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.
Quote:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/hkusa/20140509153029/HK-USP-45-leftt.jpg
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...