Never having been in the US Military, I’m wondering why we’re outsourcing our US Military’s weapons to *other countries*? Shouldn’t Colt, Remington, Kimber etc get the chance, and not FN, Glock (yes, I know they’re assembled here), H&K etc?
Why aren’t WE designing/testing/producing our own weapons? Are our tanks, planes and ships, next?
Just curious, Jet Jaguar.
Because GCA'68 makes it a pain and expensive to be a small arms manufacturer, and the few people who try innovative things often get nothing but hassle (and threats of imprisonment) from the BATFE for their efforts.
Combine that with an abusive media that tries to demonize even the most responsible manufacturers (Barrett, for example) and the result is what we have today, where no significant technological progress has been made for decades and the "state of the art" is over 50 years old.
The only significant advances has been in compact, more easily concealed firearms (thanks, ironically enough, to Clinton and the 10 round magazine limit of the 1994 Crime bill) and improvements in materials (thanks mostly to foreign manufacturers like Glock). But even those firearms are nearly all derivative of older (mostly 75-100+ year old Browning) designs (again, with a few exceptions of foreign manufacturers whose ability to innovate isn't quite so restricted as it is in the US).
Never having been in the US Military, I’m wondering why we’re outsourcing our US Military’s weapons to *other countries*? Shouldn’t Colt, Remington, Kimber etc get the chance, and not FN, Glock (yes, I know they’re assembled here), H&K etc?
2. Our anti-gun regulations have strangled domestic industry and creativity. John Moses Brownings of today aren’t tinkering with making better machine guns, lest they be tossed in jail.
Speaking as a U.S. taxpayer, I'd prefer the military to spend the limited resources available wisely, and purchase the most bang (literally) for the buck. I'm sure Colt, Remington, and Kimber et al "get the chance" in that they are welcome to bid on contracts. And if they offer the best product for the best price, I'm sure they get those contacts. But the military shouldn't be forced to purchase overpriced goods just because they're American-made. If they can get the weapons they need less expensively, then they can afford to buy more weapons, or invest in other gadgets for blowing up the enemy, or improve benefits and pay to servicemembers...
DoD has been buying foreign for a long time.
I understand what you're asking and don't get the impression I'm flaming you, but in todays political climate with our freedoms and all (/sarcasm), it's tough for a weapons manufacturer to develop, sell, and supply the weapons required for our military. Check out FN's history. FN Herstal has been making firearms since the late 1800's and was very closely associated with John Browning. They manufactured the first Belgian made Browning high power 9mm pistols along with the mighty .50 cal. They helped develop the 7.62x51 round which is the main NATO ammunition caliber (which would do well in any military), and the FAL rifle of which they've sold over 2 million world wide. They've sold over a million high power's since the early 1900's. If you own a fairly new Browning or Winchester, it is manufactured by FN Herstal.
They are a solid weapons manufacturer and if my son were in the military, I'd want him to be defending himself and his country with something that they had made. A lot of son's are.
At least they are looking at manufacturers with a solid background. Would we be better off if an "American company" were manufacturing our military's weapons? I don't know. Is FN Herstal a good manufacturer of small arms? Looks like it to me. Probably some of the best made.
Bottom line...don't we want the best for our troops, despite where they are made? I say give them the best we can. I'm sure you agree.
Next?
The main gun for the M1-A1 and A2 is made by Rheinmetall, a German company, also known for the guns that it built for the Panther tanks.
Ships - The 76mm gum that is the primary weapon on Coast Guard ships, and which is also used by the US Navy, was designed by OTO Melara, an Italian company (but which now may be made in the US under license to a joint venture). And, for a while, the Navy was renting an Australian ship.
Planes - before the politicians got involved, Airbus was awarded the contract for the new aerial tanker.
In my opinion, weapons used by our military should be the best of the best, regardless of whether or not they’re foreign made. Sometimes, you have to swallow your pride and admit that someone else makes a better weapon.
And the new IAR looks sweet.
Here’s your answer (from the industry side) and I’m sorry but you aren’t going to like it...
There are a lot of things that led to where we are today but the biggest one happened during the Carter Administration. Carter signed into law a piece of legislation that relaxed some of the restrictions in the War Powers Act. The one we are concerned with is the mandate that the US military be armed by weapons made by American manufacturers in America. Carter relaxed the restriction to allow foreign companies to compete for contracts.
The first re-compete that was an issue was the Uniform Pistol Trials of 1987. Beretta won. The arrangement was that Beretta was to manufacture the handguns in America. Beretta opened up their current plant in Md.
At this point, other manufacturers in other countries began making submissions in every contract that came along.
Now, let’s throw the monkey wrench into the works. In 1986, President Reagan signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act into law. Senator Hughes (may he rot in hell) put a poison pill in the bill and got it through Congress. The “Hughes Amendment” effectively banned machine guns.
Since that time, there has been no incentive to produce new designs (which is why we are still using the M16 after 50 years). Without a way to recover R&D costs, no manufacturer is going to put serious effort into a selective fire weapon.
This is why when the Government now puts out a request for bids, they get junk from companies that hope to get a grant to pursue R&D. They aren’t going to front the money themselves. On top of this, the actions of the BATFE has further hindered the development of small arms technology that is desperately needed by our nation to defend our shores.
In 1996, this became painfully apparant when Russia introduced the AN-96 service rifle. Using a modified short recoil principal and a recoil retardation system that allows for very accurate fire on full auto (burst fire) over extended ranges, it leaves everything we have here in the dust.
As more and more anti-gun laws are put on the books, fewer and fewer companies/individuals are willing to deal with the BS from the Government and especially the BATFE to produce firearms that our military needs.
We are now in a position where FN makes about 85% of our military’s small arms. Should FN pull the plug on the contracts and refuse to deliver, the Government has little recourse since the weapons are produced in Belgium and assembled here in the US. (Thank you President Carter). The most troubling aspect of this is that we no longer have the manufacturing capability to make up the short fall across the board. This leaves our military and our nation in a very precarious situation.
With BATFE raiding companies like Cav Arms for no good reason and confiscating their inventory and equipment, they are makeing the problem worse. (also, no arrests or charges have been filed in the Cav Arms situation even though after 300 days, the BATFE still has their property).
With the panic buying that is currently going on, it becomes painfully clear just how unprepared our nation really is. DPMS is backlogged by 100,000 stripped lowers alone. During the height of our firearms industry base, that would be a mere month or two of work. Now, it’s a year or more.
Sadly, I believe it’s to late to fix the problem. BATFE has been so aggressive in assaulting the firearms industry, they have left us at the mercy of those who do NOT have our interests at heart.
We’d have to repeal the 86 ban, reform the BATFE, put protections in place to prevent a repeat and set industry oversight over the Government in this field. It frankly isn’t going to happen until it’s to late. FN is in a position to dictate policy through threat of withholding material to our military.
The worst part of the problem is that there are very few innovative designers that have the knowledge and background to create a really good design left. The John Garands, Sam Colts, John Brownings, have all gone into other fields or won’t come out of the basement for fear of the BATFE and our Government. All that is left is designs by committee that plain suck. Look at the OICW... I rest my case.
Pray for our nation for we be FUBAR’ed.
Mike
The gun grabbers have made designing and producing machine guns, which includes the light 5.56 automatic rifles such as the M-16, pretty difficult.
But still I'm sure Ruger, Remington and the others were allowed to compete if they had a design to enter into the competition. Whatever we get, will most likely be produced here. But then FN has a long relationship with Browning, and in fact *owns* Browning AND Winchester. Cerberus Capital Management owns Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin and H&R. (They also own big chunks of Chrysler and GM Fianancial) Doesn't leave much but pistol/handgun makers, Ruger (who has never made military firearms, AFAIK) and a bunch of folks who make clones of other people's guns. Even Colt is actually two companies, Colt Defense, and Colts Manufactuing. The later builds for the civilian market.Colt was purchased by Zilkha & Company, a financial outfit, in '94 with heavy contacts with the Democrat party. Even going so far as to donate to Senator (Smuckie) Schummer.