First I didn't say it was "the" most powerful - I said it was "one of" the most powerful. And on this board people rarely conflate revolvers and pistols. I didn't say it to start a caliber war. I was just pointing out that the Tokarev was a decent pistol. So I don't believe it's me that is going off on that tangent. BTW you don't go down a tangent. Just FYI.
Why No sSgnificant British or French Auto-loading Pistols?
- Thread starter wally
- Start date
- Status
UK and France is plenty capable of making great guns if they actually invested in it.
It's simple economics. There just isn't any incentive for a person with good business sense to do it there.
If I had capital to make a great pitol and mass manufacture it, I'd come to U.S. and make more money.
Even if I was a very patriotic Brit or French who'd stay in those countries just out of pride, customers are pretty much limited to governments, and there won't be much sales vulume since they'd be very reluctant to buy from a no name company.
In that opperssive environment, you can survive only by limited means:
-Catering to a crowd specific to that country who'd pay a lot for a niche item: Think people who buys luxury shotgun for their Royalty type hunting events paying a price of a sedan for the said shotgun.
-Totally catering to government. However this would subject them to even more fluctuating government needs and regulations.
There is a reason why french weapons have "MA(like MAS)" in the name(It stands for something to the effect of "military arsenal"). Whatever gun company they have is pretty much government run, or caters to government. In that situation, gun companies pretty much runs under Socialist or Communist like rules. That is the reason Japanese gun company sells a mediocre UZI copy to Japanese government at a collector machine gun price.
There is no incentive for creativity in that environment.
It's simple economics. There just isn't any incentive for a person with good business sense to do it there.
If I had capital to make a great pitol and mass manufacture it, I'd come to U.S. and make more money.
Even if I was a very patriotic Brit or French who'd stay in those countries just out of pride, customers are pretty much limited to governments, and there won't be much sales vulume since they'd be very reluctant to buy from a no name company.
In that opperssive environment, you can survive only by limited means:
-Catering to a crowd specific to that country who'd pay a lot for a niche item: Think people who buys luxury shotgun for their Royalty type hunting events paying a price of a sedan for the said shotgun.
-Totally catering to government. However this would subject them to even more fluctuating government needs and regulations.
There is a reason why french weapons have "MA(like MAS)" in the name(It stands for something to the effect of "military arsenal"). Whatever gun company they have is pretty much government run, or caters to government. In that situation, gun companies pretty much runs under Socialist or Communist like rules. That is the reason Japanese gun company sells a mediocre UZI copy to Japanese government at a collector machine gun price.
There is no incentive for creativity in that environment.
Last edited:
Nom de Forum
Member
Really?
You must have forgot about the above tangental xenophobic, hyperbolic, demagogic, excrement you spewed at us in post #60!
Last edited:
Actually it does depend largly on domestic market.
Supply and demand. If there is international demand, then company can still run without domestic demand. That seems to make sense on the surface. However, the problem is the government. Gun industry is heavily regulated, and even more so in Europe.
FN became a giant before all those gun regulations came in. There was a domestic and international demand for FN pistols, and this was even boosted by World Wars in Europe.
If FN suddenly vanished, do you think anyone would start an FN like gun company in Belgium from scratch? I don't think so.
Glock also had a kick start because Gaston Glock was able to get a contract with Austrian Military.
There is an incentive for FN to run because FN is an already established company. However, there is not much incentive for a new comer with new ideas to start a gun company in a heavily regulated environment and make the risk higher when starting a business has a risk high enough already. It is lot safer to start it where there are less regulations and higher probability of quick return of profit even when export fails.
Last edited:
That was an entirely different tangent and you are the one who got his feelings hurt because I mentioned the French lambasted us when they had done far, far worse n'est pas?. If that's xeno"phobic" I don't see how. Is anyone scared of the French??? So how about we stick to the nom de grande route and spare the world the toilet talk in your last rant? But I guess I would be touchy too if I was known for being the 100 meter surrender champions, comprendre grenouille garcon?
Last edited:
May I take the liberty of pointing out that France happens to be the most successful military power in European history.
Out of the 125 major European wars foughts since 1495, the French have participated in fifty (more than any other European country).
Out of the 168 battles they have fought since 387BC, the French have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.
The French army has, for most of history, been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative force in Europe.
These remarkable achievements help explain another French military victory. Whether it is the ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camoflague, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in one language: French.
I lifted the text from a book called, "The General Book of Ignorance". It's available on Amazon so maybe Mr WestKentucky, you should order yourself a copy
Nom de Forum
Member
Great post FinnComm! Unfortunately it will do little to change the narrow minds of people who cherry pick history to confirm their jingoism, and religious and racial bigotry. Often these are arguably educated people but they are bigots who identify themselves by using terminology such as “surrender monkey”, “100 meter surrender champions”, “grenouille garcon”, “french fried friends”, “socialist frogs”, etc. and ignoring that their own countrymen often “act all smug” and that their country’s history is “riddled with abuses”.
Why are there not any significant semiautomatic pistols from France? Because they were too busy creating weapons that are more significant than pistols. Many of the weapons, organization, and tactics American and other nations use are based on the genius of French military innovation.
Cee Zee I am not your “frog boy” (grenouille garcon)! The blood in my family’s veins is of British and Scandinavian ancestry and that blood has been spilt in the defense of Americans since the 17th century. Cee Zee you can't "hurt" my feelings; I would have to care about what you think of me for that to happen.
Why are there not any significant semiautomatic pistols from France? Because they were too busy creating weapons that are more significant than pistols. Many of the weapons, organization, and tactics American and other nations use are based on the genius of French military innovation.
Cee Zee I am not your “frog boy” (grenouille garcon)! The blood in my family’s veins is of British and Scandinavian ancestry and that blood has been spilt in the defense of Americans since the 17th century. Cee Zee you can't "hurt" my feelings; I would have to care about what you think of me for that to happen.
tark
Member
Methinks we have......oh forget it! Go back and read the first sentence in post # 70.
I have noticed, in my brief time here on the High Road, that the road often descends downward to a Low road, replete with personal insults, accusations, attempts to prove one's superior knowledge of the language by using big words and and outright implications of stupidity. (I have been guilty of that in the past, I admit it.)
There some people here who seem to delight in pointing out and criticizing every minute little flaw in a post, then subtly implicating that the poster wasn't to bright in the first place. I have a name in mind, I won't mention it. Read all of the posts and draw your own conclusion.
Look, guys, we all share a common interest. Some of us are more knowledgeable on the subject that others. Let's not infight and squabble like this.
I can't believe the Moderator didn't chop this thread off at the knees long ago
I have noticed, in my brief time here on the High Road, that the road often descends downward to a Low road, replete with personal insults, accusations, attempts to prove one's superior knowledge of the language by using big words and and outright implications of stupidity. (I have been guilty of that in the past, I admit it.)
There some people here who seem to delight in pointing out and criticizing every minute little flaw in a post, then subtly implicating that the poster wasn't to bright in the first place. I have a name in mind, I won't mention it. Read all of the posts and draw your own conclusion.
Look, guys, we all share a common interest. Some of us are more knowledgeable on the subject that others. Let's not infight and squabble like this.
I can't believe the Moderator didn't chop this thread off at the knees long ago
The French Manurhin MR73 revolver is about the best on the world.
The Webley is British, not French.
oneounceload
member
The Manurhin folks also were selected by Walther to make their post-war guns, and those are VERY well made. I loved my PP from those folks.
OP
OP
wally
Member
We're getting way off topic here, but despite the past preeminence of the French military, the fact remains there would not be a France today if their allies didn't bail them out of WWI and WWII.
I specifically asked about auto-loading pistols, not revolvers.
I never meant to imply they weren't capable of manufacturing other proven designs.
Thus the French colonial era I mentioned. It's only been since WWII that France has fallen from the ranks of a world power. I think I made it clear that my problem with France was the way they criticized the US during Vietnam after they themselves had fought in the very same country trying to retain their colonial realm. That's not a very good motive IMO. Trying to prevent the spread of communism was a far better motive.
I think we all remember Napoleon. And we remember the great palaces built on the spoils of war for the most part. I'm not judging them for what they did BTW. I just think that they were hyper critical of the US at a time they should have been more of a friend. After all we were protecting them from the wrath of the Soviets at the time. But that was about the time the French took on the "surrender at all costs" mentality of the late 20th century. Their own losses and things like the British colonial losses in India led by Ghandi led them to turn completely away from the use of force for any reason. Of course they didn't mind that we were protecting them from being enveloped by the Russian Empire known as the Soviet Union.
I certainly would never say France has a long history of being a weak military power. Since Charlemagne first carved out the western world as we know it France has been a military power. And before that Charles Martel drove back the Muslim invaders at the Battle Of Tours keeping Europe out of the hands of those oppressors. Martel was the grandfather of Charlemagne. His victory set the whole course of western civilization and believe that I'm grateful for.
But it is true that France has fallen as a world power and a lot of that was due to the lack of development of modern firearms IMO. That's where we got on this boat I believe. At least that's where I did. They haven't developed a significant modern pistol or rifle either for that matter. I do remember that many Frenchmen fought extremely well against the Nazis. I also remember how the French populace treated de Gaulle in his later years. I saw that myself. It's like they forgot all he did after they didn't need him any more. It was disgraceful and it is the epitome of the new France. I realize he had his issues like everyone. But he saved France in some ways. They shouldn't have forgotten that and IMO they did. That's the same crowd that was blasting the US at the time. It's the same crowd that has ruled France and basically made it a haven for Muslims ready to take over by immigration and do what they could never do by force before. France is staring at their own destruction because the way they have bought into their anti-military ways. They went from one extreme to another. Let's not forget that France and the UK ruled the middle east after WWI and they didn't exactly do it effectively. They created a lot of enemies that all of the west is dealing with now. That France had some issues too. What really irked me is that the people criticizing the US for doing the right thing in Vietnam never acknowledged their role in creating hostility to the west around the world.
And that's all I have to say about that. This is a gun board after all.
tark
Member
I got a personal message a while ago and tried to respond, but I fear I failed. I am totally computer stupid.
To its sender; yes, I was thinking of you, but after I posted I realized that there is more than ONE bomb thrower on this thread. You often defended, rightly so, the valor of the French, but things quickly got off topic and descended downward to the Low Road.
We are all better men than that.
To its sender; yes, I was thinking of you, but after I posted I realized that there is more than ONE bomb thrower on this thread. You often defended, rightly so, the valor of the French, but things quickly got off topic and descended downward to the Low Road.
We are all better men than that.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
WWI utterly hollowed France's resources; they gave literally all they had to defeat the Germans, and just barely held out long enough to be there with the rest of the allies. An entire generation gone; not working, not innovating, not passing along knowledge, not nurturing the generation after. You don't really 'bounce back' from something like that (I don't think even the Germans lost so many so broadly) since the opportunity cost is so crushing.
A big reason for WWII was the resurgent Germany's recognition of France's mortal geopolitical wounds. Post War, if you'll recall, France was a bit, shall we say, unstable politically.
It could also be there was no design investment since the authorities looked back and realized they'd pulled all handgun development for like two centuries, and that it was now Belgium's turn (being neighbors, nothing but rivalry distinguishes the arms industries)
TCB
A big reason for WWII was the resurgent Germany's recognition of France's mortal geopolitical wounds. Post War, if you'll recall, France was a bit, shall we say, unstable politically.
It could also be there was no design investment since the authorities looked back and realized they'd pulled all handgun development for like two centuries, and that it was now Belgium's turn (being neighbors, nothing but rivalry distinguishes the arms industries)
TCB
France and the UK rate roughly fourth and fifth in world weapons exports, they build some very good military weapons systems, mostly in the aerospace and electronics areas.
Small arms tend to be low margin and low tech for the most part.
So the real answer is: there just isn't much money in pistol sales in the world market and there are lots of cheap, high quality designs already available.
Small arms tend to be low margin and low tech for the most part.
So the real answer is: there just isn't much money in pistol sales in the world market and there are lots of cheap, high quality designs already available.
Deaf Smith
Member
Gun control..... Look at Russia and China. Do you see innovation? Many models of guns?
And I assure you, for the given population, the percentage of goods shots are much much lower than over here.
Gun control stymies innovation cause large populations what variety and prohibition forces them to accept whatever the state offers.
France has lots of restrictions and the UK huge restrictions. Italy has fewer. Even Germany has less than the UK. The UK is the worst.
And those that do have a good number of semi-auto handguns offered, usually sell then in the good old USA.
Deaf
Speaking of innovation, one might wonder why the USA is using an Italian designed pistol for its armed forces. The same basic pistol the French use in their armed forces.
Gun control has nothing to do with military weapons design, most militaries just pick an existing design off the shelf using whatever criteria they feel important at the time. The UK current pick is Glock.
Real innovation in pistol design is an infrequent event.
Gun control has nothing to do with military weapons design, most militaries just pick an existing design off the shelf using whatever criteria they feel important at the time. The UK current pick is Glock.
Real innovation in pistol design is an infrequent event.
I'll join you in going off-piste, but only because you quoted some of my text
On that same logic, the UK would not exist either. However methinks that both countries would still exist but in a different form. Still, no point to argie over today.
I agree that France (and the UK's) allies did bail them out in both WW1 and WW2. They should be grateful for that (I think they are
) However at the same time, I can't recall any country ever sending their military abroad for purely altruistic reasons.And the ones the other branches and/or SF use, except for a small segment of the USMC, are never S&W, Ruger, or Colt.
Thermactor
member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Messages
- 992
Check out Denel Mechem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_NTW-20
A long time ago on a continent far far away South Africa used to be a world power.
That French pistol is yet another knock off of Mr. Browning's work. The only problem with it was that it was only ever produced in .32 and .380 making it not effective as a military weapon. IMO that's why it never caught on as a pistol for the public. People like guns that have been proven in action or are obviously a new and solid design (like Sig produced). That French pistol was an OK pistol but nothing really remarkable or significant IMO. The Spanish pistols I showed earlier were the same. They also copied the Browning. But they did make a 9mm version of those. I don't have anything against a .380 for concealed carry but for police and military work I would want something more powerful. The French used this pistol for that work. It just doesn't seem significant as the title of the thread suggests doesn't exist from France. It was a decent enough pistol. Most Browning copies are. It just isn't a significant French production. They didn't build a lot of them and it wasn't anything new. Spain built a lot more of their Ruby pistols for example.
OP
OP
wally
Member
I wouldn't say useless, without the French assistance during our revolution and Napoleon's stupidity in selling us the "Louisiana Purchase" there would likely not have been an America to bail them out of WW1 & WWII.
There is no end to the imagined worlds of today if ancient history turned out differently.
Lets keep it to their auto-loading pistols and lack thereof.
The MAB shown above doesn't look to be very original and not any better than the cheap Spanish or Italian clones of the era.
- Status
