and firing the weapon when he wanted? Could a musketeer think up of a weapon holding multiple shots without multiple barrels? Could a World War One infantryman possibly envision the compact yet devastating firepower packed into one assault rifle? And likewise, how can we, accustomed to what we know as the pinnacle of technology, expect what is next to come? To all the examples previously mentioned, their weapon was the best of the best. And it's the same now. One day our M16s and AK47s will be phased out by weapons that incorporated improvements that we never even dreamed possible. As far as your Colt M1911 example goes, its small magazine and old design led to it being phased out by the Beretta M9 as far back as 1985. Sure, it's still used, but it's no longer the official standard-issue sidearm for any major military unit.