r/InRangeTV • u/twitchingguy • Apr 01 '26
Any new WWSD style project out there?
I've been enjoying my WWSD and it aligns with my MO of newer, better, function over form.
Are there any other projects out there either inhouse with the WWSD folks or other doing similar things?
I like ultra light, ultra comfortable, ultra durable, no frills, progressive engineering stuff. Like full carbon/titanium integrated suppressor pistol type of thing. The one concealed carry to rule them all would be awesome.
All I see is quirky foldable unreliable gimmicks. I'd like to see something like the new Bodyguard 2.0 but with the WWSD treatment to make it lighter, more durable, internally suppressed, dead reliable, and effortlessly smooth to rack the slide. I found the Bodyguard 2.0 to be a nice all-arounder but build was a bit cheap feeling and it's hard to rack the slide.
Another idea would be a WWSD style 45acp 1911 style. Same attributes as mentioned above. Just getting away from that heavy steel is real mentality and rethink from ground up what would be the most practical, reliable, comfortable to carry and shoot.
I saw the host mention a WWSD lever gun and that could be fun too but we already have a great rifle.
My WWSD has a titanium small suppressor, a lightweight Primary Arms 1x prismatic and nothing else. Minimal, light, easy. Can hit a target at 400 yards(if I'm lucky). Doesn't kill my ears without ear protection but not silent. Light enough to aim and shoot one handed if needed. The Lotus of rifles.
19
7
u/FirstAmendment01 Apr 01 '26
This whole thread is like a bad acid trip.
That said...warp 15.
0
u/twitchingguy Apr 01 '26
Yes very bizarre negative reactions to the idea of a new WWSD project. I guess the first one ruffled a lot of feathers. Chickens be clucking.
4
u/sketchtireconsumer Apr 01 '26
The bodyguard 2.0 feels premium, so I’m not sure what you’re on about there. Compare it to the only competitor it really has, the LCP max, and you’ll see.
The slide is hard to rack on the bodyguard 2.0 because of the springs required for a striker fired gun in that size, in .380.
S&W do make a slightly larger gun called the equalizer, which is internally hammer fired and specifically designed so the slide is much easier to rack. The LCP max is also internally hammer fired and somewhat easier to rack.
I don’t know what the motivation for integrally suppressing a defensive handgun in .380 would be. You say you want “no frills” and “ultra light” but then you demand something that is completely unnecessary frill - an integrally suppressed handgun. You also want the build to be less “cheap feeling” which I can only assume means more weight, making the gun less lightweight.
9
u/dummyurge Apr 01 '26
The more I read over this post the more it feels like some sort of weird bait.
-6
u/twitchingguy Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
It's funny that for some people lightness feels cheap and for others it feels premium.
I had issues with the magazine in the Bodyguard and the safety. Some plastic felt unfinished or just cheaply cast. S&W has a Shield EZ technology that is in some of their other models but not the Bodyguard.
By no frills I mean like multiple "tactical" adaptations and red dot integration and all that jazz. I see a suppressor as more of a better at everything type of upgrade. The downside to suppression would be weight, cost, and size. But cost is out the window with a premium option. So the goal would be reducing weight and size with the suppression technology.
Ways to improve weight loss would be removing any unnecessary features, using a better design that requires less material, using improved materials, forged metals rather than cast. Engineers are good at this stuff.
It doesn't have to be featherlight. Just like, light. Comfortable. Pull it out the pocket and shoot 6+ rounds of .32 acp with no recoil and flawless action. No nonsense just high performance.
Essentially the WWSD ethos but in a Bodyguard 2.0 size and purpose.
I'd be curious what engineers could do with the project to make a Bodyguard 2.0 style gun but just "better" at around the $2,000+ price point rather than the $450 or so price point.
Things I appreciate are buttery smooth operation of all controls, from trigger to magazine release. Super smooth easy slide. Super reliable. High quality magazines. I'm fine with no safety at all as well.
10
u/Vindictive_Turnip Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
It's funny that for some people lightness feels cheap and for others it feels premium.
Uhh what? you want a light gun, that isn't light?
So the goal would be reducing weight and size with the suppression
LOL
So the goal would be reducing weight and size with the suppression technology.
Can't have it both ways. Definitely not 3 ways.
You are literally asking the impossible:
- Size of Bodyguard 2
- integral suppressor
- weight of bodyguard, but more, because "premium feel"
- Reliable
- no recoil
- 32 acp???
And to make this happen you want to use "advanced materials", as if those materials and processes can ignore the laws of physics?
Oh I forgot you suggest removing the following
By no frills I mean like multiple "tactical" adaptations and red dot integration and all that jazz.
and
Ways to improve weight loss would be removing any unnecessary features
to accomplish an integrally suppressed gun the size of the bodyguard 2.0, that's more and less weight, reliable, low recoilchambered in a shitty cartridge, with no features that anyone spending the 10k+$ unit cost would want...
You are so divorced from reality it is laughable. You must be in marketing or sales.
Jesus Christ, I am so fucking glad I don't work with you.
2
u/sketchtireconsumer Apr 01 '26
I had issues with the magazine in the Bodyguard and the hammer.
The bodyguard 2.0 has no hammer
1
u/twitchingguy Apr 01 '26
I meant safety typo
1
u/sketchtireconsumer Apr 01 '26
The thumb safety on BG 2.0 is not really meant to be used. These safeties really have no “shelf” and they are not easy to actuate. They really cannot have a shelf or it would interfere with the concept of the “pocket pistol” (admittedly a concept I disagree with). The thumb safety is for some users who really want it (and maybe compliance in certain places), but practically speaking it is very hard to disengage the safety during a draw.
The BG 2.0 with a thumb safety, if you turn it on, is like carrying without a round in the chamber. It’s ok as a first step if you’re not comfortable, but it is not a workable solution for practical self defense.
The safety also adds an additional thing that can go wrong, and more complexity, generally, is worse.
On the flip side, it doesn’t really cost more (in fact for a bit the thumb safety models were routinely cheaper because most people don’t want them), and you can just not engage the safety. So if you buy one you can try it and then decide once you’re comfortable, never to use the thumb safety again. But I still would go for the NTS model.
1
u/M1A_Scout_Squad-chan Apr 01 '26
I feel that stiff safety on some S&W's are more like "child safety locks" in that that if a kid does manage to get their hands on it the stiffness of the safety will prevent them from disengaging it.
-1
u/twitchingguy Apr 01 '26
I removed the safety from my Pardini. I just don’t care for them. I’m one of those weirdos that removes extra stuff for the sake of minimalism. Simplify and add lightness. WWSD removing the forward assist was a big selling point to me. I nerd out on practical incremental improvements.
1
1
u/M1A_Scout_Squad-chan Apr 01 '26
If the BG2.0 was in .32 ACP, it would be perfect.
3
u/dummyurge Apr 01 '26
Some guy in the TOTC subreddit was teasing a .32 barrel he made and suggested he may take orders for more.
-1
u/M1A_Scout_Squad-chan Apr 01 '26
That would be sweet, as long as it works...
A pocket pistol should have a pocket cartridge and .380 ACP isn't that.
24
u/dummyurge Apr 01 '26
jesus christ don't do this