Never mind

Heydrich · 08-07-2002, 09:17 PM

No wonder no one is bidding on it. Another firearm that is potentially deadly to the person firing it. And people wonder why military organizations are real reluctant to switch to a new unproven pistol or rifle system. Even if the proposed new weapon (like a self loading rifle compared to a bolt action one) is superior. The US Army received heaps of criticism for sticking with the Springfield ’03 rifle till 1942, and dragged its feet with the M1 Garand in the 30s. Then they stuck with basically the same model (M-14) until about 1964, while many other modern nations had long since ramped up to assault rifles. I guess there’s a kind of logic to this, better an old proven standby, then a new gun that might kill its own troops.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

08-07-2002, 09:17 PM	#3
Heydrich Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Oregon Posts: 181 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	No wonder no one is bidding on it. Another firearm that is potentially deadly to the person firing it. And people wonder why military organizations are real reluctant to switch to a new unproven pistol or rifle system. Even if the proposed new weapon (like a self loading rifle compared to a bolt action one) is superior. The US Army received heaps of criticism for sticking with the Springfield ’03 rifle till 1942, and dragged its feet with the M1 Garand in the 30s. Then they stuck with basically the same model (M-14) until about 1964, while many other modern nations had long since ramped up to assault rifles. I guess there’s a kind of logic to this, better an old proven standby, then a new gun that might kill its own troops.