5 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
R Mercer's avatar

That was always a problem with the arms industry--which is a contributing factor to some of the problems that we have today.

Arms design and manufacture is a capital intensive business and requires a lot of kissing up to the government (which leads to other problems, like retired high ranking officers becoming arms industry executives).

You sank a fair bit of capital into R&D and tooling. Sure you sold the US government a few million M-16 variants (so you didn't lose money), but it is going to be another 20 years or more before you get another big purchase like that. Meanwhile you are stuck with a plant that isn't generating a revenue stream... UNLESS you can get a whole bunch of private citizens to buy a "civilianized" version of your weapon.

It wasn't as much of a societal problem when military rifles were muzzle loaders or bolt actions, but it is one now.

A lot of the "research" that is constantly ongoing is really nothing more than providing a revenue stream to companies that don't really have civilian alternatives.. or that you won't let export their product (like F-22s or B-2s or the new Raider bomber).

I am still slightly amazed that they allow export/cooperation) of the F-35.

Expand full comment
knowltok's avatar

[It wasn't as much of a societal problem when military rifles were muzzle loaders or bolt actions, but it is one now.]

Plus, back then, IIRC, there were often weapons on the market that were just flat out better than what the military was handing out. Gotta figure a good lever action carbine from the late 1800's would be better in most civilian situations than a 1903 Springfield (not distance shooting, but otherwise). In the 20's and 30's people could get a Tommy gun, but the Marines went to war with the Springfield, and the army had the fine M-1 (for line soldiers), which was good, but was no submachine gun.

And yeah, I know you know all that, and some of those weapons were damn fine in their roles, I'm not arguing they weren't. Just that it was fairly easy to exceed line soldier armament back then, but obviously not so much now.

Expand full comment
R Mercer's avatar

There is also the larger consideration that the the overall context changed. Up until the early 1900s, there was a "frontier." For much of the history of the US there were areas where there was little or no government, little or no law enforcement, and hostile natives (who were justified in their hostility, TBH).

And, yes, private citizens were often better armed than soldiers... especially post civil war. Heck even the natives were often better armed.

I WILL go so far as to say, however, that the 1903 was one of the best bolt-action rifles of the era :) Better than the Krag-Jorgensen by far.

Expand full comment
knowltok's avatar

And the Garand was as far as I know, the best rifle in WWII.

Expand full comment
R Mercer's avatar

Hmmmmmm.

I would argue for the later version (The "G" model) of the FG 42, which influenced the design of the US M 60 machinegun.

But only a few thousand were made... and many people are actually unaware of the existence of the weapon (the StG 44 is better known)

The M1 was good, but not a fan of the 8 round en bloc clip with the distinctive sound it made when the gun kicked the empty out... plus, garand thumb ;)

Expand full comment