<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: In Defense of SHOT Show	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://staging.shootingnewsweekly.com/shot-show/in-defense-of-shot-show/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://staging.shootingnewsweekly.com/shot-show/in-defense-of-shot-show/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2025 17:57:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: .40 cal Booger		</title>
		<link>https://staging.shootingnewsweekly.com/shot-show/in-defense-of-shot-show/comment-page-1/#comment-20819</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[.40 cal Booger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2025 17:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/?p=20132#comment-20819</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;This kind of SHOT critique is often accompanied by a near constant complaining about the lack of anything new at SHOT and, of course, the tired refrain of a ‘lack of true innovation.’

This is the low-hanging fruit of criticism. But, considering that those making this observation have never designed or manufactured a firearm in their life, it comes across as complaining for the sake of complaining.&quot;

When people talk like that about shot show its often not really about the firearms, but more a collective for firearms + &#039;accessories&#039; + &#039;everything else&#039; - and they expected more. For example, there can be a new rifle but then the optic they put on it is touted as sensational and innovative, but when you think about it and look closely you see the same old technology just wrapped up in a different package. Its not &#039;true innovation&#039;, its simply re-packaging. For example, true innovation would be a 3D holographic sight with the dot suspended in open air above the gun with no enclosure - Meprolight had an opportunity to develop such a sight a few years ago, the technology is there, we have even experimented with it in the lab, but no leading red-dot sight company wants to touch it because its more cost effective for them to simply re-package the existing technology in a new enclosure and enable a few bells and whistles in the electronics that were already there in previous renditions of their product just not enabled.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This kind of SHOT critique is often accompanied by a near constant complaining about the lack of anything new at SHOT and, of course, the tired refrain of a ‘lack of true innovation.’</p>
<p>This is the low-hanging fruit of criticism. But, considering that those making this observation have never designed or manufactured a firearm in their life, it comes across as complaining for the sake of complaining.&#8221;</p>
<p>When people talk like that about shot show its often not really about the firearms, but more a collective for firearms + &#8216;accessories&#8217; + &#8216;everything else&#8217; &#8211; and they expected more. For example, there can be a new rifle but then the optic they put on it is touted as sensational and innovative, but when you think about it and look closely you see the same old technology just wrapped up in a different package. Its not &#8216;true innovation&#8217;, its simply re-packaging. For example, true innovation would be a 3D holographic sight with the dot suspended in open air above the gun with no enclosure &#8211; Meprolight had an opportunity to develop such a sight a few years ago, the technology is there, we have even experimented with it in the lab, but no leading red-dot sight company wants to touch it because its more cost effective for them to simply re-package the existing technology in a new enclosure and enable a few bells and whistles in the electronics that were already there in previous renditions of their product just not enabled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
