For this reason, series 80 1911’ss are much maligned, and I agree that that’s a case where they should be; there’s only a couple such systems that are really up to the task, and both companies still make S70 units that can be had for less money.
I think that an ‘elite’ version of the M&P (all forged/EDM parts, at least minimal MIM) might do well, if only as a way to draw more 1911 supporters to the platform.
My ideal design would have a 1911’s trigger (or very close) in a P30. With thumbsafety as an option.
Possible to simplify a 1911’s trigger?
i dunno if anything is quite “rube goldberg” on the glock…
a gas delayed safe action pistol might be a fascinating creature… if you kept the poly frame and trigger (maybe with a ceramic heat resistant insert) you’d have a p7 you could shoot all day.
What does the slide do?
Specifically the part over the barrel?
Just brainstorming here. But an exposed barrel and the slide assembly from the breach face back (woodsman, like) seem “simpler”.
No?
Chris
If we are talking about simplifying the actual users operation of the firearm, taking less steps for the handgun to do what you want it to do seems to be what you’d want.
How bad would it be to have the slide go home every time you insert a new magazine? When would you want to insert a fresh mag and not have the slide go into battery?
Automatic mag release when mag is empty?
but for the functioning of the handgun, I have no clue:p
Fixed barrel? Like a P38?
Would simplify the mechanism… be ugly as sin, but, you’d still have a slide to the rear.
Is there any inherent value to a fixed barrel as opposed to a browning action barrel other than suppressed usage, from a reliability/durability… or in this case, simplified perspective?
I would think it would be more reliable, but… arguably glocks, m&p’s, 1911’s, most H&K’s, etc, do just fine with browning actions.
I’m trying to picture what a striker fired fixed barreled Pistol would look like. I wonder how it would recoil with more mass to the front of the gun…
It’s intriguing. I happen to think that if you took off the slide stop, you’d take away from the functionality of the gun.
It’s a great indicator that the gun is empty, and a lot of people recharge a weapon using the slide stop, so I’d say it has enough functionality to stay.
I feel that if Glock would use the HK style mag release they would truly be perfection. I am a big HK fan as well but I have gone to all 1911 for 45acp and all Glock for 9mm now. The HK mag release is till the best I have ever seen on any pistol.
the front of the slide acts as a contact point for the locking mechanism on short recoil operated (browning style) pistols… also adds mass. you could probably do it a different way. it may not be simpler though.
Just wanted to credit some people with what I was thinking too. My P7 is my everyday carry. Not light, but thin and I would have no fear using it loaded as a hammer to pound nails as long as the cocker was not depressed.
The ultimate to me would be a P7 with the heat shielding, polymer frame and a 5 inch barrel. Just stripped mine down. I wonder if anyone has ever stripped a p7 frame down and lightened it up and filled back with polymer. The thing is so short, why not a slightly longer barrel, plus it would help with more area for heat dissipation and mounting a light.
I think HK missed out with the cocking. If the slide is locked back and you release and recock the empty mag should drop. When the new mag is inserted it already.
If that Caracal pistol turns out to be everything its claims to be, then the answer to the question is there. 
And if you break apart assemblies that Glock lists as singular parts, I think the Sig P250 has a better case as the “simpler” gun. Right?
To simplify the mechanics? I don’t have a clue.
But IDEALLY the manual of arms with any fighting firearm ought to be identical for right and left hand manipulations.
Since we are talking about the Glock primarily - the mag release should work from both sides - as should the slide lock. (The S&W M&P has one of those - the slide lock - and the HK P30 has both.)
Other than that - we are pretty dang close to mechanical simplicity with handguns - with some designs nailing it in the ergonomic department too.
Now if only our fighting rifles were that close to being “right”.
cheers
tire iron
how’s build quality of arabian made weapons? all i can really base my opinion on are those AK’s hacked together by little kids in the streets. doesn’t seem fair to the caracal :o
An excellent point. The inner workings certainly look complex, but I would concur that in, reality, the arrangement of the cocking lever components does follow a pretty straightforward logic – unusual is probably the better word here.
AC
United Arab Emirates: 
Can’t say I could buy their guns with a clear conscience but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Caracal turns out to be quite phenomenal. The guy who designed the Steyr M pistols designed the Caracal.
Well, what sort of simplicity do you want? Simplicity of manufacture or simplicity of user interface? Depends on the stress I guess…
Under the physical and psychological stress of a lethal force encounter, what matters is the interface, not the manufactured simplicity. Everyone seems to be talking about removing parts, but all that matters is that you only need to do one action to fire the gun. Really, any gun without a manual safety fills that role. It doesn’t matter how many parts are in between that pulling of the trigger and making the gun fire. Even the invention of caseless ammunition and electronic ignition won’t change that. Until we can fire the gun with our mind, you’ll have to press a button to do it. You cannot reduce that to less than one operation (pulling the trigger).
Now, if you’re talking about the environmental stress put on a gun by extreme environments or just heavy use, then simplicity of manufacture will be important because more parts can lead to more breakage. However, this concept could be in direct contradiction to the simplicity of the interface. For example, having a slide release on both sides of the pistol is a simpler interface because it’s the same technique for either hand without any special left-handed adaptations, but it’s making the more gun more mechanically complex.
In other words, sometimes you might make something more complex mechanically to make it simpler to operate.
For example, I cannot really see the Glock getting much simpler unless you make it more ambidextrous. There are really only a few operations–mags go in the bottom, button releases the mag, trigger makes the gun go bang, etc. The question is, how do you make it ambidextrous? You could add a slide lock/release on the opposite side, but that would increase mechanical complexity. You could remove the slide lock so that the slide never locks back (like an AK), and the gun is mechanically simpler and ambidextrous, but now you’ve lost the ability to instantly diagnose when the gun is empty. Of course, you’d gain the ability to instantly tell when the gun had a failure because if the slide was back then you would know something was wrong.
Honestly, I don’t see the interface of pistols getting much simpler (sans the “mind firing”), because there are just certain functions you need. Interesting question though.
Replace Glock front sight with dovetail sight–1 part reduction. That’s the only improvement I could come up with. Unless, of course, that weakens the front of the slide.
Ambi slide releases are not necessary for ambi slide release–just grab the top of the slide and pull back, from either side.
The gen 4 Glocks only increase the parts count if you use an additional backstrap. That’s the one cool thing about the design–for the majority of shooters the change does not increase the gun’s complexity.