They do, you're just shopping in the wrong places. The only guns you can't buy new as wood-and-steel are the tacticool ones, and wood isn't very tacticool. Otherwise you want a shotgun, rifle, pistol or revolver? All available new in wood and steel.
Cars all look the same now because of safety regulations. The goal to make ever-safer cars constrains the artistic choices the designers can make more and more. I guess you could say that's why polymer frame wonder 9 handguns tend to look the same since the configuration sort of dictates the shape but there are tons of guns other plastic CCWs on the market today.
Safety regs are half emission standards are the other half. Both should be reduced to allow beautiful and reliable cars again but there is simply too much money in the regulations to substantially change anything.
Emission regs certainly fuck with the designs of vehicles. And they really fuck with the reliability of diesel construction equipment because the diesel particulate filters are unreliable & force the machine to shut down if they detect a malfunction, which is often. But I'm not sure how much those laws affect what cars *look* like.
Actually now that I wrote that, you might have a point with fuel mileage requirements. Some old-school car designs looked great but had terrible aerodynamics. That's not emissions exactly but it certainly affects design.
checked, making cars more smoothed out overall helps meet emission standards, but I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s and not meet current standards. I think modern cars just want to avoid looking 'old', as does seemingly everything.
>but I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s and not meet current standards.
they wouldn't meet the faggy pedestrian crash standards we have these days
They wouldn't really look right. To give a specific example, in the early 2000's they adopted a more stringent side-impact crash test than had been used in previous years. In order for car makers to get high ratings for this test they had to raise the "sill height" of the windows: basically make the metal part of the door taller and the window shorter. If you took a modern car built with a high sill height and you tried to put a body kit from a 90's car on it the window opening for the 90's car would cover both the window and half the door of the new car, which would look silly.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't think the stylization of older cars is entirely reliant on stuff like window proportions. IMO most of the vibe is in the angles and bumper design. everything has to have a bumper that looks like this now, with these random shapes that jut out everywhere to make it look cool and fast
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
whereas older cars have much simpler designs overall generally
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/GSmLBTi.png
I don't think the stylization of older cars is entirely reliant on stuff like window proportions. IMO most of the vibe is in the angles and bumper design. everything has to have a bumper that looks like this now, with these random shapes that jut out everywhere to make it look cool and fast
I agree. Teslas are dumb but the fact that they don't have a ridiculous radiator grill is one of the better things about them. Front grills in general are just starting to look stupid.
That's not how aerodynamics works though. Half of fuel efficiency comes from reducing air resistance and you need a smooth shape to achieve that.
>but I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s and not meet current standards.
they wouldn't meet the faggy pedestrian crash standards we have these days
Don't those crash standards save lives?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
there are smooth shaped older cars and non-smooth newer cars like
https://i.imgur.com/GSmLBTi.png
I don't think the stylization of older cars is entirely reliant on stuff like window proportions. IMO most of the vibe is in the angles and bumper design. everything has to have a bumper that looks like this now, with these random shapes that jut out everywhere to make it look cool and fast
though. I really don't think the less aerodynamic modern designs are more aerodynamic than the more aerodynamic of older designs. Much earlier stuff like the 70s before are pretty categorically unaerodynamic though.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I really don't think the less aerodynamic modern designs are more aerodynamic than the more aerodynamic of older designs
You might be surprised, aero is complicated and often counterintuitive as fuck and a lot comes down to small surface detailing and how parts meet one another rather than overall shape. (Interference and parasitic drag rather than form drag, in actual aero terms.) The almost 90 degree angle where the front lip meets the bumper on that Z, for example, could cause a lot of drag, as could the little "kick" of trunklid at the tail, and even the mirrors - look at modern cars, especially hybrids and electrics, and there's a ton of crazy shit going on where the mirrors meet the body on many because it actually makes a big difference.
>I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s
It's probably at that point more a weight thing. Cars since the late 90s-00s were designed to have crumple zones on purpose. Sure it totals your car at a lighter collision, but it means the car eats the force and not your fleshy meat sack body. A body kit, assuming the weight and aerodynamics alone wouldn't cause it to fall under EPA fuel efficiency standards, would likely not be adequately proportioned for such crumple zones and adding them may make it cartoonish.
>Both should be reduced to allow beautiful and reliable
I'd rather drive an ugly car than die because of some absolute retard causing an accident to be honest
Also I don't know about the reliable part. My family's modern cars have all been more reliable than the ones they had in the past. It probably depends more on the current state of quality control for the brand you are buying than wether the car is modern or older
Safety regs are half emission standards are the other half. Both should be reduced to allow beautiful and reliable cars again but there is simply too much money in the regulations to substantially change anything.
It costs $0 more to make a normal sized grill, and yet they chose to make it ugly.
>hunting guns
I'd rather drag a rifle or shotgun with polymer furniture through the woods or the swamp. Save the wood for the target and trap guns.
There are a few exceptions like extreme cold weather, where polymer can get brittle. But I suspect that recent improvements have eliminated that shortcoming.
if you're willing to go boomer mode, they can. if not, you're forced to consoom shitty reproductions or buy an M1A. thats it.
>wood AR furniture, expensive and uncommon >1911s and beretta 92s with wood grip panels >shotguns, bolt action rifles, and AKs will usually have a wood option >reproduction m1 carbines have wood furniture >lever action rifles (surprisingly modern and viable in 2023) have wood as an option
its more expensive to use wood, and it's generally speaking heavier. fags dont like it for those reasons
Pistol grips are more ergonomic and comfortable (try shooting all day), wood isn't used in product manufacturing all that much anymore other than houses and furniture because we love house fires, and the consumer likes practical stuff like easily being able to mount an optic or light. Grandpa guns are phasing out the same way muskets and cowboy lever guns were phased out. The next evolution is likely bullpups using some sort of wonder ammo. The US is stupid to have denied exactly that in the NGSW for some abomination that shoots out its barrel in 5k shots and has insane recoil.
Because fags are obsessed with minmaxing their larperator gear to save a few ounces and have the most "comfortable" rifle that they'll hold for maybe 10 minutes at the range. Autism and cowadoody, essentially.
You're making me really want to take my mini-14 to the range. I haven't shot it in months but it's comfy as fuck. Told myself I was going to get an LPVO for it and never got around to it. Stupid.
It runs pretty well suppressed. I tried it with my .22 caliber suppressor and it was spitting back gas into my face. I then tried my 9mm suppressor and it still suppresses fine and didn’t have any gas blowback.
god damn brother that is one hell of a mini 14.
could you make the barrel bigger? i think i wanna fuck it
Same reason new buildings, cars, etc are uglier than old ones. Someone did the math and realized you could save pennies by making it ugly.
They do, you're just shopping in the wrong places. The only guns you can't buy new as wood-and-steel are the tacticool ones, and wood isn't very tacticool. Otherwise you want a shotgun, rifle, pistol or revolver? All available new in wood and steel.
Cars all look the same now because of safety regulations. The goal to make ever-safer cars constrains the artistic choices the designers can make more and more. I guess you could say that's why polymer frame wonder 9 handguns tend to look the same since the configuration sort of dictates the shape but there are tons of guns other plastic CCWs on the market today.
Safety regs are half emission standards are the other half. Both should be reduced to allow beautiful and reliable cars again but there is simply too much money in the regulations to substantially change anything.
Emission regs certainly fuck with the designs of vehicles. And they really fuck with the reliability of diesel construction equipment because the diesel particulate filters are unreliable & force the machine to shut down if they detect a malfunction, which is often. But I'm not sure how much those laws affect what cars *look* like.
Actually now that I wrote that, you might have a point with fuel mileage requirements. Some old-school car designs looked great but had terrible aerodynamics. That's not emissions exactly but it certainly affects design.
checked, making cars more smoothed out overall helps meet emission standards, but I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s and not meet current standards. I think modern cars just want to avoid looking 'old', as does seemingly everything.
>but I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s and not meet current standards.
they wouldn't meet the faggy pedestrian crash standards we have these days
They wouldn't really look right. To give a specific example, in the early 2000's they adopted a more stringent side-impact crash test than had been used in previous years. In order for car makers to get high ratings for this test they had to raise the "sill height" of the windows: basically make the metal part of the door taller and the window shorter. If you took a modern car built with a high sill height and you tried to put a body kit from a 90's car on it the window opening for the 90's car would cover both the window and half the door of the new car, which would look silly.
I don't think the stylization of older cars is entirely reliant on stuff like window proportions. IMO most of the vibe is in the angles and bumper design. everything has to have a bumper that looks like this now, with these random shapes that jut out everywhere to make it look cool and fast
whereas older cars have much simpler designs overall generally
I agree. Teslas are dumb but the fact that they don't have a ridiculous radiator grill is one of the better things about them. Front grills in general are just starting to look stupid.
That's not how aerodynamics works though. Half of fuel efficiency comes from reducing air resistance and you need a smooth shape to achieve that.
Don't those crash standards save lives?
there are smooth shaped older cars and non-smooth newer cars like
though. I really don't think the less aerodynamic modern designs are more aerodynamic than the more aerodynamic of older designs. Much earlier stuff like the 70s before are pretty categorically unaerodynamic though.
>I really don't think the less aerodynamic modern designs are more aerodynamic than the more aerodynamic of older designs
You might be surprised, aero is complicated and often counterintuitive as fuck and a lot comes down to small surface detailing and how parts meet one another rather than overall shape. (Interference and parasitic drag rather than form drag, in actual aero terms.) The almost 90 degree angle where the front lip meets the bumper on that Z, for example, could cause a lot of drag, as could the little "kick" of trunklid at the tail, and even the mirrors - look at modern cars, especially hybrids and electrics, and there's a ton of crazy shit going on where the mirrors meet the body on many because it actually makes a big difference.
>I don't really think there's any reason that a new car couldn't be designed that has the outer shell of something that looks like its from the 80s 90s or early 2000s
It's probably at that point more a weight thing. Cars since the late 90s-00s were designed to have crumple zones on purpose. Sure it totals your car at a lighter collision, but it means the car eats the force and not your fleshy meat sack body. A body kit, assuming the weight and aerodynamics alone wouldn't cause it to fall under EPA fuel efficiency standards, would likely not be adequately proportioned for such crumple zones and adding them may make it cartoonish.
This, nothing like driving an armored mercedes sprinter through kenosha in limp mode during the rittenhouse/floyd riots because of an emissions fault.
>Both should be reduced to allow beautiful and reliable
I'd rather drive an ugly car than die because of some absolute retard causing an accident to be honest
Also I don't know about the reliable part. My family's modern cars have all been more reliable than the ones they had in the past. It probably depends more on the current state of quality control for the brand you are buying than wether the car is modern or older
It costs $0 more to make a normal sized grill, and yet they chose to make it ugly.
Because the money's in accessories.
Henry should make Homesteaders that are chambered in larger cartridges.
they do, but they are hunting guns
>hunting guns
I'd rather drag a rifle or shotgun with polymer furniture through the woods or the swamp. Save the wood for the target and trap guns.
There are a few exceptions like extreme cold weather, where polymer can get brittle. But I suspect that recent improvements have eliminated that shortcoming.
if you're willing to go boomer mode, they can. if not, you're forced to consoom shitty reproductions or buy an M1A. thats it.
>wood AR furniture, expensive and uncommon
>1911s and beretta 92s with wood grip panels
>shotguns, bolt action rifles, and AKs will usually have a wood option
>reproduction m1 carbines have wood furniture
>lever action rifles (surprisingly modern and viable in 2023) have wood as an option
its more expensive to use wood, and it's generally speaking heavier. fags dont like it for those reasons
I don't know but I always liked how the pioneer versions of vepr rifles looked
Pistol grips are more ergonomic and comfortable (try shooting all day), wood isn't used in product manufacturing all that much anymore other than houses and furniture because we love house fires, and the consumer likes practical stuff like easily being able to mount an optic or light. Grandpa guns are phasing out the same way muskets and cowboy lever guns were phased out. The next evolution is likely bullpups using some sort of wonder ammo. The US is stupid to have denied exactly that in the NGSW for some abomination that shoots out its barrel in 5k shots and has insane recoil.
Because ergonomics and lightweight are a thing for everyone dipshit.
Because fags are obsessed with minmaxing their larperator gear to save a few ounces and have the most "comfortable" rifle that they'll hold for maybe 10 minutes at the range. Autism and cowadoody, essentially.
You're making me really want to take my mini-14 to the range. I haven't shot it in months but it's comfy as fuck. Told myself I was going to get an LPVO for it and never got around to it. Stupid.
Do it. I love mine.
Does it run well suppressed? If so I'd love to suppress mine so I can hear the sweet sound of the Garand action at the range.
It runs pretty well suppressed. I tried it with my .22 caliber suppressor and it was spitting back gas into my face. I then tried my 9mm suppressor and it still suppresses fine and didn’t have any gas blowback.
Thanks senpai
god damn brother that is one hell of a mini 14.
could you make the barrel bigger? i think i wanna fuck it
Tasteless
hey, fellow zoomer here
shut the FUCK up you stupid cunt