Why the fuck do guns from early 1900s have so many fucking parts?

File: Makarov_Pistol_schem.jpg (72KB, 499x704px)

72KB, 499x704px

>>32968164
To this.

It does essentially the same thing with half the parts.

>>32968164
>get rid of safety
>go from SA or DA/SA to striker
>polymer
Parts count reduced

>>32968164
Makarov doesn't have a grip safety, has a heel mag release and is straight blowback

>>32968164

Progress in design, materials, and machining. Also costs of labor increased.

>>32968175
>external extractor spring and plunger
>metal rail frame inserts

Parts count increased :(((((

>>32968183
It still doesn't excuse the fact that at the time period guns were frequently made with parts like barrel bushings and linkage that regulates one tiny aspect of the guns function when the frame/slide itself can do the same thing.

>>32968195
Thank you for a good answer. I'm just mad that gun designers back then made all these tiny parts that regulated a small specific aspect of the gun's function when it they could have put that function into a pre-existing part and made it multi purpose like how modern browning tilt locked pistols do without barrel bushings or linkage.

>>32968245
>Im just mad that gun designers back then

Didn't have access to CNC or CAD, often made guns designs to fill specific requirements, and were still fleshing out what was to become the foundation for the modern gun. You're mad that you are retarded as evidenced by comparing a locked breech pistol with a grip safety to a fucking fixed barrel blowback gun made decades later. Why not compare it to a 1903? In fact break down a glockenspiel or any modern gun completely and do a part count. You are angry that time moved on and things advanced. Fucking borchardt for not inventing the micro desert eagle and hipoint right

File: 1466139342528.png (194KB, 3408x2320px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 3408x2320px

okay everyone, lets post late 1800s-early 1900s schematics and patent drawings to piss off OP

Since the early 1900s, gun designers have figured out all the parts they don't really need.

Paraphrasing: a design is perfect not when there's nothing left that can be added, but when there's nothing left that can be removed.

>>32968958
JMB made the hi-power without a barrel bushing and started designing it only 3 years after the 1911. Makarov also did this without CAD or CNC.

A modern browning tilt locking system has 3 less parts than the 1911 does. I'm also comparing weapons from this time as a whole rather than JUST the mak and the 1911, both of which have very clear diagrams and has one of the most easily visible design simplifications.

Go look at a M1919 compared to an MG42. The browning design has all these fiddly bits all over while the 42 is fairly sensible. While the 42 has the benefit of a stamped receiver that Browning did not have access to in his day, it does not have any other of these small pieces like latch covers cam guides that are integrated into carriers and the receiver itself in other designs.

File: ImageC.jpg (48KB, 712x345px)

48KB, 712x345px

>>32969000

>>32969459
Browning could of course have used a stamped receiver. Traditional machinists often don't tend to think of stampings. Small stamping presses were common at the time.

CAD is a convenience, not a necessity for designing guns. Saves a shitload of time over manual drafting though. All the weapons of WWII were based on manually drafter drawings.